Sunday, December 23, 2007

Ron Paul Meets the Press

This morning the news interview show Meet the Press featured Ron Paul. I'd imagine all those who consider themselves true blue dye-in-the-wool conservative Constitutionalists were paying close attention, for this was the first real mainstream press exposure for Paul to elaborate on his quasi-libertarian perspective.

What I saw was a typically deft and well-prepared Tim Russert tear apart Paul, who appeared to hem and haw even in-and-around what many see as quite principled positions: dramatic reduction of the scope of government, ending the income tax, limiting our business in the affairs of other nations, and so forth.

Paul's problem is that the Agency of Cain must by nature behave in unprincipled ways. The primary functions of the World System's government are all murderously deceitful. Countless times in the past Paul bellowed about his disdain for that perfidy in very concrete ways. Russert was ready, pounding him with it and demonstrating that you can't be fully principled and be a governor at the same time.

Paul was questioned about his plan for reducing government in light of the massive earmarks he accepted for his district. Paul responded by saying he still wanted to get his share of the government largesse, but it came off as being extraordinarily hypocritical.

Paul was questioned about his call to amend the Constitution to keep illegal immigrants from having babies here on U.S. soil making them automatic citizens. Russert then reminded Paul that natural-born citizenship is constitutional, and Paul said changing the Constitution was constitutional too. It still leaves unsaid which parts of the Constitution Paul particularly likes and doesn't like.

Paul was questioned about his past rejection of the Republican Party, going so far as to demand his formal disassociation with it. And yet here he is running for president on the Republican ticket. Is this not simple pandering, being purely political for personal gain? Sure he knows he doesn't have a chance with another party, but this again reveals Paul's hypocrisy.

Please know that I am not anti-Ron Paul. I've known about his fine thoughtful ideas for years. But a number of years ago I discovered what government really is, and Ron Paul is swimming in a vat of sewage that only gets him more caked in filth. This year he's just seeking to get to the more slimy, fetid, churning whirlpool in the center.

What is most telling is to look at what that, oh, ten percent of the electorate who fawn all over the guy are thinking now. First, the ones who think he did well on Meet the Press will never take off their rose-colored glasses no matter what they see. The ones who think he did poorly will blame Russert for blind-siding him-- ooo, that evil mainstream secular media.

Really, the firmly Catholicist Russert was just doing his duty. The people who like Paul just don't get that if Paul is as unprincipled as Russert showed him to be, then he is perfect for the job of president. But I have the idea that many Paul devotees may look at that truth and chafe quite painfully, for haven't they desperately wanted a principled man in the White House? But then... but wait... but, um...

Imagine the abject bewilderment. Ron Paul no better than Hillary Clinton?

Maybe the agony of such an epiphany will make them so uncomfortable that they'd turn and seek a place nowhere near there.

Where is that place? Look here for some ideas about what it is. Excuse me, Who it is...

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Baseball Like Us

I'd written a lot about how major league baseball was a scam because of free agency and something I've called "competitive duplicity," the idea that the powers-that-be in baseball set things up so that certain teams are guaranteed to have an unfair competitive advantage to ensure the continued viability of the game. (Just as a heads up, some of my work is at EEEEEE! a San Francisco Giants fan site run by a very good friend, and my seminal writing is here.)

Recently lots has come out about major leaguers using steroids. Indeed just today former Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte confessed he's used them, but not to build up but to better heal from an injury.

I think the first thing that I feel, being a Giants fan and, as such, a great admirer of Barry Bonds, is how silly the whole asterisk thing is now. I was hurt every time someone would blithely speak about an asterisk next to Bonds home run achievements, and then laugh as though they were all above it. Now it is revealed that a whole crew of juiced players contributed to a lot of baseball's recent success, and I just wonder how much of the game are those same smug fans going to insist is accompanied by asterisks. Anyone for putting an asterisk next to each Yankees title from 1998 to 2000?

The other thing that gets me is how blind everyone still is to the real duplicity involved here. I must commend Los Angeles Times media pundit Tim Rutten for really nailing some of it, but he sadly doesn't get at what's really criminal about the game. His piece, by the way, is here.

I was quite taken by a quote he shared right off the, excuse me, bat. It was from historian Jacques Barzun, "Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball, the rules and realities of the game."

To me, baseball is indeed one of the wonderful matters of life. Even though, yes, I'm a forlorn Giants fan, I still love the game and will always root for my team. But I found out a long time ago that powerful forces were at work to keep my team, and dozens of other teams as well, from ever truly having a chance to be consistently competitive. Indeed any advantage my team would have would mean another team would suffer and that, quite simply, is not fair.

What would be the true meaning of a championship in this environment.

In 1998 I stopped paying any attention to any of it cold turkey. I have firmly held an earnest, complete boycott of anything baseball since then. I admit I did break that for a spell in 2002 when my Giants were in the World Series. Hey, had to get some small, brief whiff of success.

But what Rutten said is quite telling. "The Game = Our Life," he says in so many words. Hey, I didn't say it, he did. Here's a bit of it:

"That fact alone [the media being clueless about the steroids story] raises disturbing questions about whether most of our sporting press has become too much a part of the sports/entertainment/industrial complex to give its readers and viewers an honest account of what transpires on our courts and playing fields. Increasingly, the vast majority of our sportswriters and broadcasters appear to have looked away while drugs corrupted the highest levels of the pastime we Americans honor with a simple appellation -- The Game."

Well, yeah, for years I had been saying the media can't objectively get to the heart of the problem because, well, they are part of the problem.

Then there is this from Rutten, after he waxes eloquent about why the game is so great:

"Unfortunately our sporting culture, like our society as a whole, has bitten too deeply into the forbidden fruit -- not the grandly evil produce of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but that of its stunted and stunting stepsister, the tree of profit and loss."

But this is where Rutten can't get it, because the desire for profit, the need to have some recognition for success, is simply not inherently a bad thing. It is a wonderful thing, but it is such only in God's economy. So it is that one Tree after all, isn't it?

It is in the World economy where it is deceitful duplicity. It is fraudulent, exploitive, twisted, and underhanded. There are as many cheats in the World as there are on the diamond (oh, and to be fair, up there in the ivory tower boxes).

Yes, that is the World.

And it has been baseball for years.

They're just figuring that out now?

Could it be possible that they'd find the Tree of Life after it all?

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

"My Good Bud, Mr. Christ, and I, Off Shopping for the Next Good Leader"

A wonderfully hilarious opinion piece appeared in the Los Angeles Times today by humorist John Kenney, "Mr. Christ and Me." It was the absolutely perfect satirical exposition of the political Catholicist's devotion to his own Jesus.

You may know that recently Republican Mitt Romney felt the need to rationalize his "faith" as being quite within the mainstream. For most of U.S. history Mormonism has existed as a pariah religion outside the boundaries of Americanist religious culture, but over the past many years it has gone to great lengths to market itself as being as normal as any other Christian faith.

The silliness of Romney's attempt can only truly be seen through the eyes of Scripture, which cuts so incisively that nothing is left to doubt. One of the things it divides quite nicely is the World and the Kingdom.

The Kingdom's monarch is none other than Jesus Christ. He reigns supremely, majestically-- and still considers His own as beloved children of a doting father. He has no rival at all, ever, much less one like Caesar.

The World's potentate follows a long line begun with Cain. All are murderers, liars, and racketeers, so who is selected to be a governor in that vein should best do those things well. And since Mormonism is merely a concoction of elaborate Roman Catholic design, Mitt Romney should be a perfect fit.

Many felt that Romney echoed the strains of John Kennedy's similar speech in 1960 when he had to defend himself from the anti-Catholics. One thing they both shared is noteworthy.

Each one proclaimed boldly that he would refuse to take orders from any authority within his "church." For the Mormon that would probably be an old guy in the ivory tower there in Salt Lake City, for the Catholic that would seemingly be the pope.

The problem is that they both do take orders from the one who runs the World System, the one most qualified and best trained to do so. This individual is neither of the aforementioned ones, but he is indeed the highest ranking military officer of the Roman institution. It is also true that neither could confess that it is who it is, and that may even be because this powerful individual has used Sun-Tzuan arts so deftly they don't know themselves that they do his bidding.

One of the ways he does this is seen in a common elaboration of the confessions from both Kennedy and Romney. It goes something like this: "I think the most important thing is to do what Americans want and what is best for them." How noble that sounds.

But when the populace is mostly made up of World inhabitants sworn to World behavior and in great need of having their sin managed, the president of the United States doesn't have to dial up ol' Peter-Hans at all. This is because Peter-Hans has already made the people so wholly Catholicized that whatever they ask of the president is what they will get.

The people essentially say to all presidential candidates, "We are about to select another lord over our lives and affairs. Lots of things are negotiable, but one thing isn't: We all belong to the Americanist Civil Religion, and we insist you don't disturb that which gives us comfort in our sinful conduct."

Romney is effectively saying, "Let me manage that conduct and assure you that I will keep your belief in the Civil Religion vibrant and your rituals constructive. I will promise to keep my more discomforting Mormon views close to the vest for they are meaningless anyway."

Really, this is a dance that has been done for ages. The people and their World papa, the World papa and the people. Very few can see the puppeteer way up in the rafters there.

