Reminder to 0bama and Holder Employees

COMPUTER TRESPASS---RCW 9A.52.110---Computer trespass in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the first degree if the person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a computer system or electronic database of another; and (a) The access is made with the intent to commit another crime; or (b) The violation involves a computer or database maintained by a government agency.

(2) Computer trespass in the first degree is a class C felony.

National Debt Counter -- Thank the Stimulus Bill

You Are Never As Anonymous As You Think!

Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts

Please Be Sure to Scroll Down to See Political Videos and Permanent Comments Located At Bottom Of This Page. Thank you.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

The Faces of Meth

If a photo is worth a thousand words, then click onto the title of this post.

We have a pandemic of death by meth in the USofA and Canada. Until and unless people prone to take risks with their minds, bodies and lives decide not to take those risks, death by meth will rule.

Here's an internet copy of a poem by a teenager -- it's been edited and is not exactly as she wrote it.

My Name is Crystal Meth.

I destroy homes, I tear families apart,
I take your children, and that's just the start.

I'm more costly than diamonds, more precious than gold,
The sorrow I bring is a sight to behold.

If you need me, remember I'm easily found,
I live all around you - in schools and in town

I live with the rich, I live with the poor,
I live down the street, and maybe next door.

I'm made in a lab, but not like you think,
I can be made under the kitchen sink.

In your child's closet, and even in the woods,
If this scares you to death, well it certainly should.

I have many names, but there's one you know best,
I'm sure you've heard of me, my name is crystal meth.

My power is awesome, try me you'll see,
But if you do, you may never break free.

Just try me once and I might let you go,
But try me twice, and I'll own your soul.

When I possess you, you'll steal and you'll lie,
You do what you have to — just to get high.

The crimes you'll commit for my narcotic charms
Will be worth the pleasure you'll feel in your arms.

You'll lie to your mother, you'll steal from your dad,
When you see their tears, you should feel sad.

But you'll forget your morals and how you were raised,
I'll be your conscience, I'll teach you my ways.

I take kids from parents, and parents from kids,
I turn people from God, and separate friends.

I'll take everything from you, your looks and your pride,
I'll be with you always — right by your side.

You'll give up everything - your family, your home,
Your friends, your money, then you'll be alone.

I'll take and take, till you have nothing more to give,
When I'm finished with you, you'll be lucky to live.

If you try me be warned - this is no game,
If given the chance, I'll drive you insane.

I'll ravish your body, I'll control your mind,
I'll own you completely, your soul will be mine.

The nightmares I'll give you while lying in bed,
The voices you'll hear, from inside your head.

The sweats, the shakes, the visions you'll see,
I want you to know, these are all gifts from me.

But then it's too late, and you'll know in your heart,
That you are mine, and we shall not part.

You'll regret that you tried me, they always do,
But you came to me, not I to you.

You knew this would happen, many times you were told,
But you challenged my power, and chose to be bold.

You could have said no, and just walked away,
If you could live that day over, now what would you say?

I'll be your master, you will be my slave,
I'll even go with you, when you go to your grave.

Now that you have met me, what will you do?
Will you try me or not? It's all up to you.

I can bring you more misery than words can tell,
Come take my hand, let me lead you to hell.

The poem was written by a teen addicted to meth, but she was not shortly afterwards discovered dead of an overdose. "Miss Crystal Meth" was written and read a community meeting about crystal meth in 2005 by Amanda Canaday, who was then 16 years old. She lives in Barriere, a community 45 minutes north of Kamloops, British Columbia.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Missing Crockett

For some reason, this week has been hard on me emotionally. All I seem to be able to do as I walk Casey or in the moments when my mind is not busy with work is to think of Crockett.

As I walk Casey in the yard, as I pull into the driveway after work passing right over the spot where he was hit, as I lay in bed missing his body pressed against mine, as I sit at the computer, expecting to look down and see him laying next to me, I miss him to the point of tears.

I guess it started last weekend, for some unknown reason. Something must have triggered the memories -- a smell, a fleeting sight, wanting to run my hands through his fur. I miss him as if he was just killed yesterday. I ended up silently crying, but Casey, the 'bold protector' came over and gave me a 'tongue lashing' or a 'tongue facial' to wipe away my salty tears.

Casey knows how to make me laugh -- she's my little 'smiling clown' -- and as a friend has noted, Casey smiles more than any other dog he's seen. She's a happy puppy who loves to 'lead' me into the bedroom, jump up on the bed and roll over for me rub her tummy. She's a love. And I'm glad she's my puppy.

Even as I miss Crockett, I'm blessed with Casey.

PS. The DATE is wrong on these photos. They were taken Fall of 2005.

Monday, January 23, 2006

A much-needed reminder.........especially now!!!

My name is Mary Jo Kopechne.

I would have been 65 years of age this year.

Read about me and my killer below:

When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloating on Capitol Hill on behalf of liberal causes, it was perhaps excusable to ignore his deplorable past.

But now that he's become a leading Republican attack dog, positioning himself as Washington's leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are now over.

It's time for the GOP to stand up and remind America why this chief spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980 - time to say the words "Mary Jo Kopechne" out loud.

As is often the case, Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this "Conscience of the Democratic Party" left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking and partying with the young blonde campaign worker. But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel.

Those young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the Democrats' leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.

Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier -- for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final. Or why the US Army denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.

As they listen to the Democrats' "Liberal Lion" accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.

