Are We There Yet?

Are We There Yet?
This is the sign that is over the front door of Aileen's and my house, our home, going OUT. Meaning that when someone leaves our house they are going into the ACTUAL Mental Ward.

I've always felt that way. When it is considered how much ugliness and killing and hatred there is in the world today, it actually makes perfect sense that this sign is over the door going out of the house.

Because that's where the real mental ward is.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Twists and Turns

Today is the day I go shopping and pay the bills for the month.  So naturally I probably will be doing a lot of writing today.  But the one thought that comes back to me is how all through history we have basically used violence and charity to offset each other as a way of making money.  The industrialized military complex and the equally powerful philanthropic or caregiving or charity complex are basically working with each other either knowingly or without really being aware that they are.  And as a result, everyone makes money.


The industrialized military complex will kill a certain amount of people or starve to death a certain amount of people or abuse a certain amount of people always wins the final result being that they die.  That they are taken out of the human condition or they are made to suffer so terribly that them the other side of the equation which is going in and I'm saving those lines helping them in some way or another becomes just as active as the industrialized military complex.  And as a result, like I said before, everyone makes money.

Just like no one wants to believe that the Kondratieff wave actually has any validity.  And yet at the same time.  Everything that the Kondratieff wave has predicted has been correct.  Just like it is correct right now and how it describes what is going on and what is taking place.

So naturally, given the foregoing, it makes perfect sense why the Republican Party and the tea party are acting the way they are because they favor killing they are on the killing part of the equation.  Because they support the industrialized military complex, whereby all the businesses that are involved in the industrialized military complex all make money including all the millionaires.  And all of the wealthy and so.  So when given the chance to identify with either the sustaining of life.  Part of the equation or to be on the side of the industrialized military complex, which is responsible most of the killing or the killing in the part of the equation.  The Republican Party and tea party are choosing to stand on the side of killing rather than on sustaining life.  Because they are in support of the militarized industrial complex or the industrialized military complex, which is on the killing side of the argument.  Because they are refusing under any circumstances to step away from their support for the wealthy protection for the wealthy and thereby their projection and allegiance to this tax agreement above and beyond their duty to the American people.

So while they say they are good Christians that they believe in Jesus and they believe in the American people.  That's really nothing more than a bunch of lies.  Because by their own actions.  They are paying more attention to and pledging more support for a private economic agreement than they are willing to do or to pledge allegiance to its port for the Constitution of the United States, which is the legal requirement by law placed upon them.  So they are refusing to do what is required of them by law because they are more interested in protecting during the rights of the industrialized military complex.  Which is responsible for killing and protecting the wealthy and protecting the wealthy monetary interests and agreed to a private tax agreement.  Then they would rather be on the sustaining side of life supporting life and at the same time on the side of the Constitution.

That's basically how it boils down or what it comes down to.  Sunna matter what the Republican Party or the tea party might say.  The fact of the matter still remains that they are taking the side of the wealthy and of the industrialized military complex responsible for killing and not for sustaining life.  And that they are doing this on the basis of a private tax agreement that circumvents the Constitution and is causing the members of Congress to have to stand down from their duty to protect and defend the Constitution of these United States and the rights of the American people.  Because they are instead supporting this private tax agreement which in fact supports the industrialized military complex throughout the world.  And in the United States.  Which is in fact on the killing side of the argument.  Because the sustaining side of the argument is the side of the argument that contains charities health services aid to the poor securing life protecting life.

But that's not what the Republican Party is doing.  They are intact standing on the side of the argument it takes life.  Because of their association and their patronage and their support for the wealthy.  Which is okay.  Because there are people that are going to be on that side of the argument no matter how long humanity exists.  They're going to be people in the side of the argument were more interested in killing them.  They are in saving or sustaining life.

