The King of the Judeans - Guilty of Hate Crimes?

Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" [More accurately, King of the Judeans, w/o regard to race or religion] "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. (Matthew 27:11, Luke 23:3, Mark 15:2 All NIV)

The chief priests of the Pharisees protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Judeans,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Judeans." Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written." (John 19:21, 22 ) All four gospels, with Pilate conferring, state Jesus Christ was, in fact, King of the Judeans. [Jews, as they like to refer to themselves today].

During his public ministry, what did the King of the Judeans have to say about the Phariseeic leaders in Jerusalem?


"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8)

Matthew records the scathing rebuke the King of the Judeans gave the Pharisees.

But do not do what they [the leaders] do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. (23:4)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (v.13)

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.. (v.15)

"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath." (v.16)

You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? (v.18)

You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? (v.19)

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. (v.23)

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. (v.25-28)

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. (v.29)

You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (v.33)

The King of the Judeans judges the Pharisees of his day four times as hypocrites, twice as blind guides, as blind men and blind fools, sons of hell, snakes and a brood of vipers, full of hypocrisy and wickedness and full of everything unclean. And that they were 'of' or 'from' their father, the devil.

Anti-Semitism is commonly defined exclusively as hostility or prejudice against Jews or Judaism, [although people of Arab descent are also Semites]. The King of the Judeans was certainly hostile against the Pharisees of his day, as the historical accounts in all four gospels clearly document.

The Encyclopædia Britannica defines a "hate crime" as "harassment, intimidation, or physical violence that is motivated by a bias against characteristics of the victim considered integral to his social identity, such as his race, ethnicity, or religion."

The King of the Judeans certainly intimidated the Pharisees of his day, as they sought to kill him for his words - "out of envy." (Matthew 27:18)

Today, the King of the Judeans would be considered anti-Semitic and guilty of multiple hate crimes in several countries, among those countries are Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, France, and Britain. The existing hate crime laws in these countries would get the King of the Judeans arrested and prosecuted and undoubtedly result in the King of the Judeans being incarcerated.

Momentum for the passage of hate crimes laws in the United States is growing. In California, according to Senate Bill 1234, passed in September 2004, any speech or public expression that makes others feel 'unwelcome' or 'intimidated' is considered 'hate speech' and a crime. Anyone found guilty of such speech could face six-months prison time and a $25,000 fine. Several states, such as Pennsylvania, which arrested 11 Christians in October 2004 for preaching from the Bible against homosexuality, already have hate crime laws on the books.

Doesn't matter if the speech uttered is truthful. The truth of what is spoken can not be used as a defense. All that matters is if the alleged victim's 'feelings' are hurt.

It appears to this writer that if the King of the Judeans were here on the scene today, that unless He kept his criticism of Zionism and the Zionist's leaders to Himself, he would be liable for hate crime prosecution, fines and imprisonment in several countries of the world and several states within the United States.

The state of affairs has reached ludicrous lows when the King of the Judeans and the Leader of Christianity would be considered a criminal and an antiSemite for His opinion and for publically criticizing the Pharisees when He Himself is, in fact, their King, and in spite of the fact that everything He says is Truth.

Based upon the above, this follower is led to the conclusion that criticising Zionist Jewish leaders for their evil deeds is a good thing.

Read More...

Summary only...

The First Experiment

The first recorded scientific experiment is found in Genesis 3. Two hypothesis are presented, one of God’s, and the other, of the most subtle beast of the field that the Lord God had made, the serpent’s.

A scientific experiment can be defined as -
“a set of actions and observations performed in the context of solving a particular problem or question, to support or falsify a hypothesis… concerning phenomena. [The] experiment is a cornerstone in the empirical approach to acquiring deeper knowledge about the physical world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_experiment

A hypothesis is a “suggested explanation of a phenomenon.” The two hypothesis to be tested facing Adam and Eve were:The Lord God’s:“… you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” Genesis 2:17 NIV and the Serpent’s:"You will not surely die…..for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:4,5

Adam and Eve, at this point, had only empirical knowledge of good. They possessed no ‘scientific’ or experimental knowledge of evil. They had to simply take God at His word to be spared any experimental knowledge of evil. They had to believe God’s explanation regarding the, as of yet, unobserved consequences of the phenomenon – the ‘seeable event’ of evil - that is, that they would “die [spiritually immediately and eventually physically] if they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

The subtle serpent planted the seed of doubt into Eve regarding God’s explanation as to what would happen if she was to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent called God a liar, and the serpent lied in saying that not only would they ‘not surely die,” but that "in the day they ate of the tree, their eyes would be opened and they would become as God, knowing good and evil."