It's time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer "go along with the gag" when it comes to Uncle Ted's rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House.

And if the Republicans don't, let's do it ourselves by passing this forgotten disgrace around the Internet to wake up memories of what a fraud and fake Teddy really is.

The Democratic Party should be ashamed to have the national disgrace from Massachusetts as their spokesman.

Born: 26-Jul-1940
Birthplace: Forty Fort, PA
Died: 18-Jul-1969
Location of death: Chappaquiddick Island, MA
Cause of death: Accident - Automobile
Remains: Buried, St. Vincent's Cemetery, Plymouth, PA

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Democrat Party introduced & wants to limit Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA)Program.

He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Pogram, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democrat Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democrat Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democrat Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.

But it's worth a try. Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

What are Moral Values?

First is an email that was forwarded to me. I checked on and there's nothing related to this article, so it may be real. Then below it is my response.

What Are Moral Values?"
by Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers
Mayflower Church, Oklahoma City
As some of you know,I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, a church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor. Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by those who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian. We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side: When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral.

When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral. When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.

When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral. When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral. When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral. When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy combatants" of the rules of the Geneva Conventions, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow, you are doing something immoral. When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorists -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral. When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral. When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.

When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral. When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral. When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton. When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us. When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a "compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all religious faith -- compassion, and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.

When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral. When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral. I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian, I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the war. I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong -- the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power? This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to wake up to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back. It's your faith to take back. It's your future to take back.

Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists -- so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious. Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith. And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race-- and thus the greatest failure of faith.

There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for? absolutely nothing. And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed? How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out. Time to march again my friends. Time to sing, and to pray, and refuse to participate in the madness.

This really doesn't deserve a response. The writer is attacking a person, not the issues. (S)He's breaking the moral code that (s)he claims to be defending.

If you have a disagreement with another Christian (no matter where his Christianity is or where yours is), you go to him IN PRIVATE to discuss what you believe is error. IF HE REFUSES TO HEAR YOU, then you bring an elder member of the Church and confront the man, AGAIN IN PRIVATE. Then, if he refuses to hear you or be admonished, you ban him from YOUR CONGREGATION --- uhmm, if the President is not a member of your congregation, then what? Perhaps a letter or email that you keep private???

This writer has chosen to go public and to attack the person -- and on preconceived (read that Media propaganda) ideas of what the 'truth of the situation is.' I'll wager that the writer has not had a sit-down with the President to talk to him about his moral values.

Much of what this writer has to go on is what third parties have said, what was reportedly said as reported by the Media, and her/his own comprehension of what (s)he thinks (s)he understands. Third party evidence is not admissible in Court -- it's called hearsay. Other than to spread gossip (isn't it amazing that the word 'gossip' originally came from "spreading the gospel of Jesus?" My, how we have distorted the Truth!) this article is worth less than the ink it takes to make a hard-copy.

My advice to anyone who thinks this article is worth something -- email the President ( and your Senators and Congresspeople ( and anyone else you think would benefit from this article.

I will take issue with the "multiculturalism" that is the writer's agenda: "When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us." HOW can someone who's attacking on the basis of Christianity even write such an absurd statement?? If you do a very little digging, you'll find out that "Allah" is the ancient Moon God of Ur. And that basically the Islam religion is based on a lie. Even though people who have "Christian weblogs" claim that Islam is the religion of Ishmael, I'm here to tell you, do some research, because Ishmael was 'marked' but he was still a Jew -- even St. Paul knew that when he wrote his epistles. (Do a word search, if you doubt.)

Not only is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Yeshua (Jesus) bigger than the "Moon God Allah" there is NO OTHER GOD BEFORE (OR AFTER) HIM. If you claim to be a Christian -- Sola Scriptura/Sola Fide -- (aka Bible believing/by faith) then you cannot accept what this person writes, even if (s)he does claim to be Christian.

And what then does the writer do to exhibit his/her agenda farther? Uses the "multiculturalism" plea "Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists -- so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious." I refer you to the Koran -- which specifically says that the "infidel" (the NON Muslim) is to be destroyed. Killed. How does that say "life is precious?" Why do Fundamentalist Muslims want their women covered head to toe? Do you know? Because they see their women as vaginas walking. Yes they do, all you have to do is a little research. Since Muhammad claims that it was the Angel Gabriel who told him what to write (even the "Satanic Verses"), nothing but absolute abandonment of Islam will create the peace and "life is precious" attitude in the Middle East and elsewhere that Islam has spread. To a Muslim, only HIS life is precious. And his children? Send them into a crowd with a bomb strapped to his chest and blow him up by remote control using a "throw away phone" bought in the US. If a Muslim sees a boy child he is attracted to, he can do sexually with that child whatever he wants -- the Koran says so! If a Muslim is attracted to a six year old girl, he's free to marry her. I think they have to wait until the girl is 8 to have sexual intercourse with her. And what about the half-breed girls or girls captured in battle? They're "given" to their male friends while the men are visiting. And it's all in the Koran.

Anyone who wants to call Islam a "religion of peace" or a religion where "all life is precious" has not read the Koran. Of ALL the "religions" on the face of the earth, only Islam demands that infidels and apostates must be killed so that their "pure" religion can be the ONLY religion on the face of the earth. No other religion espouses killing non-adherents who refuse to convert. (And unless you've actually studied the Crusades, don't throw those out for discussion as there is a lot more to the Crusades than what you may have studied in school.)