It is sweet indeed to read a delightful piece like Kenney's today, just highlighting the abject folly that is the Catholicist Nation.

Who is this "Peter-Hans" fellow? For an idea look here. Far more significantly, who is that character who reigns in the Kingdom again? Some thoughts about him are here.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

The Outbirthing in Europe

I am just beginning a new book called God's Continent about the expanded presence of Islam in Europe. I'm just at the first few pages, and right out of the gate there was an interesting note about Muslim's designs on a religiously moribund Europe.

It is simply that Muslims plan to "outbirth" the people of other religions, notably Christianity. It is now well-known that Europe's birthrate has leveled off and in some places has gone negative. Lots can be said about that, but the thought I had about this outbirthing strategy of Islamic dominance was this:

Children do follow closely the things parents do, even if those things are quite ungodly. One could easily say that Islam is an ungodly religion, and in many ways it is, but much of the derision of it comes from those not in the Muslim God Club. They are zealots for the "Not-Islam" religion, and that religion is often quite Catholicist.

One very good thing about Islam is that it is very law-oriented. The law, that's a good thing, keeps people in-line and smacked up-side-the-head any time they get outta line. What Christ tells us is very clear, though, about that:

You can never be justified before God by the law.

Muslims live their whole lives working striving surging laboring to keep that law. They painstakingly do it all the way up until they die. So when children are brought up with intense law-abiding indoctrination, they too will continue into adulthood living by the law.

The problem is that all the other God Clubs in Europe do exactly the same thing. And when they are not having as many babies as the Muslims are, at some point most of all the law-abiders in Europe will be Muslims.

What is the way to not be in a God Club, Christian or Muslim? What is the way not to be burdened by the requirements of the law, the Christian kind or the Muslim kind?

That is to give oneself to Jesus Christ-- ahem, The Jesus Christ, not one of the many God Club counterfeits.

When you give yourself to Christ, you are moving from the law, and into truth and grace. It is the same as moving from your parents disciplining you for doing wrong-- use of the law to govern your behavior-- to living unchildlishly, as an adult, doing something right and good because you love another.

Here's the key: a World religion, Christian or Muslim, is never out from under the law. What you have then in Europe is competing God Clubs, and when one of those clubs will outbirth the other, then what do you expect will happen?

If you'd like to read a bit more about how Christian churches turn themselves into mere World God Clubs, go here.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Lars and the Real World

In the previous post I posed the following question: "Why do we care so much about what people think of who we are, authentically, but don't give God the same consideration?" The idea is simply that we are quite interested with what others think of us. No, I don't believe for a second anyone who says they can say with 100% verity "I really don't care what others think." They're lying. By definition, for anyone to have any meaningful relationship, who one is must be expressed to another in some way. Otherwise we are all just schizophrenics.

Given this quite veritable premise, why then don't we give God the same consideration and at least work a bit to understand who He really is, if we hope to have relationship with Him? Many will say "Who are you to say who He is? How presumptuous." When these kind of people--and yes, there are many of them--say this, they are actually saying "I am a fool, for I presume that one cannot know who God is." Think I'm being harsh? Take a peek at Psalm 53 for what God thinks about it.

A few weeks ago my wife and I went to see Lars and the Real Girl. It was about a quiet unassuming young man played by Ryan Gosling, who finds true love in a blow-up doll. Through the entire film he treats her like a real live human being. Everyone else knows it is not--with lots of hilarity mixed in about their reaction to his peculiar affection.

After a while, most of those closest to him play along while they figure out how to deal with this. Why do they do this? It seems they don't want to hurt his feelings, for he is so convinced this blow-up doll is his genuine human companion. The fact is, at no point in the story does anyone at any time treat the blow-up doll as a real human--

But isn't that what postmoderns are supposed to do? Concede that each individual is merely part of their own "interpretive community" and that their truth is merely a product of their "narrative"?

This idea came up recently in a tragic real life situation when a mother of a teenage girl pretended to be a 16 year-old boy in a burgeoning web conversation with a friend of the girl. The mother/fake boy told the girl how fond he was of her, then after a time, cruelly dumped her. The girl then committed suicide.

The girl was so convinced the web relationship was real that it killed her.

The latest is that authorities are struggling to find a statute with which to charge the woman. There seems to be nothing in the books for what amounted to using information technology to inflict a kind of serious emotional duress and persuade another to commit murder (even if upon oneself).

How many would say, "Oh she should have just gotten over it, it's not the woman's fault." Or how about "She had serious emotional problems anyway." While these may have some merit, the main point here is this:

An individual is somebody, in truth. A blow-up doll is not a human being, no matter how much someone thinks it is. A fake web person is also not a human being, and the one who invented such a person can really murder someone.

This is precisely what happens in the World, through and through. There are thousands of fake gods out there who draw people into worship of them. What's really happening is the inventors of those gods are committing murder, keeping very real human beings created by God from being with Him, the One who wants them back home.

God is Somebody, in Truth. There are things you can know about Him, Truthfully. Just as true is the fact that brilliant sworn operatives work to get you to proclaim "There is no God one can know."

Do you know who they are? Do you care?

I guess if you don't, you can be perfectly happy with your blow-up doll god. And maybe you can get a bunch of others to buy into your folly.

But it will still be sad, in reality, when you get murdered.

In case you're a bit concerned, here are some of those gods. And for a tiny bit of a start to know who the Real God is, here are some thoughts.

Monday, October 29, 2007

The Idolatry Everyone Likes

Speak of idolatry these days and you're sure to get a bemused glower, as if you just said Jack and the Beanstalk was a true story. "We're past that stage of human development" the thinking goes, mostly because we've all been told by World operatives who know that all that supernatural stuff is just personal interpretation. They should know, they tell us enough times on television and in the classroom. How could we not get it?

Yes, silly me, "God" is just a mental construct, and idolatry just some backward religious nut's arrogant claim that his god is better than some other guy's.

Only thing is...

What if God were really God in real reality? And He actually had at least a spittle of interest in what people did with their understanding of Who He Is? Why do we care so much about what people think of who we are, authentically, but don't give God the same consideration?

Yes, God will do just fine even with those who blow Him off. He's God, He'll live. I just think He does care when people say they are His, but really aren't. Yeah, I have my thoughts about that, some of which are in my latest home page piece, here, in which I look a bit at some of the idolatry I saw in spades on a bright beautiful day in September this year.

By all means, I'm not the final authority on God. I don't try to be-- whew, that's too much work. I just like to share what I see, and a bit of what I think about that. Hey, let me know what you think. I'd love to hear it.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Lawbreaker Tolerance and the Jesuses

Two items from Slate webzine caught my eye and are quite worth a mention. The first, from a discussion group colleague, is a current series on the concept of "lawbreaker tolerance." It is a fascinating look at the limitations of government in light of its responsibility to prosecute with summary execution. That work is here, "American Lawbreaking" by Columbia law professor Tim Wu.

The second, a piece from a few years ago I came across in a search, is another man's take on the fact that there are so many Jesuses out there that knowing the real one is quite a puzzle. That is, unless you merely go talk to the real one. Alas, most people don't like talking to the real one because they fear the shocking discovery that He is so different from theirs. That piece is here, "Jesus Christ, Choose Your Own Personal Savior" by Chris Suellentrop.

The two Slate pieces are intertwined in more ways than you may think. Even though government finds many ways, however wittingly or not, to look the other way when people sin, this does not change the fact that they still sin, and an unenforced law still condemns.

When the only antidote to sin, Jesus Christ, is introduced, so many counterfeits proliferate that the jaded World inhabitant becomes quite befuddled about what exactly to do.

It is much like the ending of the brilliant Monty Python film The Life of Brian. When Brian is pardoned just after being put on a cross for crucifixion, a Roman guard asks, "Who is Brian of Nazareth?" someone on a cross not Brian says, "I'm Brian of Nazareth." Others pick up the cue and claim that they are Brian, and when the real Brian joins the chorus the guard obviously cannot distinguish him from the rest.

What is the way to know who the real Jesus is?

Once again, it really isn't that difficult. How about just talking to Him and find out.

For my take on the World of Jesuses phenomenon, it is here.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Ann Coulter, Enthroned Goddess of the Culture War

On my Google page this morning was this verse from Ezekiel: "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." It is simple, God would like to be with you, living, forever, in sublime happiness. Problem, He doesn't want to do that with people who jerk Him around-- no one would want that from anyone.

That jerking Him around is generally called sin, but you don't hear much of it these days because it is quite uncouth to mention it in mixed company. What people don't realize is that everyone has done that jerking around at some point in his or her life, and that jerking around thing is not as much an offense to God as it is to one another, here, among all us humans who also really don't like it much when those around us lie, cheat, steal, murder, whatever.

So what is the issue with Ann Coulter essentially saying that the only way out of this body of death is through Jesus Christ, and that it doesn't matter if you are Jewish or Hindu, male or female, green or purple, if the law condemns you, then you're toast without Him.

That fact in and of itself is indeed true enough, but Coulter gets into hot water when she leaps right into the conflagration that is the Culture War. I must confess to you: Ann Coulter is a guilty pleasure of mine. I love the way she so brazenly skewers the highest folly all around. She does speak too much from a Catholicist persepective, but her writing is still wonderfully entertaining.

