THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PATRIOT ACT

Today apparently is the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Patriot Act into law. I don't know whether "Patriot" is an accronym as it was with the missile or not. Anyhow the law was passed in all of the post 9 - 11 hysteria. People had the vague idea during the 2008 campaign that a President Obama would work to eliminate the act. That didn't happen and it's three hundred pages of provisions are still in force. They say that congressmen passed the Patriot Act without even reading it. This has become common place with bills now. It wasn't so much then. Of course as you will remember there were a lot of post 9 - 11 terrorist acts such as the shoe bomber that kept people on edge. There were also these Anthrax attacks in the mails. Congressmen Pat Lahee and Tom Dashel both received these Anthrax mailings, and they were both liberals, who could be swayed to a more conservative bent. They say the Patriot Act was passed on the premise that there was major funding of Al Qaeda coming from this country. So it was necessary to monitor people's library book check-out habits and their facebook activity on the internet. And rights had to be curtailed to make it easier to arrest people. There were of course certain consolidations and information sharing among Federal agencies that was worthwhile. However now they scan telephone microwave tower transmissions of literally anybody looking for certain key words like "bomb" and "revolution". When they find these they will hone in on those people. To me it's a terribly inefficient means of law enforcement to regard every single American as a suspect. Of course then they probe the diapers of old people and feel the crotches of children, "just to be on the safe side". People forget that most police work is based on suspicious activity or things "not being as they should". It isn't based on some "fishing expidetion" and I bet any law enforcement official would tell you this. Forty years ago Steppinwolf was concerned about the US becoming a Police State in the song "Monster". I don't need to tell you how much worse things have gotten since then. If there is one thing I'll agree with the conservatives about just a little bit is the idea that a central government cannot micro manage our lives with all inclusive laws out of Washington. This would apply in areas of small business regulation, or drug laws, or laws regarding marriage or abortion. Certain decisions are best left to smaller and closer government bodies, such as local School Districts. I think this "No Child Left Behind" thing has worked out to be a total disaster. Neither do I think this is the time for an all inclusive Medical Insurance plan - which also has a bunch of new regulations. There is an addage I think liberals need to learn that goes "When everything is a sin, nothing is a sin". Barry Goldwater once said "You can't legislate morality". Maybe you can regulate morality but you can't regulate Perfection, and this at times to me seems to be one thing the Federal government is bent on doing. (Selah)

I'd like to do a What If political scenario. Suppose in the 2008 campaign the Democratic candidate campaigned on a platform of single payer health care and ending all foreign wars immediately, and of bringing legal charges against people in the Bush Administration for various misdeeds. This would include prosecutions of Karl Rove and Scudder Libby. Suppose also the Democrat criticized George Bush dishing out all that TARP money to the banks. Also promisede was the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison. Let's say they abolished the 22nd amendment and Bush himself were running for a third term. And Bush won. So the prisoners stayed at Guantanamo Bay and it wasn't closed down as the democrat wanted. And it was announced there would be no prosecutions. And we ended up staying Iraq for another three years and besides this we "doubled down" in Afghanistan. The whole wire tapping stuff would go on as before despite Democrats saying it was illegal. And we expanded our drone activity with unmanned missiles killing civilians. And we started capturing Islamic terrorists all over the place and in a daring raid Bin Laden was killed. And there was an Arab Spring which people attributed to Bush bringing democracy to the mideast, and Qadafy was killed. But the Democrats didn't like the Health Care plan Bush proposed because it mandated people buy Medical Insurance. Nobody likes to be called a "thief" for walking around breathing air without Insurance. And the Democrats said "This is just like medicare part D which wasn't paid for. It's a total sell out to the drug and insurance companies and a big windfall for them. And to combat the recession Bush instituted a stimulus plan but democrats said it was OK but it wasn't enough to really do the job. But as election time approached for 2012 the democrats felt really exposed. The economy was the only "fig leaf" they had left to run on. They couldn't use the "three AM phone call" or any of that birther stuff. Now it was down to a modest jobs bill Bush wanted to put police and firemen and teachers back to work. But the Democrats said "We aren't going to pass it because it's a political ploy just before the election to make the economy look better". And Bush would campaign on things like "Now you won't get kicked off your insurance policy and also I extrended the Bush tax cuts of 2001 even though the democrats didn't want them extended, and it's helped the economy. And I have proposed cutting other taxes that would stimulate the economy. But the Democrats said "We'll have none of it. It's all a political ploy". And the democrats in their debates would have cat fights clawing at one another and people said "It's a media conspiracy to show this on TV because it just makes us look really petty". After all of this what would you say were the "Denocrat's" chances of winning the 2012 election verses George Bush being elected for a fourth term? This puts things in perspective.