The writer wants you to believe that the majority of voters are deluded. The writer is deluded. The writer has not studied the Bible and Bible Commentaries or enough history books to be able to write an article about moral values concerning the President. And as for "arrogance?" (S)He has plenty of that. (S)He does not speak for God, even though (s)he uses His Name in her article.

Feel free to pass my email back to this person, as there is no email address attached to the article. I did not intend to sit at the computer and respond to this, but I can't stand falsehoods and propaganda to be spread "in the name of Christianity" when Christ has nothing to do with someone's agenda.

Yeah, I know, I do get carried away. Just seek Truth. Settle for nothing less. Do your research and then comment.

Monday, January 16, 2006


Ever gotten an email from Nigeria? Maybe asking you for help or trying to purchase an item you have for sale?

I've found the scammer's scammer. And a web page. When you need to laugh, please check out this page which covers Nigerian 419 scam letters.

I have read the first three scam letters that Dani scammed back and I have been laughing at the singlemindedness of the scammers. I'm not picking on Nigeria at all. It's a beautiful Country. It's just a beautiful Country with a lot of scammers living there or using Nigeria as their claimed Country of origin.

If you've ever wondered if one of those "too good to be true" emails "might" be true, go to the scam page before you reply.

I found a website dedicated to "scambaiting" the 419 eater. I can't include all the websites which have exposed scammers, you'll need to go to Google images and type in scammer and when the window pops up, click onto the images for a real education.

And don't be drinking anything (coffee, iced tea, beer, Coke) while you're reading -- or if you do, be sure your keyboard is protected.

I guess there are a lot of desperate people out there who haven't a clue about actually working at an honest job to make money.

God help us all.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Questions & Answers

1. “There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.”

People use this argument a lot when they disagree with a statement and have no other way to support their idea. After all, if nothing is true for everyone, then they can believe whatever they want and there’s nothing you can say to make them change their minds.

But look at that statement again: “There’s no such thing as absolute truth.” Isn’t that, in itself, a statement that’s being made absolutely? In other words, it applies some rule or standard to everyone across the board — exactly what the relativists say is impossible. They have undone their own argument simply by stating their case.

The other problem with this statement is that no relativist actually believes it. If someone said to you, “There is no absolute truth,” and you punched him in the stomach, he’d probably get upset. But by his own creed, he’d have to accept that while punching someone in the stomach may be wrong for him, it might not be wrong for you.

This is when they’ll come back with an amendment to the original statement by saying, “As long as you’re not hurting others, you’re free to do and believe what you like.” But this is an arbitrary distinction (as well as another absolute statement). Who says I can’t hurt others? What constitutes “hurt”? Where does this rule come from?

If this statement is made based on personal preference, it means nothing for anyone else. “Do no harm” is in itself an appeal to something greater — a sort of universal dignity for the human person. But again, the question is where does this dignity come from?

As you can see, the further you delve into these questions, the closer you come to understanding that our concepts of right and truth are not arbitrary but are based in some greater, universal truth outside ourselves — a truth written in the very nature of our being. We may not know it in its entirety, but it can’t be denied that this truth exists.

2. “Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God.”

If you haven’t heard this one a dozen times, you don’t get out much. Sadly enough, the person making this claim is often himself a Christian (at least, in name).

The problems with this view are pretty straightforward. Christianity makes a series of claims about God and man: That Jesus of Nazareth was God Himself, and that he died and was resurrected — all so that we might be free from our sins. Every other religion in the world denies each of these points. So, if Christianity is correct, then it speaks a vital truth to the world — a truth that all other religions reject.

This alone makes Christianity unique.

But it doesn’t end there. Recall Jesus’ statement in John’s Gospel:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” In Christianity, we have God’s full revelation to humanity. It’s true that all religions contain some measure of truth — the amount varying with the religion. Nevertheless, if we earnestly want to follow and worship God, shouldn’t we do it in the way He prescribed?

If Jesus is indeed God, then only Christianity contains the fullness of this truth.

3. “The Old and New Testaments contradict one another in numerous places. If an omnipotent God inspired the Bible, He would never have allowed these errors.”

This is a common claim, one found all over the internet (especially on atheist and free-thought websites). An article on the American Atheists website notes that “What is incredible about the Bible is not its divine authorship; it’s that such a concoction of contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written by an omniscient God.”

Such a statement is generally followed by a list of Biblical “contradictions.” However, claims of contradictions make a few simple errors. For example, critics fail to read the various books of the Bible in line with the genre in which they were written. The Bible is, after all, a collection of several kinds of writing...history, theology, poetry, apocalyptic material, etc. If we try to read these books in the same wooden way in which we approach a modern newspaper, we’re going to be awfully confused.

And the list of Bible “contradictions” bears this out. Take, for example, the first item on the American Atheist’s list:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Exodus 20:8


“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:5
There! the atheist cries, A clear contradiction. But what the critic neglects to mention is something every Christian knows: When Christ instituted the New Covenant, the ceremonial requirements of the Old Covenant were fulfilled (and passed away). And so it makes perfect sense that Old Testament ceremonial rules would no longer stand for the people of the New Covenant.

If the critic had understood this simple tenet of Christianity, he wouldn’t have fallen into so basic an error.