Adam, and particularly Eve, did not believe God's explanation, but instead believed the serpent's. To find out for herself whose explanation was valid - God’s or the serpent’s - Eve decided to conduct an experiment, the first human experiment, with Adam assisting

Eve “took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and ate and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” Genesis 3:6

The results of their experiment were immediate:

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden." Genesis 3:7,8 NIV

The five immediate results of their experiment were:

1. Their eyes were opened for the first time to see evil
2. They came to the knowledge - 'they realized' - they were without clothes.
3. They worked, for the first time, making clothes - fig leaves.
4. They went into hiding.
5. They were afraid. (Genesis 3:10)

Adam and Eve proved, for themselves, and for all those that came after them, that God’s hypothesis was correct and that the serpent’s explanation was not only incorrect, but a lie meant to purposely deceive and cause man to doubt God’s goodness towards man.

Mankind has been living with the results of this first experiment ever since it was conducted. We now have scientific knowledge of evil. “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…” Romans 5:12 Man is born spiritually dead to God and eventually experiences physical death.

All as the practical result of the First Experiment.

Read More...

Summary only...

No Impeachment - No Matter What?

Future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi decrees "Impeachment is off the table.....it's a pledge ....a waste of time." Likely next chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers declares "Impeachment is off the table." [Even though Conyers last December laid out the grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance."] http://www.infowars.net/

No impeachment? Even if 'we the people' demand it?

Even if Bush/Cheney were behind 9/11 and killed nearly 3000 innocent Americans?

Even if Bush has torn up the Bill of Rights?

Even if Bush/Cheney have been conducting "illegal domestic surveillance?"

Even if Bush has done away with the 800 year old right of the writ of habeas corpus?

Even if Bush/Cheney have overruled the Posse Comitatus Act and can now use the US military for law enforcement purposes against Americans?

Even if Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) overrules the State's rights to control their own State militias?

Even if Bush/Cheney have encouraged and condoned torture?

Even if Bush/Cheney's department of Homeland Security has contracted with Halliburton for $385 million to build "temporary detention and processing capabilities" to support the "rapid development of new programs?"

Even if Bush/Cheney have been involved in "Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War?"

Even if Bush/Cheney et al, are setting up a Authoritarian Facist Police State?

No impeachment, no matter what?

Read More...

Summary only...

Christianity is Not a Religion

Consult any reputable encyclopedia and it will define Christianity as a religion. For example the online Wikipedia - "Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and on his life and teachings as presented in the New Testament." Or Answers.com - "Christianity - Religion stemming from the teachings of Jesus in the 1st century AD."

However, when ones goes to the Word of God, the Bible - the founding document of Christianity - for the definition of Christianity, one will discover that Christianity is not a religion.

Let's first define religion and then Christianity and then explain why Christianity is not a religion.

Religion:

* man's attempt to work his way into favor with God.
* man's way of working to appease God.
* man basing his salvation on his own works.
* man seeking fulfillment or inner peace or a state of enlightenment within himself or to the exclusion of God.

Man's attempt to work his way into favor with God.

The first example of religion mentioned in the Bible is the religion of Cain, also referred to as the 'way of Cain' in Jude 11, found in Genesis 4:

3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

Abel brought "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering." God was pleased with Able's offering which looked forward to God's offering - His only begotten Son. But God did not look with favor on Cain's offering, "some of the fruit of the soil." Evidently, God had taught Adam and Eve what kind of an offering would be acceptable in God's sight. And that offering involved the shedding of blood, not the efforts from working the soil as Cain's offering was. Able approached God in the way God instructed, and Cain attempted to please God in his own way. If Cain would only do what God asked, he would be accepted. Cain refused to worship God in the way God instructed.

Cain's efforts in approaching God was based upon his own work, the work of his hands. Abel's approach was not based upon his own efforts but upon the first fruit of his flock, no doubt an innocent lamb.

The point being, man has avoided God's way and devised his own way from the beginning.

