LEAVING EGYPT FOR GOOD

Yesterday the Senate followed the House in voting on an appropiations bill that fource a pull out of troops in Iraq by August of 2008. So both houses agree on this. Apparently two senators switched votes from a previous straw poll and one of them was Chuck Hagel. It seems to me an odd thing this is even an issue because doesn't the Constitution deligate the house as sole funding proprietor for appropiations for things like going to War. It would seem the intent of the writers of the constitution was that if a majority of congress does not agree to support a War, then the President can't levy that war. What do people like Larry Elder think of that? It's not a question of whether there is a two-thirds majority to override a presidento veto of a STOP to a war. That doesn't even make sense. It would be nice if Bush woke up and smelled the coffee but that's not going to happen. According to Thom Hartman many of the constitutional framers did not even favor having a standing Army in peace time. That would be interesting. But what they did want was for every citizen to be armed with his own firearm and to be a member of a state melitia. And there are those who even suggested mandentory service in one form or another to the State, kind of like Mao conscripting people to go out and sweep the streets. The notion of culpulsary service seems a little Maoist to me but according to Thom Hartman the core of liberalisum is being born into a "social contract" with society where we owe society something just for being born in this country. I'll think about it.

The news now is that that guy's mother who was killed in Afghanistan in 2004 who gave up a football carrerr now says that her son may have been deliberately shot by other soldiers to shut him up. He was vocal about the fact he was against the War in Iraq even though he was himself fighting in Afghanistan. According to his mother she was told first by the army "The terms of engagement were changed at the last minute and we are not allowed to tell you what they are". Also his personal diary was burned and his uniform was burned. Could it be that he did not just die of "friendly fire" but it was an ordered "hit" from higher up? If so this is another scandal that will never be investigated. According to a Russian newspaper the US plans to invade Iran on April 7th. or so just in time for a Moslem sabbath. (which would be a Friday not a Saturday) Of course we have moved air craft carriers into the region. Now it seems those Brittish sailors who were captured were not even in Iranian waters and Brittain is now saying "Iran stands alone in the world". But I suppose some would say as long as we have ships in the area anyhow we might as well drop a few bombs. Others say that the Russian newspaper story was planted by a conservative mole from this country for which reason God only knows.

John Mc Cain's cozyness tword the Bush adminestration is all the stranger because in his 2000 campaign for President he himself was the victin of the Bush Bragades. Karl Rove did "push polls" by which the Republican organization would call up voters and ask, "If you were to learn John Mc Cain had fathered a child of another race would you vote for him?" or "If you were to learn that John Mc Cain was certifyably mentally ill would you vote for him?" It would be against human nature to just dismiss such hostile action from another candidate. Could it be that Mc Cain is being blackmailed into not attacking the Bush Adminestration? It seems to me that some magic hand is pulling strings to cause Mc Cain to fall so dramatically in the polls now.

Gonsolez has apparently admitted that he got those eight prosecutors fired. He'll blow hot one minute and cold the next, admitting culpability one minute and denying it the next. It seems that in general the Bush Administration tries out various lies to cover up their deeds. Some "play well" and others don't, and the lies that don't play well get "updated".

There have been two major marijuana plant busts in the past week involving houses within three miles of each other here in California. They had gro-lux tubes and heating lamps even and irrigation systems on a timer. Both hauls were huge taking a lot of grass off the market.

I guess the question is what do we do about George Bush? I think if I were starting a new political party I would put out an expanded version of our US Constitution going paragraph by paragraph and line by line explaining what I think each one means and how it applies to today. Clearly the house needs to draw up a bill of impeachment or update an old one including the latest outrages as they occur, and get a case they will prosecute fully and not back down on. Of course you only need a majority to bring charges. Getting a 2/3 vote to convict in the Senate should be no problem once you get a snowball affect going. I would take longer than the Republicans took with Clinton in the Senate. A lot longer. The republicans were just playing around after a certain point just going through the motions to get the whole thing over with, as though they'd regretted bringing charges at all. It won't be that way this time around. But if they don't act soon nobody will care because Guiliani will be President. That's what apathy does for you. You and I know certain people - and the polls say 45% of Americans, will never vote for Hillary for President. But not only is it a growing certainty that Hillary and Rudy will be the two candidates, with no third parties, but that Giuliani will take it all on January 20th. 2009.