But the point is that these people who are claiming to sustain life are actually by their actions supporting the industrialized military complex in one way or another consciously or unconsciously usually.  Consciously.  That they are actually supporting the side of the argument through associations and support and allegiance and so forth to the extent, whereby while they are claiming to be on the life-sustaining side of the argument they are in reality on the killing side of the argument even though they are presenting a false image.

And so consequently you have this huge information war going on in the world.  Were you have the industrialized military complex in the wealthy trying to convince those who are in fact on the side of the argument of sustaining life.  That the side of the argument regarding sustaining life is basically no longer valid and should not even really be considered relevant.  Because that's exactly how the Republican Party and the tea party are treating the middle class and the poor in this country regardless of what aspect of American life.  They come from.  And they are doing that on the basis that they are pledging more allegiance to and granting to be more important to them than the Constitution of the United States and the responsibility to the American people.  And furthermore their allegiance to and support for the industrialized military complex throughout this world which of course includes many if not most of the wealthy.  So consequently, while the Republican Party and tea party are claiming through propaganda that they are actually on the side of life that is concerned with sustaining life.  They are in reality by their own actions and public statements on the side of the industrialized military complex.  That is responsible for killing life.  And that they are in fact taking the side of the tax agreement above and beyond their duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to represent the American people, which is also on the sustaining side of life.

So, the Republican Party does not under any circumstances want to be on the sustaining side of life.  They want to be on the killing side of life.  Because that's what they are doing very identify with and pledging support for the industrialized military complex which includes all of the wealthy.  That's where their support is.  And that's where it is going to remain because the matter how much they want to claim they are pro-life in reality they are on the side of life supports the killing and that's exactly what they are doing.  By their ideological and their cultural and their political associations in the choices they are making.

So given the foregoing.  It becomes quite clear that this condition is probably not going to change for the next several generations.  If humanity has that long before being forced to change by environmental changes that are taking place.  Which means that this semi-balance between the industrialized military complex.  And the sustaining life portions of the argument inhumanity will become so aggressive and so polarized that entire new set of potential ramifications from that aggressiveness then come to the surface.  Many of the scenarios not presenting a very livable type of human culture.

However at the same time, with the planet going through changes as it of course gets older.  In compilation with the approximate 40% of any potential climate change or global warming process that may in fact taking place on the part of us humans.  The potentiality of humanity going through some type of semi-cataclysmic environmental change.  Whereby humanity becomes so diminished that completely redefines itself based on the almost destruction of the entire species.  At which point conjecturing perhaps one third of humanity survives after some rather cataclysmic environmental change, however subtle or dramatic.

And at that point humanity having been reduced to that level again.  An entirely new set of choices and potentialities comes to the surface.  Because under that particular potentiality, whereby environmental conditions become so severe that a large segment of the population simply ceases to exist while potentially remote.  At the same time circumstances are presenting themselves whereby that scenario has a higher degree potentiality on the basis that these cataclysmic changes may not be so dramatic as to happen at one moment.  But in fact made the progressively simply getting worse and taking out more and more of the population.

So consequently, under that scenario.  Humanity at that point will no longer have an industrialized military complex.  Nor will they have the complex for sustaining life.  Because those arguments will literally become so fragmented as a result of the reduction in the size of the general population the those concepts will still exist but complex for their existence will not.  However, that's not an absolute.  Because it is possible that those complexes very well may in fact continue to exist, however, smaller decrease the population becomes from whatever slight war.  However, more environmental changes taking place whereby the reduction would in fact happen.

In any event.  Understanding this.  It becomes very clear to me that with the current level of polarization going on between the two different types of complexes within the human condition.  The complex for killing and the complex for sustaining life.  That polarization between these two aspects or parts of the equation is never really going to decrease probably until both sides.  No longer are able to become as wealthy.  Or make as much money from the entire process that is going on as they currently are.  And that's potentially only one of the reasons why those two complexes are not good become less polarized because there's too much money to be made keeping them polarized.