Man's way of working to appease God.

Men quite often perceive God [or the gods of their own making] as a God [or gods] to be feared. They view God [or gods] as an angry God. A God to be appeased in an effort to stave off His wrath. To appease God, man has invented sacrifices of their own creation. From the beginning man has sacrificed to idols in his effort at appeasment.

Exodus 20:

"4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

Man has so feared the wrath of gods that he has created idols of those gods to which he bows down to and serves. Since antiquity, man has constucted many gods - gods of the rain, river gods, crop gods, gods of life and death. While Moses was on Mount Sinai, Aaron, Moses' right-hand man and Israel's high priest, was persuaded by the Israelites to construct a golden calf to which the young Jewish nation, just delivered from Eygpt's God pharoah, bowed down to. The Mayan's constructed great pyramids and temples around which they sacrificed their young virgin women in an effort to appease their obviously demanding gods, and which undoubtedly help lead to the downfall of their civilization, for how can a civilzation that kills off their young women survive?

Today, examples exist of modern day religions that use sacrifice in their appeasment attempts. The Roman Catholic Church daily offers at their altars what they refer to as the 'bloodless sacrifice' to God through their celebate paedophile priests. Adherents to Islam believe prayer - Salah - is an obligation, sacrificing their time five times daily, rising as early as 4 a.m. while facing east, in an effort to please their god, ask for forgiveness and mercy "You have bestowed Your grace, those whose lot is not wrath," from a god they perceive as angry and vengeful, a god to be feared. In many personal conversations with devote Muslims, they expressed their concept of God as an angry God, a God to be feared, a God that expects the straight path to be walked upon. They fear the reprimand of God should they stray off the path, hence the need for prayer five times daily, to help keep them on the path.


Prayer is the first duty imposed by Allah upon mankind after that of belief in the oneness of Allah. Prayers are also an act to be accounted for on the Day of Judgement among other deeds carried out by servants of Allah. The Prophet (pbuh) said: “The first thing of the slave to be reckoned on the Day of Judgement will be his Prayer. If it is good, the rest of his deeds will be (accounted as) good. And if it is rotten, the rest of his deeds will be rotten”. (Tabarani)

Prayer constitutes one pillar of Islam and is considered the foundation of religion. Any Muslim who fails to do his prayers and has no reasonable excuse is committing a grave offense and a heinous sin.

http://www.al-islam.com/

We see in Islam, like many other religions, a fear, not in the sense of reverential trust, but a fear as in afraid, of God. Therefore, many actions of adherents of Islam, when living out their faith, such in the daily prayer ritual, are done, not so much as a voluntary act of worship, but one of obligation based upon fear.

Man basing his salvation on his own works.

Similar to man attempting to work his way into favor with God, man tries to have his work accepted by God for his salvation. By doing so, man rejects God's work, and replaces it with his own works.

But God's Word plainly states that man can not be saved by his own works:

Ephesians 4: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Romans 9: 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

[still under construction]

Read More...

Summary only...

Is Evolution Science?

Many evolutionists would like others to believe evolution is science, scientific or a science. It's not. Evolution is a theory that attempts to EXPLAIN science from a materialistic naturalistic worldview or paradigm.


Evolution is the theory that all forms of life found on earth descended from a common ancestor, evolving from a lower form to a higher form, from less complex to more complex, from single celled living organisms to multi-celled organisms over vast periods of time. A commonly accepted hypothesis within the theory of evolution is that natural selection is involved in a extremely gradual evolutionary process in which the most fit or strongest specimen or most vital aspect of a life form survives and those surviving characteristics are passed on from one generation to the next generation through reproduction over billions of years allowing the species [or essential trait] in question to best adapt and survive in its environment.




Click on image to englarge
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

[Evolution is described here in it's basic simplest form. Neo-Darwinism attempts to expand on this rudimentary definition based upon the latest understanding of science. However, evolution remains a theory, not fact. Although,more frequently, some dishonest evolutionists are asserting as fact what is indeed theory. If one observes closely the language used within the more honest Neo-Darwinist's descriptions, one will notice such words as infer, traditionally thought, may constitute, are believed to be, etc., are commonly used. Furthermore, descriptions of the evidence is not to be confused with conclusions about the evidence].