The next item on the American Atheist list is similarly flawed:
“...the earth abideth for ever.” Ecclesiastes 1:4


“...the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
So, the Old Testament claims that the earth will last forever, while the New says it will eventually be destroyed. How do we harmonize these? Actually, it’s pretty easy, and it again comes from understanding the genre in which these two books were written.

Ecclesiastes, for example, contrasts secular and religious worldviews — and most of it is written from a secular viewpoint. That’s why we find lines like, “Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything.” (Ecclesiastes 10:19)

However, at the end of the book, the writer throws us a twist, dispensing with all the “wisdom” he’d offered and telling us to “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” (12:13)

If a reader stops before the end, he’ll be as confused as the critic at American Atheists. However, since the viewpoint that gave birth to the notion of an eternal earth is rejected in the last lines of the book, there’s obviously no contradiction with what was later revealed in the New Testament. (And this is just one way to answer this alleged discrepancy.)

The other “contradictions” between the Old and New Testaments can be answered similarly. Almost to an item, the critics who use them confuse context, ignore genre, and refuse to allow room for reasonable interpretation.

No thinking Christian should be disturbed by these lists.

4. “I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.”

This argument is used often, and is pretty disingenuous. When someone says he’s a “good person,” what he really means is that he’s “not a bad person” — bad people being those who murder, rape, and steal. Most people don’t have to extend a lot of effort to avoid these sins, and that’s the idea: We want to do the least amount of work necessary just to get us by. Not very Christ-like, is it?

But that mentality aside, there’s a much more important reason why Catholics go to Church other than just as an exercise in going the extra mile. Mass is the cornerstone of our faith life because of what lies at its heart: the Eucharist. It’s the source of all life for Catholics, who believe that bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ. It’s not just a symbol of God, but God made physically present to us in a way we don’t experience through prayer alone.

Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53-54). We’re honoring Jesus’ command and trusting in that promise every time we go to Mass.

What’s more, the Eucharist — along with all the other Sacraments — is only available to those in the Church. As members of the Church, Christ’s visible body here on earth, our lives are intimately tied up with the lives of others in that Church. Our personal relationship with God is vital, but we also have a responsibility to live as faithful members of Christ’s body. Just being a “good person” isn’t enough.

5. “Properly interpreted, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Rather, it weighs against promiscuity — whether homosexual or heterosexual. Therefore, we have no reason to oppose loving homosexual relationships.”

As homosexual activity gains greater acceptance in our culture, there’ll be more pressure among Christians to explain away the Bible’s clear prohibition against it. It’s now the standard liberal party line to claim that the Bible — when understood correctly — doesn’t disallow homosexual activity.

But this claim flies in the face of clear passages in both the Old and New Testaments. The first, of course, is the famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you recall, two angels were sent by God to Sodom to visit Lot:
“But before [the angels] lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.’ Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.’ But they said, ‘Stand back!’ And they said, ‘This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.’ Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door. But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door.” (Genesis 19:4-10)

The message of this passage is pretty clear. The men of Sodom were homosexuals who wanted to have relations with the men inside the house. Lot offered them his daughters, but they weren’t interested. Shortly thereafter, Sodom was destroyed by God in payment for the sins of its people — namely, their homosexual acts. This fact is confirmed in the New Testament:
“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 7)
But these certainly aren’t the only passages in the Bible that condemn gay activity. The Old Testament contains another unambiguous condemnation: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22).

And these statements aren’t reserved to the Old Testament alone.
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26-27)
It’s awfully hard for a liberal Christian to explain this away. There’s simply no mention here merely of gay promiscuity or rape; rather, Paul is weighing against any homosexual relations (which he describes as “unnatural,” “shameless” and “dishonorable”).

Liberal Christians are in a bind. How, after all, does one harmonize homosexuality with the Bible? Their solution, it appears, is to strip the Bible of its moral power, and run in rhetorical circles trying to escape its clear message.

6. “People’s memories of their past lives prove that reincarnation is true...and that the Christian view of Heaven and Hell is not.”

As society becomes increasingly fascinated with the paranormal, we can expect to see claims of “past life memories” increase. Indeed, there are now organizations who will help take you through your previous lives using hypnosis.

While this may be convincing to some, it certainly isn’t to anyone familiar with the mechanics of hypnosis. Almost since the beginning, researchers have noted that patients in deep hypnosis frequently weave elaborate stories and memories, which later turn out to be utterly untrue. Reputable therapists are well aware of this phenomenon, and weigh carefully what the patient says under hypnosis.

Sadly, though, this isn’t the case with those interested in finding “proof” for reincarnation. Perhaps the greatest example of this carelessness is the famous Bridey Murphy case. If you’re not familiar with it, here’s a quick outline: In 1952, a Colorado housewife named Virginia Tighe was put under hypnosis. She began speaking in an Irish brogue and claimed to once have been a woman named Bridey Murphy who had lived in Cork, Ireland.

Her story was turned into a bestselling book, “The Search For Bridey Murphy,” and received much popular attention. Journalists combed Ireland, looking for any person or detail that might confirm the truth of this past-life regression. While nothing ever turned up, the case of Bridey Murphy continues to be used to buttress claims of reincarnation.

That’s a shame, since Virginia Tighe was exposed as a fraud decades ago. Consider: Virginia’s childhood friends recalled her active imagination, and ability to concoct complex stories (often centered around the imitation brogue she had perfected). Not only that, but she had a great fondness for Ireland, due in part to a friendship with an Irish woman whose maiden name was — you guessed it — Bridie.