It is also true, however, that the World Operatives-- those who actually administer the most powerful media and educational institutions-- have scored big in this Culture War battle. A recent survey from uber-pollster George Barna found that among non-Christian 16 to 29 year-olds, evangelicals received a "favorable" consideration from 3% of respondents.

Did you catch that percentage? I'll put it down her again so you can see it clearly, it's not a typo.


That means that 97% of college students and young adults think, in some measure, less than favorably of evangelicals in this country. Why? Oh, they gave reasons. They were (not surprisingly):

Too judgmental (87% mention), too hypocritical (85%), too old-fashioned (78%), and too political (75%).

I can't help but see that this is the perfect description of the Ministry of Condemnation. Evangelicals are not doing the Reconciliation that they should be doing if they were indeed following Jesus as they say they do, simply because they have firmly contracted to do business as Condemners. Any time a church signs a 501c3 incorporation contract, they are "law-abiders," guilty of the very same things they proscribe.

97%. That's calling a duck a duck, I'd say.

No wonder Ann Coulter is excoriated for saying what she said about Christians being "perfected Jews." What she says is considered to be simply her "God club" take on things. Every God club has an idol whose picture is emblazoned on their banner. "Believe in my God club guy" they all hear. Those using the World's weapons to wage war with one another fire shots from their God club fortresses. Evangelicals have their imposing fortresses too.

Funny, too, how much people hoot and holler about Coulter's volleys. She too is an idol of theirs. If what she says is worthless, then why the fuss? Leave her adrift with her meaningless pap if it is such. But by their vociferous objections they enable her power over them, and in doing so they condemn themselves. Such is life in The Catholicist Nation.

What was it that God said?

Turn yourselves, and live ye?

Nah. Nobody wants to do that.

They like the War too much.

To know a bit more about the Culture War, go here. (That passage from Ezekiel, by the way, is verse 32 in chapter 18.)

Saturday, October 06, 2007

The Deception is the Body of Death

When Paul spoke about the body of death from which Christ freed him, it was clear that deception was woven through his turmoil. He essentially declared, "I do what I know I shouldn't." Christ is the one who gives power to do that which is authentic, or, that which is not deception.

From this perspective I can't help but mention a number of news items that amplify the truth of the body of death that reigns in the World. Sure this could be an interminably long list, as it could every day in exposing the World's affairs. There are so many. But I'll just address these for now, and point out how little people see that which truly murders them in each story.

Item: Bush claims the CIA doesn't use torture. Apparently a couple of internal memos were intercepted that said government interrogators use torture to get information. Democrats in Congress have vowed to pass an anti-torture bill.

The Anti-Deception: The Agency of Cain has used, does use, and will use torture no matter how much George Bush tells us they don't or Congress enacts meaningless laws against it. Furthermore, all the bluster the more liberal dissenters spew about it is just as worthless. Rome enforces the law against sinners. That's its job. It will do it with impunity, ruthlessly, and covered with sweet vanilla frosting.

In fact, you yourself are tortured with psychological weapons of warfare all the time. Are you told things like "All there is, is nature" and do you believe those things? Your soul is under assault when convinced that there is no hope for love or receiving that love into eternity.

Item: Olympic star Marion Jones admits to using performance enhancing substances even after countless assurances that she didn't. With cameras rolling and microphones shoved in her face, she tearfully apologizes to everyone and everything.

The Anti-Deception: What on earth were you expecting? When you give your undivided devotion to fallible human beings you will always be disappointed. We shrug off the idea that there are such things as sports idols, but when this kind of thing happens I can only think of the extent to which news coverage is given to such an individual has to be proportional to the amount of idolatry involved.

Think about it, what do people say when these people sink like this? They say "Marion, I believed you." Jesus humbly said, "Believe on me."

Item: Washington state's supreme court ruled against a state law that prohibited a candidate from deliberately lying about his opponent. Huh? You mean now it is okay for a candidate to lie about someone else in a campaign ad?

The Anti-Deception: Funny, the big scandal now in Britain is about a BBC video clip of the Queen appearing to storm off in anger over a photographer's objection to the way the crown was on her head. Turns out the clip was of the Queen briskly walking to the session. Heads are rolling over that one, fortunately for them, not literally.

The Washington state incident involved a candidate who said something to the effect of, "My opponent voted down this really really good thing! Bad, bad legislator." Turns out the guy actually voted for the good thing that didn't pass but it was claimed by some that he didn't do enough to get it passed. Ahh, the intricacies of the body of death.

The key thing to ask about the banned anti-lying law is: "If it were in force, who exactly would say what a lie was in order to truly enforce the law?" Since sinners lie by habit, and government must be run by such individuals, you would have liars trying to stop lies that must be a part of governmenet activity anyway. So in a very twisted way, the ban is an affirmation that lies must be a part of government activity for it to do its job.

Item: Ed and Elaine Brown are finally arrested when U.S. marshalls pretended to be supportors (there you go: government using lying as one of its chief tools), were given entrance into their home-compound, and took the two tax-evaders into custody peacefully. The "peacefully" remark must be added because a grip of weapons were discovered with the Browns.

The Anti-Deception: The essence of the Brown's deception is in their patented creed, one spouted by all anti-tax people the World-round: "Show me the law!" While the Browns certainly thought this was their ticket to freedom, it is actually their undoing, for such insistence on trusting the law will get you precisely what you ask for: summary condemnation.

They claimed that ordinary labor is not taxable, but they simply don't get that Caesar must take tribute-- and is fully entitled to it-- whenever someone asks for the privilege of receiving some service offered by Caesar. Anyone who does work expects wages to be paid. When Caesar does work for you, he'll expect his pay as well. Why do so many including the Browns think otherwise?

Yes, it is true that if you don't ask for a privilege from Caesar, you don't have to pay taxes on that privilege. Don't buy a product, don't pay for the product. But the fact is so many people live their lives without Christ that they must seek the myriad services that Caesar offers. When Elaine Brown proudly cited $1.9 million of income before Caesar's eyes, she was herself officially consenting to Caesar's just claim to his due payment. When she and her husband refused to make that proper payment, they were arrested, and will face prison time of over five years each.

And now we're surely going to hear all the vehement screeching from the anti-tax-militia about how unjust this all was and how poorly the Browns were treated and how mean the government is-- like we haven't heard that before. Oh yes, the government is mean. But, ahem, it's supposed to be. What of it. The more you holler about government this and government that, the more you are giving it power over your affairs. They actually feed off it. Quite the body of death indeed.

Item: Some kind of a record was set when Hannah Montana concert tickets sold out in minutes. Then some people were paying thousands of dollars for $50 tickets. Young teenage girls were distraught when they couldn't get them.

The Anti-Deception: After talking about this with my students and wondering what the deal is with Hannah Montana-- really, what is the attraction?-- I found out that Hannah Montana is not even a real person. She's a fictional character played by the daughter of Achy-Breaky Heart guy Billy Ray Cyrus.

Give me a break. Talk about a body of death. Can't get much more of that than with a particularly grand Walt Disney simulation.

Kind of like the World.

Friday, September 28, 2007

The Kingdom

Tonight is the premiere of the top motion picture marketed out there for this weekend, "The Kingdom." It stars some Oscar-winning actors and it looks like it has a lot of brave-looking people firing weapons at terrorists of some stripe. I imagine the intended effect is to get all who watch it to shout with Homer Simpson, "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

It has received rather tepid reviews so far. I'm paying attention to it simply because of the title of the film and the massive campaign to sell it. I've seen ads for the thing everywhere. Again, I'm just curious because certainly some are going to get some impression about what "The Kingdom" is, whether or not that is actually true.

"The Kingdom" in this sense refers to the country of Saudi Arabia, which considers itself a kingdom. It has a king, princes, a royal family, all exerting great power in an oil-rich and terrorist-harboring region. It seems the movie has some intrigue and thrills, but from what I've read most of it is just a lot of typical shoot-em-up action.

Since it doesn't seem to show much promise as any blockbuster, it may not leave the mark its producers hoped it would. I would like to see people come away from seeing those words "The Kingdom" and ask themselves, "What is that, really?"

Sure, our fairy tales tell us that palaces and royalty and chivalry all make up a "kingdom," but in reality the one Kingdom that is worth anything is the one the King reigns over.

Yes. That monarch is The King, God Himself.

And the way Jesus spoke of this place, it is way different from those in the fairy tales or boffo Hollywood productions. Take a listen...

"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people."

That's from Matthew 4:23. Not going to go into all of it here, but if you read a few of His words around that, you'd find out what The Kingdom is. If somewhat intrepid you might peek at all of His words around that, and you'd really see it.

You may be amazed how much it not only isn't fairy tales or Hollywood spectacle, it also isn't the World.

For a bit more explanation of this distinction from the author of this blog, go here.

Monday, September 24, 2007

What a Fool Believes

In doing my web writing wherever that is-- webzine, blog, comments on some site somewhere about something-- I'm insanely devoted to the idea that I can get people to understand and know Christ by saying, "Hey, look at that foolish thing and see how foolish that is!" They would then see said foolish thing for being as abjectly foolish as it is, connect the dots, and find that any true fulfillment for any need or desire can only ultimately be found in Him.