Evolution is weak in the area of origins eg, the origin of life, and as such avoids directly addressing origin issues, and instead relies on hypothetical chemical [organic compounds] reactions or otherwise self-generating synthesis of already existing chemicals or living organisms to explain the origin of life on earth.

Arthur S. Lodge points out that the "Main Open Questions of Evolution" are:

1. The origin of life.
2. Common ancestry.
3. Macroevolution.
4. The mechanism for generating substantially new genetic material.
5. Differentiation.
6. Origin of convergent evolution.

Evolutionists often proclaim, and rightly so, that evolution does not address the issue of origins. And while so doing, will often state creationists are somehow confused when it comes to exactly what evolution is. But what evolutionists are doing when they make these kinds of critical statements is admitting that evolution can not offer a good explanation for the origin of life. Evolutionists start out with life as a given and then attempt to explain how life evolved from that point, all the while conveniently passing over and ignoring completely the vitally important 'origin of life' issue. In short, evolution offers, at best, a weak explantion of how, what science calls life, came into existence. The miracle of life, to the evolutionist, is a given - Life just was. "In the beginning was life..."

That's what Creationists say about God. So, what's the difference? both views are taken by faith. If evolution takes life as a given, then that is not science, its faith.

[still under construction]

Read More...

Summary only...

Quotes - About the Bible

*

"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history." .... "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

Sir Isaac Newton

“All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more the Truths contained in the Sacred Scriptures.”

Sir William Herschel [1738-1822]
Astronomist. Discovered Uranus, several nebulae, and binary stars. First to accurately describe the Milky Way Galaxy

"The secret of my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible."

George Washington Carver


"What hath God wrought?"

Found in the Bible; Numbers 23:23
First message sent by the electric telegraph

Samuel Morse [1791-1872]

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people...so great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens in their country and respectful members of society."

John Adams

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

George Washington

"A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know the price of rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved."

Benjamin Franklin

“Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament.”

Noah Webster

"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."

Patrick Henry

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.

Patrick Henry

"That Book (the Bible) is the rock on which our Republic rests."

Andrew Jackson

"I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man."

Abraham Lincoln

"At this time I both read and studied all kinds of literature: cosmography, histories, chronicles, and philosophy and other arts , to which our Lord opened my mind unmistakably to the fact that it was possible to navigate from here to the Indies, and He evoked in me the will for the execution of it; and with this fire I came to Your Highnesses. All those who heard of my plan disregarded it mockingly and with laughter. All the sciences of which I spoke were of no profit to me nor the authorities in them; only in Your Highnesses my faith, and my stay. Who would doubt that this light did not come from the Holy Spirit, anyway as far as I am concerned, which comforted with rays of marvelous clarity and with its Holy and Sacred Scriptures."

Christopher Columbus

"The New Testament is the very best book that ever was or ever will be known in the world."

Charles Dickens

"The existence of the Bible is a book for the people. It's the greatest benefit the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity."

Immanuel Kant

"It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom."

Horace Greeley

Read More...

Summary only...

How Do We Know the Bible is the Word of God?

Let's start with a simple assumption: God exists. "In the beginning God...." If there is no God, there is no Word of God. Fair enough? Let's define, as much as possible, God. If there is a God, (or Gods), what is He (or They) like? If one ponders the thought of God, as many people down through history have done, one may come to realize we can't know or can't come to know for a certainty about God if relying upon our own (man's) knowledge. Nothing man can do on his own can came to an accurate knowledge of God. That is why man has come up with a myraid of beliefs concerning God. Wikipedia

There is monotheism, polytheism, pantheism and agnosticism - the belief that it is impossible to know that God exists. There is atheism, a belief that insists there is no God. With all these and many other conflicting beliefs, how does one come to know if there is indeed a God?

If one believes God created the universe, and many believe He did, we can ascertain from creation certain facts about God, such as He is powerful, intelligent, imaginative, appreciates beauty, etc. But from creation we can not know with certainty God's character - whether the Creator is good or evil, caring or selfish, loving or hateful. He would have to communicate with us what He is thinking or do something that we could observe in order for us to know what kind of character God exhibits.

If God exists, and for the purpose of this discussion, we assume He does, He must communicate with man regarding Himself if man is to discover God's nature.

That brings us back to the Word of God.