So it's in the people who are controlling both sides of the equation.  It's in their best interest to keep the equation as polarized as possible with as much conflict going on is possible because then both sides of the argument make as much money as possible.  It's really kind of like a magic show with sleight-of-hand.  Because the world is basically saying all sorts of different conceptual images of what is taking place when in reality is that what is happening going on behind the scenes is really quite simple.

Which means most of what we are seeing taking place in some being more hyperbole.  Then reality.  Because the reality is that it boils down to the industrialized military complex.  On one side responsible for killing live and then the sustaining life complex on the other side which is involved with the responsible for maintaining life saving life sustaining life.

And what's remarkable is a lot of the same wealthy who were involved with and actually part of the controllers of the industrialized military complex are at the same time involved with the the sustaining life portion of the equation or the sustaining life complex.  Which means they are basically making money off of both sides of the argument at the same time by the companies they are involved with and so forth whereby it is in their best interest to keep the conflict as conflicted as possible and as polarized as possible.  Meaning, the business will be good on both sides of the equation and they will make more money.

Which means most of what we are seeing in the news and what we are talking about in the news politically, religiously and in every other way is, for the most part, totally and completely irrelevant of what is actually taking place.  All because of the kind of information sleight-of-hand.  Whereby the controllers of both of these sides of the equation or both of these complexes are doing everything they can to present information to us as the general population so that we will focus on what we are looking at and being presented with rather than to see what is actually taking place.

And of course, again, given the above.  The Kondratieff wave actually has a great deal more validity and credibility with regard to what is taking place in certain terms of the entire process.

So, the real key to understanding this dynamic is to realize that the only way to destabilize the polarity meaning to decrease the amount of polarity between the two sides of the argument for the two complexes.  These two create an environment or in fact, whereby an environmental change or condition takes place.  Where, as a result, the controllers of the two different arguments will not be able to make as much money.  Because it all comes down to money.

And by environmental change I'm talking anything from an anthropological change to a sociological change or political or economic or religious.  Because those are all environmental aspects of the total process as outlined and projected and described in the Kondratieff wave.

Therefore, the way to destabilize or to decrease the level of polarity is by taking away from the process the ability for the controllers of the two arguments or complexes, meaning all of the participating controllers.  Will not be able to make as much money or will not be able to make money at all.  But that involves a rather significant change in the understanding of the people who actually make of humanity.

And given the fact that both sides for all participants in both sides of the equation are primarily interested in making money.  It is of course in their best interest to continue to perpetrate false images to the general population.  So the general population does not focus on what's going on behind the scenes so that they can continue to make money.  So any attempt to destabilize the polarization which feeds the conflict between the two arguments and helps them make money would of course be met with their resistance and probably even more falsified imagery going to the general population.

So not only does resolving the level of polarity become one based upon anthropological and sociological changes within the general population, but it also boils down to removing from the entire process.  The ability to make money or make more money which then becomes, literally as has been sociologically and then economically and in a number of other ways blame.  As a war between the classes, so to speak.

But the key to understanding the process is my understanding the two sides of the argument and how they both actually see each other and depend on each other in order to make money.  And of course, as I said above.  Most, if not many of the controllers were participants in the industrialized military complex are also controllers for participants in the life-sustaining complex as well.  Because they are making money from both sides of the argument at the same time.  They are doing sir amounts of life in order to then make money sustaining certain amount of life.  It's really that simple.

So again.  Given the foregoing.  It's not likely without some kind of dramatic change in one way or another to the human condition and to the entire process that in fact any kind of change is ever going to really going to be realized or ever begun.  And that in itself lends more credibility to the Kondratieff wave.  Which again is okay.  Because it is what it is.

Just like there is an industrialized military complex and the life-sustaining complex.  There is also a religious complex and an economic complex.  These of course are subsets of the two major complexes one being the industrialized military complex.  And the other being the life-sustaining complex.  But these subsets are just as powerful and justice predicated on making money as their larger or supersets are.  Because they are part of those subsets.  And the basis of those subsets or the basis of the sets rather meaning the industrialized complex for the life-sustaining complex.  The basis of those of sets are actually to make money.  Which means anything that is a subset of either of those two complexes is predicated on the same thing.  Making money.