I even heard a radio show this morning on the Los Angeles hyper-libertarian station KPFK called "Connect the Dots." They always have someone on who rails against some Power-That-Be as oppressing the poor disadvantaged disenfranchised whatever Power-Back-To-The-People type. They seem to think that displacing the despised Power with their adored Power is going to liberate all and bring joyous utopia. "Connect the dots!" they say, but then when they profess their "final solution," I always wonder, "Then what?" It's as if they connect only half the dots on the coloring book page and pat themselves on the back.

They will never connect all the dots to Christ because they've been intractably convinced He is a straw-man Christ.

I so recognize I must be very careful about calling any man a fool, for I am then liable to be called a fool myself. I just want to point out foolish things, and take that passage in Ephesians as my text. "Don't be a part of those things but rather expose them" is a loose rendition.

In my last webzine piece, I wrote about Ed Brown, the zealous anti-tax guy. I can't call him a fool, but I can't refuse to point out the foolish nature of his exile. I look at things like this "Trans-Texas Superhighway" that's supposed to link Mexico and Canada, and I hear that it will bring all sorts of terrorist Mexican truckers on to our sacred U.S. soil and complete the North American Union as a final component of the nefarious, awful, and really ugly One World Order. Oh forgot to add: "Oh my."

"Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!" "Trans-Texas Superhighway, oh my!"

The hysteria about this is just foolishness. All I want to do is say "Finish connecting the dots." It just doesn't seem to matter at all that they are doing this highway thing because it is merely part of what the One World Order has done for millennia. The more violent rage spewed at this kind of thing just makes the war more bloody, and you're not going to win it.

"Let's all just get Ron Paul into the presidency and he'll stop the brazen encroachment! He'll make sure American sovereignty is restored! He'll make sure the Constitution is followed!"

Sorry, this is foolishness. "American sovereignty" has always been an organ of Rome's designs and the U.S. Constitution has always been a vehicle of expansive sin management-- no matter how libertarian it is "supposed" to be. To think that Ron Paul or disfellowship from the U.N. or some other quasi-Americanist tack is going to fix all things is to run the crayon off the page.

At the high school where I teach I help coach the Academic Decathlon team. The theme for this year's competition is the American Civil War, and for the past two weeks our kids have been watching Ken Burns' acclaimed 1990 documentary about it. In today's episode on 1864, Shelby Foote, one of the premier experts on the war, said something quite profound.

He said that the North went into the war with one hand behind its back. They had all kinds of able-bodied men up rowing at the Ivy League schools for the duration. If the South had dragged it all on any further, the North would've pulled its other arm out.

Really, this is just not any revelatory information. Any high school U.S. history student can figure this out. What is so profound is that while the North could've squashed the South in a second, it didn't. We're told it was the Union's inept leadership and the Confederacy's bold tenacity that kept it going.

No, no it wasn't.

Come on, connect the dots.

The American Civil War was one big theatrical production put on for the purpose of convincing the American people that their government should be much more powerful, that there is the proper dramatic rationalization for the establishment of what some call "the 14th Amendment Empire." Sure it was horrifically costly, but since when are the covert ops of Rome, the Jesuits, ever concerned about the amount of blood spilled when assembling all the intricacies of the vast sin management program that is the United States of America?

Come on, people, God gave you some brains. Connect the dots.

At this point I just wonder how many more times we must pronounce some crazy truth about Rome's designs for people to do that. How many more facts about what Rome does through the U.S. as the Legacy of Cain must be shared before someone actually connects all the dots. It just gets daunting. I see website after website and hear radio show after radio show screech about the horrors of this or that New World Order Powers-That-Be George Bush Hegemony thing, and the ultimate foolishness is in the benighted indifference to answering the key question out of it all-- the key question that is at every dot on the page but the last one:

"THEN what?"

Sure, keep going! Don't stop. By all means keep connecting the dots to see the full picture. Have fun seeing all the other crazy things the One World Order does. There are certainly many more. But see...

Don't you want to know Who it is at the very last dot?

Who is that Person indeed?

Saturday, September 15, 2007

"Aaah! Stop the Deflation!"

Larry Kudlow is a top talking head, offering financial blab across the airwaves. I think he's got a show on CNBC. He was on Hugh Hewitt's drive-time radio show the other day and they were bantering about the latest economic item of interest-- the severe poking at the housing bubble.

So fiercely did Kudlow make the case that the Fed lower interest rates that it amplified the truth that the Fed is quite the law enforcer. I can bet that every Federal Reserve Chairman through history (these days it is Ben Bernanke) has certainly lost count of the number of times he has had to smile nervously as he is asked to crack heads in any number of institutionalized ways to pull back on the abject misassessment of value among Catholicist Nation inhabitants.

Kudlow said his recommendation about what the Fed do is the "shock and awe" approach, and he cried "Come on-- stop the deflation." The deflation here refers to the precipitous drop in home values through the collapse of the "sub-prime" lending market. The thing that is noteworthy is simply looking at what deflation actually is.

It is the typical discovery that the value assigned to any given productive capacity is less than it once was. When it happens on a macro level, affecting all commodities across the board, it is quite striking.

"Stop the deflation!" cries big-time econ guru Kudlow. What he's doing is telling the Fed to keep the scam going-- keep people thinking their value is higher than it is. He could just as easily say "Hey Fed! Keep people lying about themselves!" How does this all work? You won't hear this from Kudlow, or Hewitt, or any of the big-time Romanist shrills because they're in on the racket. Just so you know, here's what the deal is:

One, people sin. They dick with their productive value and lie, cheat, and steal to get people to see they're valued at something they are not. Everyone wants to get the heads up on exploiting the other guy in this environment.

Two, this manifests itself in a home buyer thinking he can get a home valued far higher than the true economic value assessment he knows he really has, and an exploiter is right there ready to take advantage of this deception.

Three, the investor/banker/whoever-the-exploiter-is wheels and deals in these obligations, gets his cut relying on the productive value the borrower is promising--which, as we know, he's already lied about. No matter, because every investor/banker/whoever-the-exploiter-is knows that, yes:

Four, the Fed is there to bail him out. And the Fed is there to do that because the Fed is indeed the economic agent of Cain, assigned the task of gallantly working to sustain the value assessed on the productive capacity of World inhabitants. This is its primary function, by its own job description: maintain the value of the currency. "Value of currency" is only fancy finance language for the very meaning of what an individual is worth at his core.

The Fed can lower interest rates to make everyone happy, but if those rates don't match up with the actual value of the individuals that money represents, then nothing in the World can prop up the macro economy.

Unless you're talking about The Kingdom.

What's the Kingdom option? How indeed can a sinner have value beyond the essence of his own destruction? What's the option for those who truly want their value assessed truly actually truly accurately?

In Truth?

That can only come from the One single measure of truth there is, Truth Himself, Jesus Christ. Christ bought back those destined to an eternity of-- indulge me here-- "sub-prime." In Christ one is loved with the purest fullest love. As such, one who is in Christ will have a yes that is a yes and a no that is a no. In Christ he thinks of another as worth more than himself simply because he's died to himself and is alive to Christ. What this does is move people to care for one another in phenomenally abundant ways, far above anything the World can ever possess.

I sometimes wonder why the Kudlow's and the Hewitt's and the rest of these seemingly brilliant men just don't get it. Oh they're brilliant all right, they are.

They're just blind, that's all.

Pitch black blind. Like bats, and as such not only blind but bloodsucking, too. They live in the World as World inhabitants, and even been asked by so many to feed them the lies that make them feel so good. They haven't a clue about what the Kingdom looks like or even who Jesus is. They are devout agents of Cain, sent from God's presence to wander around.

As much as the Fed Chairman is supposed to crack heads of liars and cheats in schnazzy suits, you will often hear him confess quite candidly (look it up in the speeches of past and present chairmen, these pronouncements are there all over the place) that his job consists mostly of reading tea leaves, looking in crystal balls, trying divine the winds of value assessment, as it were.

Sounds a lot like a guy wandering around to me.

Consider getting with the Contractor who can build you a house on the rock.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

The Lord David Petraeus

Virtually every news orifice out there is showcasing their polls on Iraq, this on the eve of top U.S. general-in-Iraq David Petraeus' report tomorrow-- I think it's tomorrow. What they're asking are things like "What do you think about our progress in Iraq?" and "Do you think Petraeus will give an accurate assessment of things?"

Really, what should be asked is, "What do believe about what the media spews at you?" It blows my mind that so many have something to say about things they just haven't the faintest idea about. "38% say this, while 57% say that." It reminds me of an Onion piece that I just have to provide a link for here. Oh cynical me.

Thing is, as I was peeking around a bit at the worship of the God David Petraeus (remember, even the most zealous detractors of everything "Bush" are themselves some of the most pious devotees), it came upon me how to precisely say what Ellen Tauscher is actually saying when she speaks about government-oriented things. Remember Congresswoman Tauscher? She's the one who said, "I no longer can believe almost anything I'm told."

It's really the same thing Petraeus will say tomorrow. And what Bush has ever said. And what any president has ever said. And what any lawmaker, jurist, pope, priest, Jesuit, king, Caesar, and World operative has ever said through the millennia since God sent Cain a-wanderin.'

It is:

"I will manipulate events and perceptions of those events to the extent that I can most effectively kick the snot out of those I can kick the snot out of while at the same time cleverly exploit the law to give myself and those to whom I am beholden a free pass."