If God did communicate to man through a book such as the Bible, we would expect certain things about that book to be true.

* It would be like no other book, i.e. it would be unique
* It would reveal God and depict man accurately
* It would be accurate with no contradictions. Truth does not contradict itself.
* It would be enduring - through time, persecution and criticism.
* It would be substantiated by external evidence.

The Bible is all of this and more.

Evidence

The evidence that the Bible is the Word of God consists of two types, internal and external.


The internal evidence.

The Bible's uniqueness:

Written by 40 different authors from all walks of life, over a at least a 1500 year time span, with 66 chapters and yet one single theme - The Lord Jesus Christ and HIs redemption of mankind.

The Bible's 4o different authors were from all walks of life. For example Moses – political leader, educated in Pharaoh's palace; Joshua – general; Solomon – wealthy and wise king; Amos – shepherd; Nehemiah – cup-bearer; Daniel – King Nebachadnezzar's highest officer; Luke – physician; Matthew – tax-collector; Paul - tentmaker; Peter and John - fishermen.

[still under construction]

Read More...

Summary only...

Learning From Our Enemies - Part 2

It seems that Osama bin Laden knows more about the reality of world governments, and American government in particular, than most Americans. He is not the first nor is bin Laden the only well known person to be aware of and make public the reality that the world’s governments are controlled by unseen entities hidden from public view.


Benjamin Disraeli, the first Jewish Prime Minister of England, in his 1844 novel Coningsby wrote, “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” This statement was not made by the ruler of a third world back water country where we might expect behind the curtain shenanigans from the ruling politicians, but by a prime minister of England, which at that time - the mid 1800s - had a world-wide empire.

Coming across the Atlantic and some 60 years later, we see that behind the government scenes, things hadn’t changed much. Another leader of a great and powerful country, the United States, declared the existence of a “government within a government.” No less a statesman than a president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, remarked in 1906, “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

Even though the U.S. Constitution plainly states that “we the people” are the rulers of our once great country, there exists, according to Roosevelt, within the United States a corrupt “invisible government” intertwined with “corrupt business” that is not beholden to the people. Roosevelt goes on to declare what must be done about this corrupt fusion of government and business: “To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.”

As we can see by events and existing conditions of American politics in 2004, whatever American statesmen there have been during the last 100 years who have attempted to accomplish Roosevelt’s ‘first task,’ and I dare say there have been very few, have failed, miserably.

If what these leaders and many others assert is true, and I believe it is, it should be clear to any thinking objective concerned individual that there does indeed exist within the United States a ‘government within the government” and that this unseen government sits securely enthroned and has been for quite some time. It should be clear to any open minded individual that the United States is ruled by corrupt entities that possess no loyalty to the American people nor are they being held accountable for their self-serving actions.

Our ‘enemies” see America’s blind spots. It’s time “we the people” did too. It’s time we the people followed Theodore Roosevelt’s advice, and because there are no statesmen today, and because those that we have elected to govern us have been corrupted by corrupt business interests for their own gain, that we ourselves set about to “destroy this invisible government.”

The first step is for a majority of Americans to recognize that such a “government within a government” within our country does indeed exist. The first step is to get Americans out of denial. In the words of playwright Arthur Miller, “Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that The State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied.”

Too many Americans simply cannot face reality. They want reality to be what their visible government tells them it is: that their enemy is who their government tells them it is: somewhere else, faraway; speaks a foreign language, hates our freedom, our way of life - hates America and all Americans.

Given the vast propaganda machine in the hands of this powerful enthroned invisible government to obfuscate the otherwise obvious, to befuddle the foolish, and to defraud the voters, getting Americans out of denial will not be an easy task.

Next, Learning From Our Enemies, Part Three

Read More...

Summary only...

Learning From Our Enemies - Part 1

Learning From Our Enemies

Part One

“A wise man will learn more from his enemies than a fool from his friends.”