Which means all of the entire religious complex and the economic complex and the political complex is all predicated on making money.  Because it is part or they are part of the larger sense of the industrialized military complex and the life-sustaining conflicts.  Both of which are in fact predicated upon making money.

So given that.  It is impossible, for example, could ever expect people who actually believe that there is some clergy on TV when they are asking for money that they are doing something religious.  Turning people away from that extremely fictitious and wrong type of thinking is very difficult because the people don't understand that those clergy on TV are part of the religious complex which is part of the life-sustaining complex which is based upon making money.  Because of its relationship to the industrialized military complex.  So we're talking about a sociological mechanism that is become cultural and potentially anthropological but it has, as a result of the creation of the industrialized military complex.  And the life-sustaining complex become absorbed into the side of the argument of being the life-sustaining complex.  But because it is part of that argument.  Not only is the industrialized military complex.  And the life-sustaining complex.  Based upon money.  But they are both based upon stealing.  Because by virtue of the fact that the life-sustaining argument is involved in any kind of monetary relationship with the industrialized military complex.  It is by those actions or that action in fact enabling the killing to take place.  So that it can make more money from trying to sustain life.  So it's actually in the process of feeding each other.

And that's exactly what goes on with clergy on TV.  They are part of the process of making money.  They claim to be on the side of the complex.  That is involved in sustaining life.  But by virtue of the fact that the sustaining life complex is based on making money and also feeding into the industrialized military complex which is dedicated to killing live.  Then, religion becomes a mechanism of the life-sustaining complex.  Which is actually enabling killing.  Which means religions are actually enabling killing as a result of their association with the life-sustaining complex between the two arguments.

Which that explains why socially and culturally.  And so many wars.  And so much misuse of religion.  Meaning all of these TV clergy who are asking for money.  And by associating money in any way with the concept of religion.  Because by doing so we are enabling religion or the religious complex.  To enable even more greatly than it is already doing the life-sustaining complex which is part of the industrialized military complex versus the life-sustaining complex polarity and conflict.  But as a result of the conflict.  Both sides are actually feeding each other.  So they are enabling each other's condition in addition to making money.

So conjecturing, it is possible that personalities in the religious community and for the religious complex who have over the years taken the point of view of not wanting to include money for associate money with religion have always been looked at negatively in one way or another.  Just like anyone who spoke out against the Association of religion to this kind of sleight-of-hand activity going on behind the scenes between the life-sustaining complex versus the industrialized military complex.  What anyone has ever spoken out in any way against that or in any way that my cause any negative impact on that process.  They have basically been pretty much disregarded.  And the personalities are legion.  Such as Joan of arc.  Sir Thomas more.  Jesus.  Mohammed.  Buddha.  Balzac.  Camus.  Da Vinci.  And the list goes on.

Therefore consequently.  As I said.  It becomes absolutely ridiculous to consider that anything less than something extremely dramatic to the entire process is ever going to cause any kind of expanded awareness as to the nature of the real process taking place which then would present subsequent potential choices.  Which again, actually does give more credibility to the Kondratieff wave.

So nothing is really going to change.  The Republican Party will continue lying about how they are pro-life.  When in reality they are taking the position of supporting industrialized military complex.  And that side of the equation by virtue of the fact that they are protecting the wealthy and maintaining more allegiance to and more support for a private economic agreement rather than the Constitution.  Which means rather than to be on the side of the sustaining life complex.  The Republican Party and tea party would rather be on the side of the industrialized military complex which is responsible for killing.

And that is by their own actions.  So when they say that they are good Christians of course that is an issue that then brings up a lot of questions.  Because how can they be good Christians when they are in fact supporting killing because they are in fact doing that by their support of the in the industrialized military complex.  And the wealthy who control that complex.  Meaning all of the participating controllers of that complex.