Makes perfect sense, really.

If these people are indeed the divinely ordained Agents of Cain's Prime Directive, then they must assemble law enforcement around protection of their very beings. For even though they are murderers themselves of the highest measure,

They must continue to manage the city.

And they must do so for the sole purpose--in the very strictest sense by God's economy--to allow those who will eventually ask for His mercy the opportunity to receive it.

By this arrangement that city must be tremendously frightening. It must be oppressively, excruciatingly, obscenely horrid. Funny, in America, in this "republic," many people are given the opportunity to be murderers too. Ah, the genius of Robert Bellarmine's polity.

Everyone gets to have a hand at managing the city.

And it's so easy! You can sign up to select those agents yourself as a voter, to pay for it all with your W-4 contracts and ager vectigalis leases, to plaster your worth all over huge debt obligations, to register for identification with Social Security, to join up with 501c3 God clubs...

You may even let them all know what you think of your Lord David Petraeus so it gets on the TV.

So what do you think he'll say tomorrow? Will you be schlurping delightfully from your media orifice of choice?

Or will you ask for insightful understanding that this body of death is perfectly reasonable World activity for World inhabitants who like being murderers in order to get the intense high of seeing whether or not the law will be exploited by powerful people to their benefit.

And then you may just ask for the Mercy.

Who is the Mercy? Peek here.

Saturday, September 08, 2007

"I No Longer Can Believe Almost Anything I Am Told"

U.S. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher said this after listening to testimony about progress in Iraq. It was so notable to the Los Angeles Times that it was used as a pull quote in today's print edition.

"I no longer can believe almost anything I'm told."

I looked at this and first thought, wow, she's got it. She understands that anything government says cannot be trusted, for government is by function an operation that must use deception to do its job of prosecution. Maybe she'll decide she doesn't want to be a part of that body of death any more and will seek to enter the Kingdom.


I read the quote a second time and it is quite symptomatic of the way World operatives themselves operate. This is beside the point that if the statement "There is falsehood here" is uttered by such an operative-- and Tauscher is such an individual-- then that itself cannot be trusted.

What she says reveals something quite profound, for it is in the context of exactly how much security there actually is in Iraq. Some officials say one thing, others say another-- apparently they're all now waiting with bated breath for top general David Petraeus' report. I imagine they think that'll clear everything up.

Problem is that people generally don't think through all of this. They just plain don't take the time to think. Now think: If the law and security and prosecution actually did the full job it was supposed to, did the full job in truth, they do you know what would happen?

Okay, the challenge here is to think. Are you willing to think?...

The answer is simple:

We'd all be summarily convicted, sentenced, and executed.

"How intolerant! How oppressive! How totalitarian!"

Okay okay, continue to not think. That's your choice. But if you choose the denial option, then guess what? You're left with (here it is again for those of you who missed it...)

"I no longer can believe almost anything I am told."

That's what you'll say. That's what blither as you you'll bumble around, banging into the World's death wherever you go.

The "almost anything" part of her quote is most revealing, actually. For it demonstrates that she still reserves the privilege of believing what she wants to believe so she'll feel better about things.

What are the things she will believe?

I guarantee you those things are the ones her Jesus will convince her are the things to believe, no matter how insane they are. One such insane thing is that the law will actually save her. Her Jesus will tell her that she's okay as long as she upholds the law. Sustains the law. Painstakingly augments the law with turgid complexities culled from long tedious hearings. Decorates law with pretty flowers and colorful ribbons.

Um, no. The law is only good to the extent that it blasts us with our sin. If you see that, you'll see what death is, and you'll want to get out. So really, what Tauscher is doing is precisely what she should be doing.

She may indeed be quite effective at prosecuting you.

Thing is, if you thought, you'd see how horrific that truth really is. You may then, if you look-- just right over there-- you may even see Jesus way at the far opposite place from where World is, waiting for you to get out of all that.

In my last post I openly confessed that I do wonder if what I'm saying is anything new. I said it with a bit of despair because I do want to be in the game, serving my Lord. I've realized that, really, I am saying nothing new. And that's okay.

The thing that is despairing is that when you say "Hey, you don't have to be so maliciously deceived! Look here! The Truth!" so many shrug it off and take off to further death. I can see why-- there are so many Jesuses out there. That makes me sad.

But it is indeed something that is not being said enough, even though it has been said for millennia. Maybe there will be just a few more who will refuse denial and see truthfully, and then in its best sense, maybe the one thing that the World inhabitant would believe apart from all that which can no longer be believed would be Him, the very thing that is worthy of belief.

Anyway, for a bit more, I've written about this at my website if you are interested. It's here.

Monday, September 03, 2007

"Somewhere Between Raisin' Hell and Amazin' Grace"

I ran up to the corner market to get a quart of milk this morning and for some reason my radio was tuned to a country station. I don't usually listen to country, but I have a bit of admiration for it because the music can be rich in visceral expression. I also worked as a remote engineer at KSON in San Diego when going to school.

Of course I'd never heard this song before, this one something about being somewhere between raisin' hell and amazin' grace, it may be wildly popular-- I just don't know.

But it did make me think of the Catholicist Nation and the way people behave in it. This is it, that's for sure. Go off and "raise hell" then come back and get some grace.

Over and over and over and over and over and over again.

This is just not the way it was from the beginning, to loosely quote Jesus when asked about divorce. Sure people want to "raise hell" in whatever self-or-other-destructive way that is because of the abject emotional pain of not being understood by another. Sure there is the law to frequently whack you upside the head, but there is an issue with that.

It hurts, and it will never give us what we really want.

I wrote all about this in my latest webzine home page piece, here if you want to read more about it.

To be a bit transparent here, sometimes I look at my work and think, "Hmm, this is just too obvious. I'm not really saying anything new here. Am I really adding anything?"

But as I go over what I've shared, one of the key things people just don't see is that this law everyone rails against-- "Ouch that HURTS!" -- is something they themselves ask to be enforced against them. I'd bet most think "Oh, the law and its assembling and enforcement and adjudication that is all just there." No, no, it wouldn't be there at all if people didn't sin. But because they sin, it's there to do its magic in all its excruciating glory.

At their request.

Look at all those people shouting and screaming and seething about George Bush or whichever despised law enforcer. They are no different from Josephine Spoinkers who hangs around whenever Ed Spoinkers returns from yet another all-nighter.

"Ed Spoinkers you listen up Ed Spoinkers are you listening this is the LAST time I'm going to put up with this are you listening Edward J. Spoinkers this time I mean it!..." She sure waves a mean rolling pin.

There is another thing that's for sure.

They all still hang around under the law.

A recent real life example of this codependent interaction was when George Bush and Ben Bernanke made news by joining up to do their respective enabling thing to keep the economy afloat amid signs people were sinnin-- er, yeah, that term is a bit too politically incorrect-- rather people were defaulting on mortgages, there: that sounds so much nicer, and so much like it is the fault of something like the nefarious banking cartel. And since "nefarious banking cartel" is also quite nebulous, no one really is at fault.

There're just good kind George and Ben to rescue us poor dumb saps.

There is another option, but only unblind people who can see beyond the law can know about it. I'll tell you what it is right here if you think you can squint through the glaucomic haze.

The thing way way way better than the law is

Grace and Truth.

Having this would involve one simple thing.

Asking the God of the Universe, Jesus Christ, to be the single one you would follow. Indeed to be the single one your family would follow, and your community.

When you've trusted the God of the Universe enough (and as God of the Universe He can kind of handle it), you'll run to get rid of the useless World contracts you have that betray your request, all of them law processors, every one of them: W-4's and Social Security identifications and 501c3 incorporations and a dozen other oaths made by something other than the simple trust in a God who actually gives bread when you ask for bread. (That stone you got pummeled with the other day? That was from a World Jesus by the way.)

To know what that community would look like, check this out. It was my devotional reading this morning. Needless to say it made me weep. Jesus Christ, right there with them, the God of the Universe doing what He enjoys doing most.

Giving people true joy.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Who's Your Daddy?

Everyone has a daddy. No I'm not talking about your biological father, but someone very daddy-like that you follow. For someone who chooses not to follow Christ, that daddy is a racketeer of some stripe. That's the very essense of what the whole question is about.

"Who's your daddy?" is a lot easier than asking "To whom to you pay indulgences?" or "To whom do you assign the management of your evildoing?" I've written my latest home page webzine piece on this very issue, and it is at The Catholicist Nation if you're interested in reading more.

I must say that there is so much to write about in addressing use of the law by a racketeer, that I had to leave so much out. One of the things I simply couldn't get in there that is worth mentioning is the fact that Frederic Bastiat used God to make much of his case against what he called "perversion" of the law. I agree fully (and say as much in the piece) that God made us each with phenomenal capacity to imagine and invent and build and assemble marvelous things that make many people's lives much better.

The problem, however, with saying "If government would just get out of the way then people would be free to worship God with their talents" as he does in his conclusion, is that the World's operatives sworn to draw people from Christ have brilliantly concocted a number of "Gods" who people so readily slot into their peculiar conception of him. They then go on lying and cheating and murdering, indeed using the very same "God" in rationalizing their behavior.

Sin is a horrific thing indeed.

The law should be just as brutal if it is to do its job of exposing it.