Baltasar Gracian (1601-1658)

Although, curiously, very little mention is made of Osama bin Laden by the Bush Administration or its propaganda machine now, bin Laden was put forth as the scapegoat for what happened on September 11, 2001. “All the trademarks of Al Qaeda,” “He did it!” Bush Administration plutocrats proclaimed with their fingers pointed directly at Osama bin Laden. The major media outlets, most notably FoxNews, then did what they do best - sell a story - and convinced many unthinking Americans that they knew who the culprits were – bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Since September 11, 2001, the United States military has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, killing thousands of Afghani and Iraqi people, both military and civilians, and as of this writing, including 1005 confirmed dead and over 7000 wounded of America’s young men and women. Justification for these invasions of sovereign countries and the resulting death and destruction was the allegation that America was now fighting, (preemptively - supposedly for the very first time in American history – before we saw “mushroom clouds over our cities”) a “war on terrorism.”

But Osama states he was not involved in 9/11, nor did he have knowledge of the attacks.

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks....The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." OBL

This statement by bin Laden was made during an interview appeared in the Karachi daily Ummat, believed to have close connections to Islamic groups in Afghanistan. The newspaper says it submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies. (Story filed: 16:42 Friday 28th September 2001 on Ananova. http://www.ananova.com/)

We can learn several thngs from the bin Laden quote:

1. He was not involved nor had knowledge of the attacks of September 11.

2. There exists a government within the government of the United States.

3. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11 within itself.

4. The same perpetrators want to make the present century into a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity.

5. This secret government, “the government within the government,” must be asked as to who carried out the attacks

6. The American system is totally in control of the Jews whose

7. First priority is Israel, and not the United States.

Let’s take bin Laden’s statements one at a time:

In the first sentence Bin Laden claims he was not involved in the WTC / Pentagon attacks. Nor did he have knowledge of such attacks. Given these facts, we can safely assume neither was Al Qaeda involved. If the leader had no knowledge, how could the followers be planning and organizing such an undertaking, much less carry it out w/o his knowledge. Taken at face value, that is in complete contradiction from what propaganda we were bombarded with immediately after the attacks and for several months following until the US invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Now we hear very little about OBL except he is in hiding somewhere on the Afghani – Pakistani mountainous border and that the US may provide him “captured” as a pre-election offering to the party faithful and outside unbelievers to support Bush’s contention that he is the “War President.”

We know now neither bin Laden nor Al Qaeda were connected with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Now, we don’t hear too much about bin Laden, and we certainly don’t see this quote of his repeated. Not even once anywhere in the US papers that I am aware of since this interview. Neither do we see any evidence presented that ties Osama and Al Qaeda to the WTC Demolition. Nothing.

Am I the only one thinking that, given all the billions the three letter plutocratic departments get to ‘gather intelligence” we should have some evidence by now? I mean, really, it’s been three years. Possible evidence provided by government plutocrats that qualify under the Rules of Evidence to be admitted into a court of law that criminally links Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda to 9/11?

You say the government isn’t going to reveal any evidence it may have linking a criminal to 911 before a trial. Granted. But has any other ‘evidence’ presented survived the scrutiny of the 9/11 Investigative Community, i.e. “we the people?” Methinks not. The case made by the US government for Al Qaeda / OBL being responsible for September 11 is unconvincing to say the least, and thought to be by many an outright fraud / hoax. Several web sites in existence since immediately following 9/11 show that most convincingly, as does the newest 9/11 investigative video released to date: 9/11 The Plane Site. http://www.policestate21.com/

Michael Ruppert, a trained police officer / detective turned investigative reporter, accused Dick Cheney of being the “Big One” behind the 9/11 attacks and claimed in a public speech before the prestigious Commonwealth Club in San Francisco to have “overwhelming evidence” he would “confidently and proudly” put before a district attorney or jury for use in an indictment. www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf

New Yorkers at least think something is amiss. A recent Zogby poll reveals that 50% of those closest to ‘Ground Zero’ - New Yorkers - think “leaders in the US Government” were somehow complicit in the attacks or “had prior knowledge of the attacks and consciously failed to take action.” 66% of New Yorkers want renewed private investigations into 911 to “examine the still unanswered questions.” http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Number of 9/11 suspects brought to trial, convicted and serving time in prison since 9/11? Not a one. Why not? Could it be because there is no evidence against Al Qaeda or bin Laden?

Could it possibly be that Osama bin Laden is telling the truth - he had nothing to do with 9/11?

Learning From Our Enemies, part two, “Government within the government.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Why Men Lose in Divorce

Three main reasons exist why men lose in a divorce: – first and foremost, they are not women; second, the feminist movement in America and third; the bias, the outright discrimination in the American legal system against men.