We haven't done one of our "Other Side" dissertations in a while. Remember last Sunday when I said that I felt I had "supernatural help" is being extracated from a commitment I had sort of made that I wanted to get out of. It's real interesting the Beatle song that was playing on the radio when I was thus extracated. I figured it had to be song sign, but from who? The name Brian Epstein popped into my head. Brian Epstein like Stewart Sutcliffe and myself, and Elvis and Johnny Cash and a lot of others has the "Sirius O" gene, which means they are vulnerable to certain hexes from Alcyonne they otherwise would not be affected by. You will note I did not include the Beatles in any of my group cosmic identifications. One Beatle detractor mentioned that "The Beatles had about the worst cosmic sponsorship of any rock group". They kind of started out with Sirius O roots because of at least John and Stu having the Sirius O gene. Some Romulans have this gene, too. But then sponsorship of the Beatles was taken over by the Neir Reigellians (of which Dion Warwick is perhaps the most famous person) But then sometime late in 1963 the Vancouver Romulans obtained control over the Beatles although there was kind of an ongoing "cat fight" between the Romulans and the Neir Reigelians and they hate each other to this day. There is also hostility between the Vancouver and the Torranto Romulans that's kind of on-going. The Torranto Romulans felt they were leap-frogged over. But then in October of 1964 the Romulans sold Beatles to the Federation, hence the album title "Beatles For Sale". While under Romulan control a lot of Romulan songs were used including "I Wanna Be Your Man" "All My Loving" "Don't Bother Me" "I Want to Hold Your Hand" "Can't Buy Me Love" "Happy Just to Dance With You" "Things We Said Today" "Any Time At All" "I'll Be Back" and notibly also "No Reply". This last song was used after the group was sold because it was already in the works. In addition to these three Stewart Sutcliffe compositions were used, which interestingly are all three on the same Capital American release, however not in England. As you will note their first British album has none of these Romulan songs. I've blathered on about this long enough. I was going to do more cosmic geography and earth territorial stuff, but that will keep for another day. It's dinner time soon, and the final paragraph is about a whole other topic. I'll see you then. But before then I wanted to include a bit more in this paragraph. The word "Dance" that is used is not "Ballar", which means to "put on a show" or "make a production out of it" such as in ballet, but rather another word I'm not sure of that means dance steps, or the specific mechanics of doing a particular dance. I wanted to mention Stewart. As you know he "disappeared" for nine years from 1963 to 1971 approximately. Some people have "disappeared" and their time is unaccounted for. Mal Evans is now saying that there are some "lives" you don't remember, particularly if you happened to be incarnated as an animal at the time. It has often been suggested that Stu was a "walk in" in London, and that he became friends with Jimmy Page and Keith Relf of the Yardbirds. I'm not sure how Stu and Keith got to know each other but they became good friends somewhere along the way. If Stu was a "walk in" he could have later "walked out" and remembered nothing. People have asked if you can "change your karma by astro projecting into another Life". No, you can't change your karma but you do change your horoscope or natal chart influences. While one is "another higher dimension" we have talked about, the other, the natal chart is as naturalistic as, say, whether you were born into a hot or cold climate where you live, or your culture or the language you speak or the religion you were born into. These are all powerful determinist factors, not to mention your own body biology and what knowledge the brain of your "hose" has. I hope this has clarified matters.