You may certainly hang around there in the glaring searing light of that law...

Or you may go to the Light that smiles, embraces, frees, welcomes, engages, touches, invigorates-- hey...

Even makes you alive again.

Monday, August 06, 2007

Some Items on Romanist Marketing

I want to point out a couple of items out there. If Christ has dropped the scales from your eyes and you can actually see the counterfeit from the real, these may actually be edifying. If not, they'll serve to drop you deeper into the World muck, but hey, that may actually be a good thing if you get tired of it and ask for a Hand out.

At the Los Angeles County Museum of Art over there on Wilshire Boulevard, there is a fantastic exhibit of Roman Catholic promotional pieces, brilliantly works of art designed to keep "New World" peoples in the System. They were commissioned from the time of Columbus to the early-19th century. Definitely check it out. (It goes until October 28, 2007.)

Over at the best apologetics radio show there is-- at least for now until there is one that actually is not a 501c3 and beholden to the World as Stand to Reason is-- host Greg Koukl interviewed fellow apologist and recent Roman Catholic convert Frank Beckwith about his "change of mind." Beckwith's rambling and often incoherent attempts to rationalize his decision go a long way in demonstrating that no matter how hard he tries, the devout Catholicist simply cannot use Law language to convince others that he is really a Grace and Truth person.

Anyway, you be the judge. It is here, at Stand to Reason's site. (The interview was on August 5, 2007, for those accessing this blog at a time well after it was originally posted and want to archive it.)

Thursday, July 26, 2007

What You Hear

On the way to work this morning, heard a news report that announced a lot of victims of the Catholic Church priest sex abuse scandal were upset about things so much that they were going to meet with Cardinal Roger Mahoney to really get down to business. To take some dramatic steps to get to the bottom of things. Very very serious steps.

They were going to ask him some questions.

"We want answers, mister! We want to know what's going on! We want the truth!"

Ever hear this before? I have. A zillion times.


If they actually asked someone who would tell them the truth, they'd go, "Nah. That's not it."

And then go on talking with their puppet Jesus.

Every single person starts out with a puppet Jesus. This is something each individual converses with about the things that matter. The puppeteer asks, "So what is the truth about things?" and then the puppet Jesus answers.

Oh it doesn't have to be anything like Jesus. A common one is, "So can I booze and smoke and generally treat everyone around me like crap?" Puppet Jesus replies, "Why yes, of course, just as long as you're still very good at belching the alphabet."

Roger Mahoney is one such puppet Jesus. It is widely considered that he'll hang around for a while no matter how many supposed penetrating questions are shot at him, simply because he has done so much to make Los Angeles Catholic. One way he does this is by supporting the voluminous infusion of Mexican migrants, many of whom are Catholic. Gotta admit, that's a fine way to do it.

Thing is, he'll join all the other exploiters to keep the exploitees thinking they're happy bouncing along in their miserable lives. The reason they use exploitees so much is that they are perfect fodder for their need of great human sacrifice. It isn't just Mahoney who does this.

Look at the recent major story about housing foreclosures being at a record high. The fact that the stock market has taken a couple hits as a result demonstrates on a macro level how much value is carved out of the exploitee so exploiters may engage in human sacrifice. If they can't get it through usury disguised as home ownership, they can do it through the rental property now-former homeowners must find. Bankers do it with impunity and huge smiles on their faces.

To complete the trifecta, there's the federal government.

On the way home from work happened to catch a tune from Pink called "Dear Mr. President." Have you heard this one? It's a ballad sung to the president of the U.S-- that mean old rotten George Bush-- lamenting his insensitivity to the plight of desperately needy but quite virtuous victims all around.

Oh yes, often they do figure how much they are exploited.

What they don't get for squat is what to do about it.

"Have a nice walk with the president so you can scold him about how much he should be doing for you"? This is the essence of the song's lyrics.

Ah yes, the nice little chat, where the exploitee wags his finger at the exploiter with a snarl and and good satisfying glower. All so he can be lied to about the great breadth of his exploitation of him. Then everyone goes home, um happy... (Don't you think this is precisely what happened at the Mahoney-sex abuse victims meeting today? How could it be any different?...)

At this point many would cry "Ergh, you're right, those mean lying sack 'a sh-- exploiters, they're really really bad and need to shape up."

Well, not exactly. The exploiters should not do anything different, none of them-- Mahoney, Bush, the naked bankers in the WaMu commercial, they need to stay right where they are administering the sin management program the people ask for. If they weren't there, the people would be utterly destroying themselves and everyone around them.

So yeah, it's good there's that dysfunctional interaction between Mahoney and his parishioners.

It's good that bankers are shoving irresponsible people out of their houses and into rentals.

It's good that pop artists are wailing about how much they think George Bush will never listen to what they say he needs to do to fix their lives.

Maybe sometime, just sometime, they'll see the abject refuse pile for what it is at least a bit before they die from it all,

And turn instead to the One Who Would Love Them.

For a few more thoughts on human sacrifice, go here.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Body of Death, Second Alert

Yesterday I made note of the turmoil some Catholicists are enduring over the priest sexual abuse scandal. Thought about the question, "What to do?" Here are some variations of that question, and some ideas for answers.

1. "Why doesn't the Catholic Church get rid of Roger Mahoney?" Some radio talk show guys here in Southern California have referred to him as "Don Corleone" Mahoney. They certainly get that part. What they don't get is that whoever they replace him with will just continue to do the same things. Oh yes the Catholic Church may fire him to make itself look good, and his successor will certainly paste smiles all over his face while sprinkling in a few firm "This won't happen on my watch" pronouncements.

But he'll still be the duly ordained agent of Cain, using extreme deceptive arts to manage the sin of those under his charge.

2. "Why don't Carl Marziali and his wife go somewhere else themselves for religious gratification?" They could certainly do that, and perhaps they will. Lots of Catholics have done that over the years. Thing is, the operatives holding the duty of managing the sin of those who ask them to do so have already figured all of that out. In other words, no matter what God club the Marzialis plan to visit, even if it's not exactly the Catholic Church, it's quite likely it's also in the grip of the Agency of Cain Ecclesia.

Some fancy Roman Catholic Church official-type guy made this announcement in the midst of the whole scandal: "Yes we are very sorry and it won't happen again [something along those lines] but you must know that this kind of thing [the sexual abuse stuff] is going on in other places too." (Emphasis mine) Yeah, quite the weasel thing to say. But ya know?

He's right.

If an institution is an incorporated 501c3 non-profit, or any other entity legally and willfully tied to Cain, then the Marzialis will get nothing other than what they've already seen before their eyes in the Catholic Church. How depressing is that.

3. "What about you, David, here you are saying that addressing the Catholic Church means you still have a relationship with it in whatever way-- why don't you get out?"

Oh, do I ever want to be out. In many ways I am. My devotion is completely with Jesus Christ even with Babylon thriving all around me. Regrettably, yes, I confess, I still have a few old contracts with the World made for me (like a Social Security identification) or I made myself when I too thought the World was all there was (mortgage contract).

But I do confess something else.

I love people like Carl Marziali. I write because I have something to say that nobody is saying, at least not many people I see are saying. I would like Carl Marziali to see people who simply gather together and ask themselves the simple question

"How about if we do what Jesus says?"

And then do those things.

Know what else?

I want to see those people to. And do those things with them. There is indeed no other way.

That'd be quite the wonderful matter.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Body of Death Alert

Yesterday I made reference to an opinion piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times that is quite typical of the confusion a good Catholicist has when he is brutally exposed to the truth about the Church. That truth has been quite splattered across the news, but both the befuddlement and the truth have been around for millennia. Yes, there is indeed nothing new under the sun.

The only thing that would be new in any of this is the liberating realization of what it all means. It blows me away that people who so brashly proclaim how much they know and how much they are above it all will never go beyond the "I'm simply mystified stage" regarding why Cardinal Roger Mahoney is still running the LA Archdiocese.

"I'm just mystified. I can't see how this guy who covered up all the sexual abuse is still in office. I'm mystified. Aren't you? You are too? Yeah, so am I. Mystified."

Really, have you ever heard anyone say why he is still there? It's hard to find them, because as much as one is signed up with the World he is blinded to the truth about the World as contrasted to the Kingdom.

The reason Mahoney is still there and will survive in some way is that the Roman Catholic Church is the government. I did a post a while ago, and that is here if you want to know more about how this is the case.

Truer words were never said (and they aren't mine, trust me, I'm not so smart): There is a Kingdom for those who actually want God to be their Father. There is also a World for those who want someone else to be their master. That World must have dozens of different manifestations of judgment for those who demand that their sin be managed by one of its officials. Roger Mahoney is one such individual. George Bush, Ben Bernanke, all of these guys work for the same office.

Carl Marziali and his wife, the ones who wrote the LA Times opinion piece, are simply resigned to keep going to church and lament. Yes, it is very sad. Incessant befuddlement, lamentation, and then the desperate resignation. What a horrific body of death.

If they would only find a reconciler in their midst they'd get it. They'd find that the Jesus Christ of the Catholic Church is a brilliant concoction of the World and if they actually acknowledged this, then they may perhaps visit the real One and ask Him to take them into the Kingdom.