Men lose in a divorce because they are men, pure and simple. That reality was put to me this way by a prominent attorney who specialized in family law, “Woman begins with W. W stands for win. Women win: Men have a penis; P stands for pay. Women Win, Men Pay."

America, only some two hundred plus years old, very young in terms of cultures, has always protected the woman. Taking care of, providing for and protecting the female in his life, has been, for the most part, the married American male’s purpose, especially if he has a family. No doubt you have heard the sayings, “Ladies first?” “In the lifeboats, women and children first?” The same is true in the courtroom, women first.

When a divorcing male finds himself in front of a male judge, as is often the case, the judge - although perhaps, in some cases, unconsciously - has a natural instinct to provide for and protect the woman regardless of the fact that she might not be the most-fit custodial parent: And, in spite of the fact that, in theory at least, the male has equal rights and may be the better parent. This provision of course comes at the expense of the male. Penis Pays. The fact that his children quite often pay for this bias against the father in the American family law system is somehow overlooked or is it actually deliberate?

Consequently, when a divorcing dad finds himself in front of a judge, regardless of that judges’ gender, the chances of his getting a fair hearing, one that is equally protective of his rights and the rights of his children to equal unhindered access to both parents, and of his getting a judge that is truly determined to do what is in the “best interest of the child,” is rare indeed.

Should the divorcing dad find himself in front of a female judge, even is she is not a feminist, (a specie more rare than an honest politician) the female judge is still going to be protective of the female for the same reasons as the male judge. The male can take care of himself, can’t he? (He probably could, and his children too, if he wasn’t being discriminated against and beatdead by the system).

After you let that sink in, consider the currently cultural situation American men find themselves in today. Feminism in America has caused the pendulum to swing to the extreme, with few exceptions, away from men’s rights over to women’s rights. It has yet to begin it’s swing back to the center. It may have arguably paused at the end of its arc, but it has not yet swung back to any noticeable degree..

When a divorcing male finds himself in front of a female judge, there is a good chance she is a feminist and/or greatly influenced by feminism, and her leaning, if not the outright bias, is going to be in favor of the woman. This is the chance the feminist judge has been waiting for, to make up for all those past patriarchal inequities against women.

Feminist want men involved with the children when they are married - sharing the responsibilities of parenthood, cooking, caring for the children, spending “quality time” with them, (usually so they can go shopping), and doing housework. But as soon as the divorce rolls around, two thirds of which are initiated by women, marvelous mom now tries to make her ex-husband into an ex-father too, and she has plenty of government bureaucrats and government policy assisting her in her goal.

One of the first things she fights for, after the money, are the kids, who become the means to an annuity payment from the father to the mother until the children reach 18 years of age. If she gets the kids, she gets the goods. That is why she fights to prevent the dad from seeing the children as much as she possibly can. In many cases, she doesn’t want the kids - she wants the money the children represent. All the feminist talk about equality for men and women is thrown out the window along with the promise of sticking together 'through thick or thin and 'till death do us part' during a divorce. The man now is nothing more than a potential source of revenue for the woman.

Feminism has influenced family law in all fifty states and the Federal government for the benefit of women. So the American legal machine swings into action for her, under the euphemism of what is in the “best interest of the children.”

The third major reason men lose in a divorce is the American legal system. It is nothing more than an exclusive Club with access to the Club limited to those who pass the bar exam. Once in the Club, attorneys have all the privileges Club membership represents. A limited supply of other attorneys, and thereby increased income; laws passed by legislatures - the majority of whom are attorneys - for the benefit of attorneys; a mystic surrounding the courtroom and “the law” that is continually cultivated to exclude non-attorneys; and nomenclature and procedures that must be learned and followed.

Consequently, at the beginning of your divorce, when you are most vulnerable, and under tremendous stress, the first thing you are conditioned all your life to do, is “get an attorney.” “Only a fool has himself for a client” right? And although you have heard many of your friends complain, “My attorney didn’t do me any good,” “I could have done what he did,” “My attorney wasn’t even prepared,” “It didn’t matter what my attorney said,” or the recounting of countless other similar experiences, you feel intimidated by the system. So you plunk down your hard-earned money in the form of a retainer, without which the attorney will be too busy to take your case. Once he has your money, the web is intricately spun. You feel trapped. $200 dollars for a letter? $250 to sit in the court hallway and wait for the case to be postponed? $50 for a ten-minute phone call to my X’s attorney? I have to pay her attorney fees too? What the hell is going on?