What’s more, Virginia filled her hypnosis narratives with numerous elements from her own life (without revealing the parallels to the hypnotist). For example, Bridey described an “Uncle Plazz,” which eager researchers took to be a corruption of the Gaelic, “Uncle Blaise.” Their enthusiasm ran out though when it was discovered that Virginia had a childhood friend she called "Uncle Plazz."

When a hypnotized Virginia began dancing an Irish jig, researchers were astounded. How, after all, would a Colorado housewife have learned the jig? The mystery was solved when it was revealed that Virginia learned the dance as a child.

As the Bridey Murphy case shows, the claims of past-life regression are always more impressive than the reality. To this day, not a single verifiable example exists of a person being regressed to a former life. Certainly, many tales have been told under the control of a hypnotist, but nevertheless, evidence for reincarnation (like that for the Tooth Fairy) continues to elude us.

[Compiled from Deal Hudson. "12 Claims Every Catholic Should Be Able to Answer." Crisis e-letter (June, 2003).]

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Mid-January already

Well, it's Mid-January and I haven't mailed my Christmas Cards yet. I think they'll turn into Easter Cards. At least they won't get lost in the mail with the other cards.

But then, I'll have to pay 39 cents to mail them.

Can you believe? And you know who they want to blame? You and me. Because we email instead of snailmail. And why? Because in the long run it's less expensive. Why does the US Postal Service think that more people will use their services by RAISING prices? They've got it backwards, I think.

I've been stressed or busy and haven't kept my blogs up. Should be able to get back to it regularly after this weekend.

One thing I'm doing is gathering items to give to a friend of a friend whose house burned down. She's starting from scratch and I'm trying to give her the "better" of the items I have. Then some will go to the domestic abuse thrift store and a lot to the 'transfer station.'

REMEMBER when I complained about my JOB? Well, I flunked the test and I'm having to retake the online training. Am I stressed? I'm stressed to kill. The computer DROPPED a full hour's worth of typing answers. I was ready to toss the monitor into the merry mack. And it took me 2 hours to fall asleep night before last. I NEVER have trouble falling asleep. Of course, my back was stiff as a board and I couldn't feel the bed when I laid down.

Why do I have to know stuff that I can't remember anyway? I have dementia. I'm sure of it. I can recall how to do things I've done forever -- but I can't remember what I studied online earlier today, much less yesterday. It's totally GONE. Never made it to the file in my brain. I've used up about 200 pages of paper making notes and then going back to them to find the answers to the 'quizzes' I have to take. AND THEN, it's not clear. It makes no sense. One sheet says "include" and then another says "exclude" and I'm confused. Which is it? One has no budget group, but I have to deem income from a spouse, so that's not the truth, there IS a budget group and it includes the person whose income is deemed. The other, what I've done for a long long time (in Alabama and in Georgia), comes fairly naturally until I have to answer a written question. Then, my brain shuts down and I have "NO IDEA" what the answer is.

Does anyone else get that way or is it just me -- waiting for September to be done so I can retire and clear my mind of everything that has to do with 'work?'

Monday, January 02, 2006

Christianity and Islam in History

Christianity and Islam in History
by Walter Brandmüller

I will address the topic of Christianity and Islam by limiting myself to a brief presentation of historical facts, without entering into the specifics of religious and theological dialogue. This seems useful to me, because the celebration of the fifth centenary of the birth of Pius V was a bit muted, especially in academic circles. The victor at Lepanto in 1571, this pope who had the courage and the energy to construct an alliance of almost all the Christian kingdoms against the Ottoman empire — which was advancing to threaten Europe and had already established dominion over the Balkans — today, precisely on account of the unhappy restoration of hostility between the two worlds — one formerly Christian, and to a certain extent still Christian, and the Muslim world — seems to many to be an obstructing presence best left in the shadows.

The so-called “secularism” that would silence all the monotheistic religions through accusations of fundamentalism, or that exalts dialogue by negating their differences, intends to blot out the age-old conflict that has pitted the two religious communities against one another. Above all, it intends to neutralize the Roman pontiff, who has shown himself capable of blocking the Islamic advance and saving Christian civilization.

Although the two monotheistic religions in question share, among other things and to different degrees, the Jewish tradition — a specialist like Samir Khalil Samir emphasizes how before Mohammed the Arab Jews and Christians called their God by the name of Allah — there are many differences between Christianity and Islam, and the differences are fundamental.

Since their very beginnings, there have been differences in how Christians and Muslims think of conversion and the use of violence.

For the Christians, conversion was something that must be voluntary and individual, obtained primarily through preaching and example, and this is how Christianity did in fact spread during its first centuries. Obviously, we must immediately note that this conception of early Christianity underwent changes in later eras, connected with the diffusion of a spirit of religious intolerance in Western culture. John Paul II himself acknowledged that in this regard the Church’s children “must return with a spirit of repentance [for] the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.” (Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 35).

But on the part of the Muslims, from the earliest times, even while Mohammed was still alive, conversion was imposed through the use of force. The expansion and extension of Islam’s sphere of influence came through war with the tribes that did not accept conversion peacefully, and this went hand in hand with submission to Islamic political authority. Islamism, unlike Christianity, expressed a comprehensive religious, cultural, social, and political strategy. While Christianity spread during its first three centuries in spite of persecution and martyrdom, and in many ways in opposition to Roman domination, introducing a clear separation between the spiritual and political spheres, Islam was imposed through the power of political domination.