What a miracle that would be.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Confessions of a Devout Catholicist

This opinion piece appeared in today's Los Angeles Times, hot off the presses as the Catholic priest sexual abuse settlement is still steamin.' It is a story that has been told before a gazillion times by equally disconsolate people, but rarely with the commensurate resolution.

Thing is, I don't have a lick of time tonight to address that here, but you can get a hint from my last blog post. You can also get the full treatment from the Bible, it's all there, the complete and thorough resolution, but so few people read it with the intent to actually find it there, that it may not matter what I say anytime here.

Anyway, until tomorrow.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

The Official Roman Catholic Position is the True One

Recently the pope made more official some official declarations that the Roman Catholic Church has been officially making for centuries. When they do this it gets some media attention, mostly because so many chafe at the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is claiming to be the one true church. A mainstream news take on it all is here at the Los Angeles Times.

What irritates people is that the church gets all puffy about how you can't earn God's favor or go to heaven or be a good person without the Roman Catholic Church. To keep from being too intolerant the church will say things like other institutions are means to grace or they are respected communities of belief and all the rest of it. But it still holds:

The Roman Catholic Church is the true church.

Want to know something?

They're right. Yes. It's true. They are correct: The Roman Catholic Church is the one single true ecclesiastical body.

They can make such a firmly veritable proclamation about this simply because they are outside the saving power and grace of Jesus Christ. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church is the authorized secular body of rule for ecclesiastical issues, sent out of the presence of God when He charged the church's first pope, Cain, with the job of managing the sin of evildoers with seven-fold vengeance power.

When the pope says, "Believe on us for we rule over your lives," he is indeed telling the truth. When most of the world's population get antsy about that, they are whimpering "Ouch, that hurts because that means you will still work just as hard as you always have to condemn me for my willful sinful behavior."

How does this reveal itself in real terms? Protestants will find the church's declaration "troubling" because they are under the misconception that Catholics are actually followers of Christ, and that "ecumenical dialogue" to bring all folks back together again may be hampered. The fact is, if you are with the Catholic Church as a 501c3 incorporated non-profit, then what is your complaint? You are doing precisely what the Catholic Church is ordering you to do. If you are against the "one true church" statement and rail against it, then what do expect? You're the one who signed up, and are now just ranting about how oppressive your dad is being regarding terms you agreed to.

"I don't like that the pope is doing that--ergh," so many fume. If they aren't in sin, having been cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ, then what do they have to do with the World's lord, the pope?

The World and its church is completely out of the realm of God and His mercy, truth, and provision. As long as there are devoted Catholicists around requiring their sin to be managed so they don't destroy themselves, there will indeed be the one true church for them, the Roman Catholic one.

I should qualify this. As a ministry of condemnation, the Roman Catholic Church does serve a purpose to draw people tired of that condemnation and longing for complete freedom from their sin into the embrace of Christ. That does indeed involve coming out of the System, leaving it to continue to be the "one true church," and worshipping Him and Him alone.

The Roman Catholic Church, knowing nothing about God (but doing a spectacular job of pretending that it does) can never know this, hence the call to be under their thumb always. That's actually a good thing, even as sad as that is. Those who are Christ's heirs living joyously in His Kingdom, on the other hand, know that any ferocious censure of it is not only futile but demonstrates that a codependent relationship with it still exists.

It's simple, and it's been this way for millennia: You can live by turgid fear, and have the boffo Catholic Church and its adjunct branches (federal government, central bank) and all of its subdivisions (God clubs, ministries, non-profits) whack you around all the time.

Or you can live by authentic love, and revel in fellowship and discovery with the One Who Actually Loves You.

For some more on this "Catholicist Nation," visit this page. To see the picture that accompanied the Times article, that is here.

(6:00 pm note: Just as I'd wrapped up this post, a breaking news story came across from the Associated Press that the Los Angeles Archdiocese is paying out $600 million for sexual abuse victims. This should say everything about the nature of the "one true church.")

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

What Happened to the Immigration Debate?

Isn't it interesting that now that the subject of immigration is dead in Congress, it is nowhere in the news. Once the gods of the Catholicist have stopped making it an issue, it doesn't much matter any more.

Over the two weeks since I posted my take on immigration, I thought I'd amplify a couple of things. I'm really adding nothing new; in fact, nothing I write is new, at least this is my goal. That may seem counterintuitive-- you'd think I'd want to be putting up stuff that's new and fascinating, after all, that is kind of the idea behind a blog, isn't it?-- "What's new that Dave has found out?!..." The fact is, my goal is to be about as redundant as possible--redundant about the word of God that is. If it isn't already in there, then what I'm saying may go against that. So please, challenge me about what I say and tell me if it isn't already in His word. I want to know.

Anyway, back to the immigration thing-- I thought I'd bring those things up just to highlight them a bit more.

1. Don't think that I give a toot what the U.S. does about illegal immigration-- status quo, let 'em all in, annex Mexico, dig a trench across the border 20 feet deep filled with piranhas--whatever it is, it is part of the strategy of the General to keep people without Christ in subjection to him. The only thing I care about is people coming to Christ. Thuh end.

Oh, but what about caring about them to actually want to do something for them?

Of course I care about them-- my entire home page piece is about that. But it means a gazillion times more if they'd let Christ care for them. Only Christ can care for them so they aren't in the nightmare of an existence they are in whether in the corrupt pit that is Mexico or dying in the desert crawling into this country or sitting in a fetid waiting room in a county hospital because they can't afford even the teensiest decent medical care for their kid.

It is the General that sets it all up to make these things happen, and unless they have Christ they are toast no matter what piddle the U.S. serves up to solve immigration.

2. What exactly is the World's way of doing stuff-- as opposed to the Kingdom's way? Once again for review, the Kingdom's way is to love with Christ's love, and that only happens if you know He loves you. You can only know that He loves you if you're immersed in knowing His truth and living His grace. If you're in the Catholic Church or some such subdivision, you simply can't know this, and the people you interact with can't know it either.

What does the World System do to "love" someone? It's very simple, actually. They tell you how much of a fool you are and insist that the only way to keep you from doing too many foolish things is to take some of your money so they can monitor your foolishness. They take that money in many imaginitive ways, all of which come down three different flumes:

First, the one the political racketeer uses, taxation. Please note that I'm not protesting taxes in any way. If you are indeed a fool, you should pay lots and lots of taxes because it is good government can keep you on a chain.

Second, the one from the economic racketeer, lending. This is really usury, essentially the modern-day slavery, the practice of waving fiat paper money around in your face and then stating, "You can only have it if you sign over to us this that and this." Ah, yes, again with the chain.

Third, the one of the religious racketeer, indulgences. Oh yes, all tithing payments to any state-church is just another form of indulgence. Pay up so God'll like you more. Hey, need those religious leaders to smack us around a bit. Think they use a chain?

I mentioned in my home page piece that 501c3's are actually impotent to help the immigrant. How could this be? What if they're just a boffo church with really boffo church things going on? The reason they're impotent is simple. Again, this is not new. It's right there in Scripture.

It is because they've made a commitment to follow the law.

Oh, I'm not against the law. The law is great. I like it. But I like it because it showed me how much I need Christ. Him, worshipping Him, living out the bounty of His love, sowing His great things-- that's what the poor immigrant needs. Not another God club.

As it is 501c3 incorporated state-churches will all hold up their straw-man Jesuses, and they may even say a bunch of spiffy things about them, but if they are still signed on to the law, a law that is now obsolete because is should have already shown them Christ, then they are not doing anyone any favors...

Unless of course that law gets someone to Christ!

But the law must be about doing that. It can't be about keeping people burdened with a body of death. Look at that.

A 501c3 is signed on with Caesar. Caesar is all about confiscating your wealth and productive value and keeping you in bondage to covetousness and poverty. That doesn't go away simply by saying "Hey, look at my Jesus!"

This is just so not new. God said it all already thousands of years ago. Sometimes I'm just aghast at how many still just don't get it-- they go out of their way to not get it.

It is amazing.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Show Me the Money-- Hey, It's a Non-Profit!

The reality of non-profit activity becomes more and more pronounced as I look around with an inquisitive mind. I will tell you that I am graciously open to learning as much as I can about these operations. Some of those things seemed to jump out this week, and I thought I'd share them with you.

1. On July 4th I was visiting with some of my wife's family, and her aunt asked us if we'd like to come to the Lotus Festival in Los Angeles this weekend. This festival is a big do-up for intercultural stuff, and she is a top director of some kind.

Interestingly she brought up that they had recently formed a non-profit in order to raise money for the affair. After she told me what the festival was about, I asked her if a detailed explanation of all that was included in the application for non-profit status, you know, so the government knows that it's all for a good cause.

She said, "Oh no, what we do is put together bylaws. We have to let them know how we operate, so everyone knows what we're supposed to do and it's all up front and on the level."

That struck me. There it is: laws and bylaws. The key ingredient-- We all must put ourselves strictly under the law because we wouldn't do it otherwise.

2. I discovered a pastor friend of mine was once the executive director of a Christian ministry to homeless people. He mentioned as a non-profit it was a challenge to get people to donate to the work. I asked him if he'd give me an idea of what it was like to run a non-profit, and what the value of a 501c3 was.

He said it was no big deal to anyone on the board. He even said that it was beneficial because the 501c3 gave "real teeth" to all the behavior requirements for all members.