What is going on is this: the attorneys are taking your money.

When will it all end? It will end when you don’t have any more money to give to the attorney, or you are debt to him for the next several months if not years. He is an attorney and the laws are written to make sure he gets his money, you can count on that. Both attorneys, your X’s and yours, do not want your case to end, they both benefit when it gets prolonged. Prolongation is the name of the game. “The wheels of injustice grind slowly.”

Consider further, the attorneys don’t want the divorce laws changed. They make too much money with the laws as they are. Family law attorneys in America collectively make more income than all the other attorneys in all the other legal fields combined. Family law attorneys have a good thing going. And with the American divorce rate greater than 50 percent, they have a very good thing going indeed. Do you really think they want it changed? Believe what you see, not what you think. And what you see is the attorneys taking your money.

Those who make the laws, the legislators, are mostly attorneys, members of the Club. When they return to civilian life, they usually return to practice law and to the rest of their buddies in the Club. You don’t really think they are going to change the laws that they and all their golf and drinking buddies make so much money from, do you?

Additionally, traditionally, women organize, men don’t. Men are not, for the most part, complainers. They just put their head down and take it. They are, after all, men. Men are not as good at playing the victim role, as women are. Men are too busy working to pay child support, ex-wife support, and fending off the beating the are getting to organize. (Remember the Promise Keepers?). Therefore, the legislators are more afraid of losing the vote of the organized feminists, The National Organization of Women, (NOW) then they are of the unorganized-Joe-twelve-packers of America. That is why men can petition legislators, write letters, email them, talk to them, try to influence and educate them until they are blue in the face, and the laws are not going to be changed.

What does government do best? It promises to take money from one group and give it to another group in exchange for votes. In this case the group with the money is the men and the organized group with the votes is the women and the attorneys who represent them. If a takes a beating to get the money, give a beating. Women and their attorneys win, divorcing men lose.

Take a look at the local scene. Your attorney has to deal with the local judges, the local District Attorneys, the guardium ad litems, and all the others involved with family law on a daily basis, week after week. He is going to be very reluctant do any thing to upset the status quo. He is not going to antagonize the very people who he may need to call on tomorrow for his next paying client, by going to battle for you as you would for yourself. The only personage in the courtroom who can get angry without recrimination is the judge. Your attorney doesn't want to get the judge angry at him, so he treads the middle ground, never really going for the jugular, never going all out to win, for he may win one battle for you, but he will latter lose many more battles if he does. Judges are not blind and not above getting revenge against attorneys who question their authority. Appeals in a divorce case are almost undeard of. That would be occupational suicide for an attorney who wanted to continue practicing before that judge.

As blunt as this may seem, you are only another source of income for your attorney. You are helping your attorney send his kids to college. You are here today and gone tomorrow. Oh, your attorney is probably a nice guy (or gal), has a couple of kids himself, tells you what you want to hear, and may really even have empathy for you. But the bottom line is, he or she is going to look out for his or her best interests first and foremost, and your best interests come a distant second. Can you blame them? Only you can represent your best interest best. After all, they are your interests.

Divorce in America is all about money, your money. When you give up your money, you lose. If you don’t give them your money at least you won’t lose that.

That is why I believe the only way to change the divorce game in America is for men to represent themselves in the courtroom. Complaining over a beer with your buddies, joining men’s rights organizations, petitioning attorney legislators, trying to change the laws, is a waste of your time and money.

Educating yourself, representing yourself, standing in your two square feet on the courtroom floor and doing battle for yourself is not only a great experience, like an extreme sport experience, it is the best way to make a change in America for divorcing beatdead dads. Flood the courtrooms with prepared dedicated dads determined to do battle for their rights and the rights of their children. No one else will or should do battle for your rights and the rights of your children. They are your children aren't they?

You will not only keep your self-respect, you will keep your money. And if you don’t give them your money, they lose. You may not win - no one wins in a divorce - except attorneys and the legal system when they get your money, but they lose if you don’t give them your money.

Don’t give them your money.

Read More...

Summary only...