It therefore comes as no surprise that the use of force occupies a central place in Islamic tradition, as witnessed by the frequent use of the word “jihad” in many texts. Although some scholars, especially Western ones, maintain that jihad does not necessarily mean war, but instead a spiritual struggle and interior effort, Samir Khalil Samir again clarifies that the use of this term in Islamic tradition — including its usage today — is essentially uniform, indicating warfare in the name of God to defend Islam, which is an obligation for all adult Muslim males. Those who maintain that understanding jihad as a holy war constitutes a sort of deviation from the true Islamic tradition are therefore not telling the truth, and history sadly demonstrates that violence has characterized Islam since its origin, and that Mohammed himself systematically organized and led the raids against the tribes that did not want to convert and accept his dominion, thus subjecting the Arab tribes one by one. Naturally, it must also be said that at the time of Mohammed warfare was part of the Bedouin culture, and no one saw anything objectionable about it.

The interpretation that Muslims today try to make of the crusades — an interpretation that finds many followers among Western historians — also fails to correspond to historical reality.

According to this representation, Western Christians were invaders in a peaceful region that was respectful of the different religions — the Holy Land, which back then was part of Syria — using religious motives to disguise imperialist ambitions and economic interests.

But the idea of the crusades emerged, above all, as a reaction to the measures that the Fatimid caliph Hakim bi-Amr Allah took against the Christians of Egypt and Syria. In 1008, al-Hakim outlawed the celebrations of Palm Sunday, and the following year he ordered that Christians be punished and all their property confiscated. In that same year of 1009, he sacked and demolished the church dedicated to Mary in Cairo, and did not prevent the desecration of the Christian sepulchers surrounding it, or the sacking of the city’s other churches. That same year saw what was certainly the most severe episode: the destruction of the Constantinian basilica of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, known as the Holy Sepulcher. The historical records of the time say that he had ordered “to obliterate any symbol of Christian faith, and provide for the removal of every reliquary and object of veneration.” The basilica was then razed, and Ibn Abi Zahir did all he could to demolish the sepulcher of Christ and any trace of it.

Today in many intellectual circles there is a lot of talk about the religious tolerance shown over many centuries by the Islamic authorities, because — while in terms of the pagan populations the saying “embrace Islam and your life will be spared” held true, and the pagans who did not convert were killed — the “people of the book,” the Jews and Christians, were able to continue practicing their religion.

In reality, the situation was much less idyllic: the Christians and Jews could survive only if they accepted Muslim political dominion and a situation of humiliation, which was aggravated by the obligation to pay increasingly burdensome taxes. So it’s no wonder that most of the Christians, even though they were not constrained by force, converted to Islam on account of the constant economic and social pressure. This led to the total disappearance of a form of Christianity that had flourished for more than half a millennium, as in the part of Africa ruled by the Roman empire, the land of Tertullian, saint Cyprian, Tyconius, and above all saint Augustine.

But the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam concerns the crucial issue of understanding the human person.

This is shown by the fact that many Islamic countries have not accepted the declaration of human rights promulgated by the United Nations in 1948, or have done so with the reservation of excluding the norms that conflict with Qur’anic law — which means practically all of them. From an historical point of view, therefore, it must be recognized that the declaration of the rights of man is a cultural fruit of the Christian world, even though these are “universal” norms, in that they are valid for all. In Islamic tradition, in fact, the concept of the equality of all human beings does not exist, nor does, in consequence, the concept of the dignity of every human life. Sharia is founded upon a threefold inequality: between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, and between freeman and slave. In essence, the male human being is considered a full titleholder of rights and duties only through his belonging to the Islamic community: those who convert to another religion or become atheists are considered traitors, subject to the death penalty, or at least to the loss of all their rights.

The most irrevocable of these inequalities is that between man and woman, because the others can be overcome — the slave can be freed, the non-Muslim can convert to Islam — while woman’s inferiority is irremediable, in that it was established by God himself. In Islamic tradition, the husband enjoys an almost absolute authority over his wife: while polygamy is permitted for men, a woman may not have more than one husband, may not marry a man of another faith, can be repudiated by her husband, has no rights to the children in case of divorce, is penalized in the division of the inheritance, and from a legal standpoint her testimony is worth half as much as a man’s.

So if Islam implied, and still implies, not merely religious membership, but an entire way of life, sanctioned even at the political level — a way of life that naturally involves and prescribes how to act with other peoples, how to behave in questions of war and peace, how to conduct relations with foreigners — it is very easy to understand how the victory of Lepanto guaranteed for the West the possibility of developing its culture of respect for the human person, for whom equal dignity regardless of his condition came to be guaranteed.

If this characterization of Islam is destined to remain unchanged in the future, as it has been until now, the only possible outcome is a difficult coexistence with those who do not belong to the Muslim community: in an Islamic country, in fact, the non-Muslim must submit to the Islamic system, if he does not wish to live in a situation of substantial intolerance.

Likewise, on account of this all-embracing conception of religion and political authority, the Muslim will have great difficulty in adapting to the civil laws in non-Islamic countries, seeing them as something foreign to his upbringing and to the dictates of his religion. Perhaps one should ask oneself if the well-attested difficulties persons coming from the Islamic world have with integrating into the social and cultural life of the West are not explained in part by this problematic situation.