And what is unfortunate is the most the people of this world don't see what is really going on.  They see all of these false images that both sides of the complexes were both arguments are in fact presenting in order to disguise what is really going on behind the scenes which is this exchange of huge amounts of money from one complex to another and how they're both making huge amounts of money tremendous amounts of money from the process of killing life in sustaining life.  Because many of the members on both sides of the argument or both complexes or the participating controllers are the same on both sides of the garden because they belonged to go days were both they own will.  Those types of companies and so forth and so forth.  So they are making money from both sides of the equation.  At the same time.

And that's what the tea party and the Republican Party do not want anyone to know about.  Because that is really their allegiance.  They claim to be pro-life.  When in reality they are by their actions and their participation in their allegiance supporting the industrialized military complex and all of the participating controllers of that side of the argument which include the wealthiest people in the United States.  Sunna matter what anyone might say or whatever might happen Republican Party the tea party will never turn away from that private tax agreement which is nothing to do with law and actually causes the members who are signing that tax agreement to violate constitutional law.  But that's okay.  That's what they are going to do the matter what.  And by that action.  In addition to their support for the wealthiest people in this nation.  They are in fact supporting the participating controllers of industrialized military complex.  In doing so to such an extent that they cannot the same time they are sustaining the pro-life or the life-sustaining side of the argument.  Because if they were they would then have to admit that they sustained both sides of the argument the same time in making money from both sides of the argument.  Just as the participating controllers of those sides of the argument of those complexes are already doing and have been doing for generations.

That's the heart of the matter.  It's sleight-of-hand.  It is propaganda.  Lie.  It's misdirection.  Just like a magician on a stage.  That's what's really going on.  And that's why Angela something extremely dramatic takes place.  Nothing is really going to change.

And given the above stated scenarios or potentialities of outcomes with regard to humanity in general.  And then becomes almost a moot point to consider attempting to resolve the polarity.  Because whether either side of the argument likes it or not the polarity will become result.  And that will take place either as a dramatic environmental meaning ecological change or it will take place as a result of an equally environmental non-ecology oriented change.  Meaning it seems to anyone side of the argument or any one of the two complexes or any of the subsets of those complexes, meaning those sub complexes.

And that's what it's going to probably take and that's probably what will happen.  Meaning in reality.  Things will probably get, to a certain degree, worse.  Before they get better.  And that this is not really the case.  Because it has to be it's the case.  Because people are choosing to allow it to be.

I mean, we only have thousands of years of history in one form or another.  And with the science.  We have used.  We have millions of years of history.  Yet we keep repeating the same dynamic from one culture to a next all through history.  Which means that the change or the resolution between the two sides of the argument has never really changed but only expanded as time went on.  Which means we didn't learn anything.  We're doing the same thing now that we did when we first got here.

And that basically says we are probably not going to see any kind of resolution to this entire conflict or the polarity until something dramatic happens.  Because that is exactly what has had to happen all through history.  Only now we are facing rather significant changes ecologically that could provide even more potential choices as a result of everything taking place.  Which again supports, and/or substantiates, the Kondratieff wave.

So would then becomes completely counterproductive to really try and speak against any of the false images or false arguments that are being disseminated to the general population.  Because doing so doesn't really talk about what is actually going on behind the scenes.  And therefore becomes much less pertinent, and/or effective, and/or relevant.

And like I said.  What say a is that we allow this process not only to go on as long as it has.  But it has by virtue of its.  Existence altered a lot of the potential choices and directions that humanity might have gone in had not humanity basically in so many different ways, sold out to the industrialized military complex versus the life-sustaining complex and the ongoing process as humanity actually did.  Meaning humanity basically sold out.

Humanity said it was easier to go along with the process rather than to fight the process.  And so then the participating controllers of the two complexes have been and are continuing as they always have all through history to present false images to the general public to disguise what is going on behind the scenes.  What is really taking place.  And that gives the general public things to identify with as far as the polarization that is going on between the two arguments without ever releasing what is actually going on.  In other words, it gives us a lot of things to argue about which take our attention off of what is really taking place behind the scenes.