I would now like to discuss what I have coined as "The Judy principle". She professes to be so big on "consequences of actions" she should be flattered. I am NOT one of those people who believes that "Deficets Don't Matter". Last Saturday going on Sunday night I put out an APB for some kind of supernatural guidance. Stewart answered that call. He told me two things. The first was that I may be in big trouble because of the adverse Astrological aspects of October 23rd for me. The second thing he told me was a warning against "tearing down my hedges". This is a phrase used by Christians and we all know what he was referring to. He was more specific of course, but I'm going to have to pull a "Raphael" at this point, because if I were to tell you what he said, I'd be blowing the whole thing. (selah) By the way, emotional "deficets" matter, too. I got to thinking of this whole "papering over" image. If there is a big hole in the middle of a room that drops off to a lower floor and you put lenolium over it - you're not fooling anybody. Sure you could take a convincing photograph. You could take a photograph of a long haired guy in a white robe with nail marks in his hands standing in front of an open tomb with a basket of Easter goodies so you know it's Easter. It doesn't prove anything. To trust in Christianity on any level is at some point to commit an act of irresponsability. I wouldn't do it. I guess if you're playing some kind of a mutual game that relationships with family or own past events is healed, you can all just sidestep the hole in the floor and not walk on the lenolium there because you know it's supported by nothing. But I pity the poor shnook who hasn't been informed. This whole "actions have consequences" carries over in to the flawed nature of Einstein's special relativity arguments. Things "don't just go on forever" the way Einstein postulates. This is contrary to nature and violates every principle of physics we know. I don't care who you talk to - Maxwell, Feriday, Watt, Newton, Galilleo, Euclid, or Pythagarus- - they will all tell you. As you know about two years ago this time of year in 2009 I worked out all the math and "optics" of Einstein's special theory of relativity. I gave you the simple example of a space ship crashing. Even a ten year old who plays video games can understand this one. The idea that the speed of light is unreachable by any object - - is flawed. As we said Black Holes could not exist. And Joe Drisco was just telling me last Saturday they discovered some new particle or substance that travels faster than light. One is reduced to the example of being stoned on LSD to illustrate what is wrong with Einstein's theory. If people here in this building were given LSD in their lemonade and soon after this they all began making fantastic statements and more fantastic accusations about each other one might assume they suddenly all became psychic or something or dramatically increased their intelligence to superhuman levels, OR one could find a far simpler solution such as their lemonade being spiked that explained all their "strange perceptions". I came up with the idea a few months ago of a possible "everything is fine" illusion. Since in my view you could SEE the distortions in perception at vastly accelerated speeds- - in my view this only PROVES that it's light ITSELF that is the source of the perpetual distortion, and not all matter becoming distorted. In order for Einstein's version to "work" at all you would have to flip-flop all the mathematical calculations and say "OK Fine. There could be possibly a working scenario where matter and the universe were in some kind of [drug distorted] chaos but that we see it as normal regardless of our light speed. But, just in case you forgot, how to you PROVE you are actually TRAVELING a given percentage of light speed? In Einstein's view- you can't. So he's making a claim about something he admits that he can't measure. The Judy principle states that there ARE absolutes and certain things ARE real and one day you will FACE them whether you want to or not. Some believe the political pendulum can continually keep swinging to the right. An Einsteinian would say "This process could go on forever". I don't think so. This violates certain principles we know about gravity. Some things sometimes SEEM like they "go on forever" but in the end, they don't. Of course as you know one of my sayings is "Religious people are awed by Insinity; to physicists it's just another number". I also said that Infinity itself is an artifact of God, as is time. Einstein appeals to some force that at its roots- - is a force far more powerful than Infinity. We physicists know of no such a force. We have set rules in trigonometry and optics as to what specifically happens when one goes beyond infinity, and what Einstein depicts is not it. I think science is close to disproving special relativity once and for all. Maybe it will be accomplished about the same time as the Tea Party is utterly and thoroughly discredited.