We must also recognize the natural right of every society to defend its own cultural, religious, and political identity.
It seems to me that this is precisely what Pius V did.

Wait! There's More!

You have to really WANT to, to read this, but it's very timely.


How to achieve a workable consensus within time limits

by Lynn Stuter

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "Lay, or community, participation in the decision­making process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique. The "change agent" or "facilitator" goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument ­ the "weak or non­committal."

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." He/she wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect this is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. He/she will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well­trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.


Note: The Delphi is being used at all levels of government to move meetings to preset conclusions. For the purposes of this dissertation, "facilitator" references anyone who has been trained in use of the Delphi and who is running a meeting.

There are three steps to diffusing the Delphi Technique when facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.

1. Always be charming. Smile. be pleasant. Be Courteous. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

2. Stay focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help you stay focused. Facilitators, when asked questions they don't want to answer, often digress from the issue raised and try to work the conversation around to where they can make the individual asking the question look foolish or feel foolish, appear belligerent or aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Always be charming, thus deflecting any insinuation, innuendo, etc. that may be thrown at you in their attempt to put you on the defensive, but bring them back to the question you asked. If they rephrase your question into an accusatory statement (a favorite tactic) simply state, "That is not what I stated. What I asked was... [repeat your question.]" Stay focused on your question.

3. Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long, drawn out dissertations on some off-­the-­wall and usually unrelated or vaguely related subject that drags on for several minutes. During that time, the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation or expose. Then nicely with focus and persistence, state, "But you didn't answer my question. My question was...[repeat your question.]"

Always be charming, stay focused and be persistent. Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand on what they believe are obvious threats.]If the participant becomes the victim. the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections are written on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public discussion and public debate. It's called crowd control.

It is always good to have someone else, or two or three others who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd; who, when the facilitator digresses from the question. will stand up and say nicely, "But you didn't answer that lady (gentleman)'s question." The facilitator, even if suspecting you are together, certainly will not want to alienate the crowd by making that accusation. Sometimes it only takes one occurrence of this type for the crowd to figure out what s going on. Sometimes it takes more than one.

If you have an organized group, meet before the meting to strategize. Everyone should know their part. Meet after the meeting to analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time around. Never meet during the meeting. One of the favorite tactics of the facilitator if the meeting is not going the way they want if they are meeting measurable resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his/her spotters (people who wander the room during the course of the meeting, watching the crowd) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered measurable resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will usually gravitate to that group to join in the conversation and will report back to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes. the facilitator wi11 steer clear of those who are resistors . Do not congregate. Hang loose and work the crowd. Move to where the facilitators or spotters are. Listen to what they have to say, but do not gravitate to where another member of your team is. This strategy also works in a face to face, one on one, meeting with anyone who has been trained in how to use the Delphi Technique.


With the advent of education reform, the ensuing turmoil among the citizenry, and the grassroots research that has been sparked therefrom, a consistent pattern with respect to public participation and input has emerged, giving cause for alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our founding fathers. Recent events, both inside and outside education have brought the emerging picture into focus.

In the not too distant past. The hiring of a consultant by the City of Spokane to the tune of $47.000 to facilitate the direction of city government brought a hue and or from the populace at large. Eerily, this scenario held great similarity to what has bean happening in education reform. The final link came in the form of an editorial comment made by Chris Peck regarding the "Pizza papers." The editorial talks about how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to enter into a discussion of what they felt (as opposed to know) needed to be changed at the local level . The outcome of the compilation of those discussions influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

Sounds innocuous enough. But let s examine this a little closer, Let's walk through the scenario that occurs in these facilitated meetings. First, about the facilitator. The facilitator is hired to facilitate the meeting. While his/her job is supposedly non­directive, neutral, non­judgmental, the opposite is actually true; ­­the facilitator is there to move the meeting in a preset conclusion. This is done through a process known as the Delphi Technique, developed by the RAND Corporation for the US. Department of Defense as a psychological warfare weapon in the 50s and 60s. Comforting, no doubt. With this established, let's move on to the semantics of the meeting.

It is imperative to the success of the agenda that the participants like the facilitator. Therefore. the facilitator first works the crowd to cause disequilibrium­­ establishing a bad guy, good guy scenario. Anyone who might not agree with the facilitator must be seen by the participants as the bad guy, the facilitator the good guy. This is done by seeking out those who might not agree with the facilitator and making them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, sending a clear message to the audience that if they don't want the same treatment to keep quiet. The facilitator is well trained in how to recognize and exploit many different psychological truisms to do this. At the point that the opposition has bean identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy­­a friend ­­and the agenda and direction of the meeting is established without the audience ever being aware of the same.

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups ­ usually of seven or eight people;­ each group with a facilitator. Discussion ensues wherein the participants are encouraged to discuss preset issues, the group facilitator employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator. Usually participants are encouraged to put on paper their ideas and disagreements, these to be later compiled by others. Herein lies a very large problem. Who compiles what is written on the sheets of paper, note cards, etc.? When you ask the participants, you usually get, "Well, they compiled the results." Who is "they?" "Well, those running the meeting." Oh­h! The next question is ­ How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome? The answer you usually get is, "Well, you know, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected here. I guess my viewpoint was in the minority." And there you have the crux of the situation. If you have fifty people in a room, each writes his/her ideas and dislikes on a sheet of paper, to be compiled later into a final outcome, each individual having no idea of what any other individual wrote. How do you know that the final outcome reflects anyone's input? The answer is you don't. The same scenario holds when there is a facilitator recording your comments on paper. But the participants usually don't question this, figuring instead that their viewpoint was in the minority and thus not reflected.