Then the board members needed the constraints of the law to keep them from doing quite questionable things with the donations. Is this true?

I can only think of Paul's words, "All things are permissable, but not all things are beneficial."

3. In the Los Angeles Times just yesterday (July 5th), right there on the front page, was a story about California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's non-profit. Yeah, he has a non-profit. In fact, apparently he has a couple of them. Let me see if I've got them correct...

"The California State Protocol Foundation." And the other one was "The Governor's Residence Foundation." They even mentioned previous "charities" that paid for items for other governors called "Golden State Host Committees."

What they all do is pay for many of the governor's expenses, mostly having to do with travel, expenses which cannot be charged to other accounts or they'd be considered campaign contributions and liable for more scrutiny or tax consideration or something.

The thing is, what exactly is it about this that is "charity"? The article even brought up the idea that the governor zipping around the world on $10,000 private jet jaunts isn't exactly on par with feeding the hungry in Darfur.

But when examined with the lens of Scripture, and with the consideration that there is a World and there is a Kingdom, it makes perfect sense.

People hand over that money-- and get a nice tax deduction-- for the goodness of helping out the guy who is their savior. Aren't most non-profits designed to line the pockets of the powerful insider leaders? How is Arnold any different?

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the moral guide for those who comfortably inhabit the Catholicist Nation. Without his leash around their necks, like wild dogs they'd ravenously destroy themselves and others. They know this so well that they pay the big bucks to keep him happy.

Hey, I don't blame them. Everyone has a leader. Everyone has a moral guide. I don't censure them at all for their contributions to his war chest.

Ironic that my wife's aunt mentioned that she had hoped Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigoso does not make an appearance at the Lotus Festival-- he is in a bit of hot water for an affair he had with another woman-- you know, it's a bit dicey politically.

I guess I just wonder why that should matter--why it should matter whether or not he shows up. I just get this idea that wishing he wouldn't show is not much different from desiring distance from one you've trusted and given your devotion to simply because it hurts to be around them. --Because you know you still want them to lead you and guide you and the inner emotional conflict is just too much.

This is how it works for those who love the World.

Some thoughts about the relationship between 501c3 non-profits and Christians are here.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Useful Political Idiots

The political idiots were out in great numbers today, and while what I saw just about made me want to hock my lungs, I still weep for the abject folly that still sweeps through this land.

First, the widely debated Senate immigration bill did not get the procedural vote to move forward. It blows my mind that so many say so much about it, but no one ever says why it failed. I honestly don't think they can because they just haven't the teensiest of clues as to what that could be. I wrote about about what I think it is on my webzine's most recent home page article, which is here.

Second, a debate/forum-type thing was held for the Democratic party's presidential nominees at Howard University, a prominently black college. Needless to say the entire tone was about what these candidates would do for "people of color" if elected. The very first question was essentially "What will you do with the issue of race?" and the convenient springboard was today's announcement of a Supreme Court ruling that declared race alone cannot be used as a criterion for admissions to a public school.

You may be wondering what this is all about, since we all thought that was decided a long time ago with decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. The issue here, however, was that today some of the finer schools have been looking at whether or not an applicant is white or black, and admitting the black applicant in order to "foster diversity" and "provide opportunity."

So yeah, you'd think that a ruling that stated, "Hey, what's this with using race as a deciding factor? Let's stop that kind of unequal discrimination right now" would be applauded by all forward thinking peoples, but ahhh... we got wind of what the real sentiment is at this debate/forum thing.

Virtually each and every one of them assailed the ruling. Huh?

Now, I didn't expect anything less. It is the typical hypocritical idiocy that one sees in politics. It is obvious why, and it is supremely pukifying. The Democratic candidates essentially said to a cheering crowd of oblivious voters,

"We support anything that makes you all more of a class of whining helpless victims. This makes it so you'll like us more, because the more you are exploited and manipulated by powerful people, the more we get boffo political perks. If people discriminate against you based on your race, we'll fight that! If people discriminate for you based on your race, we'll support that.

"We just want to do what you want even if the most unprincipled ridiculous thing, because you're black and we're Democrats and that's the way it's supposed to be." (Whoops and cheers all around)

Again, the vomitory pandering going on there was, well, quite vomitory.

But ya know? That's how it is with the World. I could vomit my guts till the cows come home, but it won't change, it will never change, it has always been that way.

I only share this just by the chance maybe someone will see it for what it is, and perhaps realize that, yeah, the World does operate that way-- that is kind of crappy. They may even well ask,

But what else is there?

I have kind of an idea. It's there, at my webzine.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

So, Yeah... Are We Really Our Brother's Keeper, or What?

Everyone waited with great anticipation as the Senate today-- pause for suspense-- passed the "Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 1639, Comprehensive Immigration Reform"! (Hearty applause from the gallery)

Ahem. What this blap does is permit the debate to drag on for what will ultimately be a completely futile effort to manage the immigration issue. Doesn't matter what happens, the bill passes or not, it's pointless.

I've devoted my latest home page piece to the real meaning of it all, and if you'd like to look in on it, it is here.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Body of Death in a Nice Graph

An AP teacher in the College Board's email forum sent this out to everyone. A link to the "U.S. Budget Poster." There it is in all its glory, every discretionary expenditure of the federal government, graphically resplendent for all to see. Note that you can zoom in and peek around. It is at

What struck me is that the very first word at the top left corner, bright and large, is quite the appropriate term for what a World System tribute truly is, a human sacrifice operation in which huge shards of value are hacked off of productive individuals. Do you see it there? That term...


A bit more on human sacrifice is here.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

"One Thing I'm Absolutely Not is an Absolutist"

A recent front page article in the Los Angeles Times featured the efforts of some in the pro-life camp who want to do away with all abortions completely once-and-for-all forever and ever in all cases.

They're called the absolutists in the abortion battle.

The perception of them is quite common: "Ooo, those evil absolutists, they always think in black-and-white terms about whatever it is they believe in. They're just a bunch of intolerant extremists."

Um, ahem, do you believe that, absolutely? Is this the extreme version of what you think about absolutism or just the pointless mealy-mouthed one we shouldn't pay any attention to?

The article speaks about the minority of pro-lifers who actively denounce the beaming endorsements of such government rulings as the upholding of the ban on partial-birth abortions. They do so for a number of reasons, among them the way the incrementalist approach still condemns thousands of babies to death, and the qualifications in those rulings that sustain other protections for murderers of unborn children.

While these things are very true-- they do indeed give a false impression of victory when babies are still slaughtered left and right-- what the anti-incrementalist voice doesn't understand is that

They too try to use the World's ways to stop abortion, and they too will ultimately fail in their efforts to save babies.

In other words, because they enlist the services of World devices, most notably the 501c3 non-profit incorporation, they proclaim themselves as just as much a part of the World that engages in the human sacrifice they so decry. When they do this, they effectively emasculate themselves in accomplishing what would get them to their goal:

No abortions ever for anyone.

As it is, the World marginalizes them as absolutist extremists, and whether they are or not, they are still portrayed as mean narrow-minded busy-bodies. And even if they did happen to do more than the incrementalists, let's say they cut the abortion rate from 21 per 1,000 births to 15, while the incrementalists get it to only 17, then what of it?

The incrementalist will cheer "Hey, we saved 4 babies! Woo-hoo!" But the absolutists can't exactly cheer the 6 they saved because their whole approach was zero to begin with.

Yes, yes, it should be zero. No babies ever aborted ever. Period.

But how do you accomplish that?

Think first about the new strategies the pro-lifers today are working on. Look at them, there at the end of the article. (These are the latest offerings of the incrementalists, by the way.) One, have laws that require women to be told how a fetus dies during an abortion. Scare tactics are fine, but what do you do then with a scared, lonely woman? That's nice.

Two, get government to sponsor warnings that abortions cause psychological harm. They need to be told this? I just don't think so. This'll help neither the ones who are sociopathically numb to it anyway nor the ones who know all too well already. Pointless.

Three, mandate doctors report detailed demographic and medical information about patients to the state. Good, good. Lots of counting and keeping track of things. That's what government does very well. I think those very small children with their limbs yanked off will appreciate that indeed.

All these people committed whole-heartedly to state management of the abortion issue, absolutists and incrementalists alike, obviously haven't a tinker's arse of a clue as to what the actual thing is that would get rid of all the abortions, every one of 'em-- really truly actually.

How about this radical idea?

How about they all get introduced to the God who loves them so much that He'd rescue them right out of this body of death?

If the abortion-minded individual knew there was Someone who loved them so much that He died for them, then maybe she wouldn't get an abortion.

I know, radical idea. Radical. Or, oh, sorry-- yeah-- absolutist. Ooo. Extremist. Yow.

But see, if I were a child in the deepest comforts of my own mother's womb-- yeah, wow, here it comes...

I'd want an Absolutist Extremist on my side. Someone who'd absolutely extremely keep me from being murdered.

Yeah. Someone like Jesus Christ.

Or maybe even just someone who is His flesh and bones, just someone who does not abide in the World with all its laws and requirements and all that, but someone who very simply says they follow Him and actually believes it.

That's what'll give us all the babies, born to those who know Love. It's the only thing that will.

For a bit more on this and the idea of cobelligerency in the abortion issue, look here.