And as I said.  It's only been to be something rather dramatic is going to alter this entire exchange and these different processes taking place at the same time.  It's going to have to be something rather dramatic.  Because the complexities within each complex itself and each sub complexes are rather by humans.  Meaning their are a lot of complexities within each complex than some complex.  Economic philosophic anthropological, sociological, political, theological.  And all those complexities are involved in each of these complexes on both sides of the argument.

That's why a lot of times I say, it is your future.  Not mine.  Because it is.  And the reality is that if humanity or any part of humanity attempts to introduce any kind of cataclysmic change to the process that tends to be, or seems to be, interpreted, possibly, as an artificial attempt to dramatically alter the process.  As compared to something that might happen naturally I did to the process itself or any of the aspects that the process depends on.  Because of it happens that way that it really is not quite so artificial but actually is, as a result of other factors that may be part of either aspects of the two sides of the equation or the two complexes.

And that would then explain, in one way, one of the many dynamics, behind, right-wing extremism.  Which in the United States basically goes hand-in-hand with the Republican Party and the tea party.  Which I've explained in the foregoing paragraphs regarding their position as to the two major processes that exist in two complexes and the ongoing conflict between the two and so forth.

And of course, given above.  It then becomes clear that with the Kondratieff wave having more credibility as a result of the foregoing.  That the potentiality for complete market collapse then has a potential or the potentiality of an increased probability.  Meaning the entire global market could in fact crash.  As a result of the two sides of the equation the industrialized military complex.  And the life-sustaining complex becoming so aggressive with the polarity becoming so great that so much cash is going into those two complexes to a point where the entire system becomes unstable.  At which point in the Kondratieff wave, it talks about certain things that happened with regard to losses in the global market.

But I think it's important to understand the Kondratieff wave was looking at this philosophically so losses in fact could potentially indicate the direction of the term he's using for the word loss.  Because I believe what he's talking about is a dramatic loss in the confidence of the global market and the currencies of the global market to such an extent and so suddenly the the loss in confidence would then precipitate financial loss as well.  Meaning, the anthropological or sociological or cultural or philosophical loss would take place first and magnify.  Which would then cause the financial losses to also magnify.

And as I have always explained in my financial analyses and my Journal articles regarding financial analysis and the current political environment.  The problems facing the global economic market are attitudinal or psychological more than they are economic or financial.  And that the potentiality does exist, whereby the global market could fail as a result of the behavioral choices and the behavior of the wealthy and how they relate to the market.  And those Journal entries were talking about a particular singular process in the economics of complex of the industrialized military complex as it relates to the lifesaving.  Complex.

And that's because that entire argument, as presented in the news is one of those semi-false reports for those false stories to take our attention off of what is really going on behind the scenes which is this entire dynamic of the industrialized military complex in his relationship to the lifesaving.  Complex.

In other words, if the market fails the wealthy are going to have much money to spend.  Because their money will really be worth anything.  So it is in their best interest to not let the market fail.  Even if they have to spend a little money to do so.  Because that's the bottom line.  The entire process.  And all of a sudden processes.  Meaning both complexes and all of a sudden complex below them are all based on the same thing.  Money making money.

And it got that way by our own choices.  The choices we made all through history.  And that basically means nothing is going to change unless something rather dramatic takes place to cause things to change.

So, like I said.

Is your future….  Not mine….

Thank you very much for listening.