So why have the meetings at all if the outcome is already established?
Because it is imperative to the continued well­being of the agenda that the people be facilitated into ownership of the preset outcome. If people believe the idea is theirs, they support it: If the people believe the idea is being foisted on them, they will resist.
Likewise, it is imperative to the continued well­being of the agenda that the people perceive that their input counts.

This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to a preset conclusion, effectively changing our form of government from a representative form of government in which individuals are elected to represent the people. to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens, selected at large, are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes, perceiving that their input resulted therein, when the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the citizen participants.

'God is Dead,' Now We’ll Create Our Global Village -or- Why Christians are Mentally Ill

Written by Linda Kimball
January 2, 2006

"In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives, in particular, suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness." (B.K. Eakman, Chronicles, Oct. 2004, pp. 28-29)

As usual with leftists, the true meaning of their words is couched in deceptive code. When the deceptions are peeled away we discover that ''dogmatism'' refers to Christianity, ''mental rigidity'' refers to ''individualism,'' and ''uncertainty avoidance'' really means that Christians are resistant to the ''change-through-consensus'' process. (See: Psychopolitics: Erasing Christianity through the Consensus Process, Linda Kimball)


“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with…allegiances to our founding fathers…our elected officials…his parents…belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to…teachers to make these sick children well—by creating the international child of the future” (Chester Pierce, Prof. of Educ. and Psychiatry at Harvard, 1970).


So what are the evils of social conservatives and Christians in particular, by the reckoning of Gore, Beria, and their ilk? Capitalism—a natural out-growth of individualism. In Beria’s words: “Thus the putrescent illness of Capitalist States, spreading its pus and bacteria…would not do otherwise than to bring about Earth’s death unless these ill organisms are brought into loyalty and obedience.”


However, not all human life was viewed as being cheap. A small number of people—high priests, kings, Caesars, etc., stood apart from the masses and were viewed as being magical and/or godlike. This was because they were the interpreters of nature’s divine forces. Because these ''elites'' seemingly possessed these abilities, and were thus the vital link between the masses of ''lesser beings'' and nature’s divinity, they thus became the ultimate source of knowledge and authority. Quite literally, whatever they felt or thought became the law of the land. Self-evidently, this way of thinking united both secular and religious powers in one, which leads to but one end---totalitarianism.


Once more, here are the ''evils'' that lead to divisiveness and loss of ''oneness'' within the state: “The tenets of rugged individualism, personal determinism, self-willpersonal creativeness are…antipathetic to the good of the Greater State. These willful and unaligned forces are…an illness.” (Laventi Pavlovich Beria, “Russian Manual on Psychopolitics)


Christ’s “Good News” served as the leavening agent for Western thinkers, and led to the creation of Christendom. Then, marching under the authority of God, America’s revolutionary leaders founded America and enshrined the Good News in the Declaration of Independence--the principal manifesto of the American Revolution and of American culture and politics in general. The scriptural origin is apparent in the very words: ''all men are created equal'' and that they are ''endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Patrick Henry, 1775: “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. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom here.”

Benjamin Franklin, 1748: “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God…”


In describing Christian America, Benjamin Franklin observed: “Atheism is unknown there. Infidelity is rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either Atheist or an Infidel.” Patrick Henry warned that: “It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”

As Americans began turning their backs on God, atheist and infidel alike began crawling out of the dark, sharpening their swords, and forging our chains. God-haters calling themselves the ACLU, PFAW, GSLEN, GLAAD, PFLAG, George Soros, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Code Pink, the New York Times and its army of mainstream infidels, progressives, liberals, secular humanists, radical peace-activists, PETA, and so on. An army of parasitic infidels, having declared that our founders and Christian conservatives are mentally-ill, are working day and night to demolish America and re-enslave your souls.


“Brave New Schools: Chronology Index” by Berit Kjos

“The Theme is Freedom, Religion, Politics and the American Tradition” M. Stanton Evans

“What If Jesus Christ Had Never Been Born?” Dr. James Kennedy

“The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics”

Founder’s quotes from

About the Writer: Linda Kimball is a writer and author of numerous articles and essays on culture, politics, and world view. Linda receives e-mail at

I hope reading the snippets makes you want to go read the remainder of the article. Comments??
+Pace e Bene+

Islam Coexist? Muhammed said "Never!"

Islam Coexist?  Muhammed said "Never!"
Thanks al_c
"We love death. The United States loves life. That is the big difference between us." – Osama bin Laden
"I have been made victorious through terror." Muhammad, founder of Muhammadism now called Islam (Submit or Die)

Barack Obama Says He Lacks Experience To Be U.S. President

And HERE he proves it.

Obama calls it "My Muslim Faith" and This Raises More Questions

George Stephanopoulos tries to correct Obama when he says "my Muslim faith" but it wasn't a gaffe and Obama corrects Stephanopoulos. The Question is: Why say "MY Muslim faith" first? He went back to correct Stephanopoulos, but again "MY Muslim faith" was used. WHY?

Obama is to the USofA as Castro was to Cuba!

Patriots For Action dot org