You know sometimes you have to wonder what is going through God's mind. There is a soap opera character on Passions named Sheridan. And she framed a guy named Luis for rape and then murder hoping then to be his "Rescuer". Now Luis faces the death penalty and Sheridan is telling others, "Gee, if there were another murder now that would take the heat off Luis, wouldn't it?" Of course she is planning to murder again. She's planning to murder this bar tender with exculpitory evidence that would free Luis. It sounds to me like Sheridan's thought processes are muddled. People said in Moses' day that "What we need is a man to become a shave and then rise up and save our race" kind of like Jesus became man to save man. But this thinking too is addaled. Because throughout most of their time in Egypt the Hebrews were not even in slavery but dwelt in the best of the land. But now they were inslaved and they had two choices. Either Moses could say "In a few weeks I'll become Pharoah and as such my Will will be law and I can free the slaves". The alternative is to wait another fourty years, longer than the life span of a slave, for Moses to come back from the wilderness and send all those plagues and such. If I were a slave in that forty years I wouldn't be too happy with Moses' decision.

Of course the whole History of Isrial is quite likely very different from that portrayed in the Bible in some key aspects. In the book, "The Secret Passage of the Lion" it says that Solomon was king around 1450 BC and not 960 BC as most Bibles stipulate. What this means is that Jerusalem was not yet taken over by the Jebusites yet and that the name of the City was Salem which means "Peace". Scripture says that at the time of Solomon the Sodomite was in the land. We know from Genisis that Sodom was wiped out by God, and so this passage is a clear time deliniator. It also says that Egypt was a mighty empire and invaded Palestine at the time of Solomon's son, Rehoboam and took back all the gold of the temple. Later on a couple of Kings later it states that at the time of King Johasaphat the tample was in shambles in disuse. How did it get this way so quickly? My guess is that there is a time gap between King Asa and King Johasaphat of several hundred years. If you compare events between King Asa and his "son" Johasaphat, none of the players is the same on the national scene. All of the Kings are different. Scripture also gives a possible alternate explanation for the slavery of the "Isrialites". The first time (according to Garner Ted Armstrong) Judah and Isrial are mentioned together Judah was at war with Isrial. What it looks like happened was that King Rehoboam, son of Solomon decided to oppress "Isrial" a people to the north and virtually enslaved them. It was "Judah" from the south, that "got the idea to sell "Joseph" (Isrial) of the north into Slavery in Egypt, which was then a mighty empire. Since the Bible also says "Egypt would never again be a mighty empire" this is another time-line indicator. So "Isrial" went into Slavery for several hundred years. It's dubious the story of Joseph and his favor happened at all. I would also like to mention that there were Dardanians in the land who were "Elders" in the time of King Solomon. The word gets mixed up with "Dan". It says "Dan" abode in ships and finally sailed away from the Philistine shore to Greece to become the Trojans in 1100 BC. Sometimes the Dardanians (sons of Zerah) are called "Danus". The word Danus means "Judge". And it's known that "Elders" were also known as "Judges" and in denominations such as the Presbyterians, it's these "Judges" or "Elders" that accept or reject a perspective member joining the church. Justin Martyr in his "Dialog with the Greeks" states that one thing Palestine or the Hebrews have is Antiquity and that they are more ancient than the Greeks. If the Trojans are the Dardanians or "Danus" this isn't quite true. Justin states that this is part of the appeal of Judaisum. The other appeal of Christianity is that they talked to God directly via the Holy Spirit, as an "old man" told him one day while walking on the sea shore. Of course if you're like me, an "objectivist" you believe that God if he exists is provable. But if there are "Elders" or "Judges" to which earthlings are accountable, it's the Dardanians or ancient Trojans, rather than your local pastor. I welcome any "discover of God" that's demonstrable in objective fact.

Montell Williams had a psychic on this afternoon. She got messages from dead people. What I believe she picks up on is some remaining ektoplasum or "aural energy" left over from the dead person that somehow congiels and just "hangs in the air" at a certain locations. Many if not most of the questions asked this lady psychic involve "What was the dead person thinking at the time of their death?" The only violation of this rule is that one womans mother has "re entered the world", reincarnated as a baby in Idaho. The other case was a man's mother who carried a lot of resentment and bitterness. But the psychic said "When she passed to the Other Side" all of those feelings went away". I'll tell you what vibes I'm getting from John Lennon. That he feels trapped where he is. He spends all day jamming with different musicions and keeps thoughts of Yoco Ono from his mind. This is partially because the Federation is hostile to Yoco's native planet, which is in the Pliades. This is John Lennon's fate. To psyche and brainwash himself into thinking he's happy when if he thinks about it he isn't. You know John Lennon once said "Better free your mind instead" (Revolution) I never like that line. I guess one reason why I don't like it is because it could easily become corrupted to "Better free yourself in your own mind", which degenerates into "your own imagination". A person should CLEAR his mind. That's a given. But to SEE that you aren't FREE is not a sin. Some people have objective provable chains of bondage of one kind or another, most likely economic. In Jesus' day I suppose Jesus' biggest fans were people who believed "Better free your mind instead". The word "Instead" conotes to me that the Real World isn't all that important. But like I say I am an objectivist. Sometimes printing presses need to be forged into opperative guns. (Selah)