See Also:
The mind is like a book. Opened and much is learned. Closed and nothing is learned. (N. Maschke – 1994)

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

      Child Poverty Statistics:
    • 25,000 children die each day from poverty
    • 1041 children die every hour due to poverty
    • 17 children die every minute from poverty
    • 750,000 children die every month from poverty
    • 9,000,000 children die every year from poverty
    Child mortality Statistics:
    • 9.2 million children die every year
    • 780,000 children die every month
    • 26,000 children die every day
    • 18 children die every minute
    An estimated 9.2 million children under the age of five will die this year – nearly 26,000 per day or 18 every minute. This is greater than the annual number of deaths from 1. AIDS (2 million), malaria (900,000), and tuberculosis (1.5 million) combined. 2. Neonatal disorders, pneumonia and diarrhea are the major causes of under-five mortality.
    Globally, 80 percent of all child deaths are due to only a handful of causes: neonatal causes, pneumonia, diarrhea, and malaria. 3. Pneumonia or sepsis, pre-term delivery, and asphyxia at birth are the leading causes of neonatal deaths. Malnutrition is responsible for over a third of child deaths.
    From: http://www.globalhealth.org/child_health/child_mortality/
    And, according to recent United States statistics, there are approximately 43,000 suicides that take place, in the United States every single year. That would be one suicide taking place, by children as young as 12, or possibly younger, up to our oldest citizens. Approximately every 15 minutes.
    Not one single penny that the pro-life movement spends on their so-called pro-life movement goes toward saving any of these “living” children’s lives. Not one single cent. Which means that not one single cent of the so-called pro-life movement is being used to save any of the amazing children and absolutely fantastic women, and men, who are being killed, or suffering horribly, every single minute. so naturally, it becomes impossible to conclude that the pro-life movement is pro-life at all, if they will not even save the lives of living children and men and women. But will always only be concerned with, and define life as the “fetus” only. And THAT’S NOT how their own God Jesus Christ defines life, in their own Bible.
    Which means that the pro-life movement is not pro-life at all. Because their money is “not” going to save any living life on this planet. Their money is only going toward forcing women to bear children against their will. And that’s not how their own God, Jesus Christ defines pro-life.
If The Almighty will not allow the smallest sparrow to fall from the sky, why, should we, the creations of that same Almighty, do any less?

  • Child Abuse Prevention

  • ******************************************
    My Statement On Religion
    For the record, I do not now, nor have I ever hated any human being on earth. I do not hate, regarding my spirituality, and spiritual beliefs, anything that God did make. Meaning that I do not hate the “humanity” that exists within any human being. However, God did not make the personal choices that humans make, regarding how they behave, and/or present themselves, to the world. So if a human being chooses, of their own free will to demonstrate their behavior with racism, bigotry, prejudice, and hatred for other humans, on the basis of their own free will choice as to how they define their spirituality within themselves, that is their own choice. So I do not hate any human being for being that which God did make. I hate only the choices and the manner in which humans have decided to demonstrate their behavior to one another. I do not hate religion. However, I will never give my support to “any” religion, that has ever caused harm to, or killed, a single human being, in any way, as a result of the religion demonstrating, or manifesting it’s presence in the world. If any religion has ever harmed or killed a single human being, I respect the right of all humans to believe what they want in life. I, personally, will under no circumstances give my support for any religion, or theological belief, that has ever harmed or killed even a single human being. This is what I have dedicated my life to as a spiritualist and a pacifist here on earth. So any attempt by anyone to portray me as hating anyone is a lie. Because that is not so. The foregoing clearly shows that I have no hatred for humankind or for any religion.
    ******************************************
    ******************************************
    My Pro-Life Statement
    For the record, I am pro-life . I do not support violence against, or the killing of any human being under any circumstances! And the only way that I ever deviate from that stand is that I do not believe that God has ever given any human the right to dictate to any woman how she is to arbitrate her life with the Almighty, and/or God . Therefore, I believe that all women deserve the right to choose for themselves the fate of their own bodies, pursuant to their relationship with the Almighty, and/or God . My position regarding this statement is more fully explained in my article entitled: Second Gear.

    ***********************************************
    The mind is like a book. Opened and much is learned. Closed and nothing is learned. (N. Maschke – 1994)
    Lawsuits and Civil Rights Violations In Ohio:
    General Further Reading: