Subject:  Why many product changes are for the worse:

It’s probably mainly because when innovative employees are thinking, it looks like they’re not working.

9-9-08

We need move toward a realization that when technological advancements replace our jobs, we all shouldn’t “have to” work the same amount of hours.  Otherwise, forcing all to work 40 hours just to remain making ends-meet, dishonesty and corruptions of products and services become the norm, as it is today at its highest level ever.  Then we’ll have “time” to reckon out more things better.  And, when media people and government leaders have to make quick decisions (to impress) and are scorned when they later realize something better (via, e.g., Hannity), it’s no wonder why we have the national and international problems we have.

Something’s wrong when both big and small companies have to lie to gain profits.  In a perfect working society, companies should just make more money because they’re too busy making more and better products / services.  The rest of the time they should be pondering on the back porch.  So, as long as there’s any business having to lie to survive, then there’s room for improvement; contrarily to today’s American system that everyone thinks has to be best.  It is just the best to date.  Again, a “lie” is also just “to convey a false impression,” which can fool a lot of people; where even just not mentioning something can cause people problems, therefore more profits for company.  I bet over half American businesses do it.  If we could take all the harm involved in business lies, and spend more time in pondering real improvements in products and services, we could all probably only have to work 20 hours a week.

“Faith alone”:

Now, what a lot of the problem is, is that people are either atheists (that speaks for itself) or corrupt Christians.  A 10-year-old boy might think that because his dad loves him, he can beat up his little brother.  But, more than likely the dad would discipline / punish him for hurting the other son whom he also loves.  But, the entire Protestant tenet is based on this synopsis.  And people say I’m dumb.  Protestants are all Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Nazarenes, Assembly of God, Seventh-day Adventists, etc.  That’s a lot of problems.

Further “Bible” reading absolutely refutes “faith alone”:

James 2:14-26, “Faith Without Works Is Dead”:   
¹⁴What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? ¹⁵If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, ¹⁶and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? ¹⁷Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
¹⁸But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. ¹⁹You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! ²⁰But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? ²¹Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? ²²Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? ²³And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. ²⁴You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
²⁵Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
²⁶For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Protestant documentation actually states they will not change to “rational thought”; but, James is part of the Bible, and is directly addressing the issue!  So “faith alone” must bring in lots of dishonest profit.  “Evil”: It’s very hard for the average joe to see; or, it wouldn’t have such a strong base.  “Dumb”: is the root word that allows it.  All these church cop-outs are designed with the hopeful wish to bypass Fair Afterlife Punishment, proving that Fair Afterlife Punishment is both the natural assumption and the real basis of the Bible: it has to have a lot of credibility to have so much working against it.  “Worry” a lot, if you don’t believe in Fair Afterlife Punishment.  Atheists just don’t believe in it for the same reason, and support their emotions with a radical agenda.  It should go without saying, but with Protestants, I need to tell that “works” is “good works” not “bad works,” and “good works” not only refers to doing good deeds, but also fully covers not hurting innocent people.  So you who still have your “pride” are either saying I’m still wrong or that you already know all this.  Well, if you already know all this, then you would “know” that all this stuff that you already know needs to get disseminated.  Otherwise, you really don’t already know it.

And the Catholic Church’s confession isn’t much better:  That just means that the 10-year old can beat up his younger brother, then go to confession to get it “forgiven” by his dad.  Well, that doesn’t mean the younger brother doesn’t still hold a grudge / resentment.  Logically, he should also have a grudge / resentment against his dad.  That’s probably the real basis of atheism.  But, rational logic and “Jesus” in Matt. 5:23-26 says “restitution” is a must be, to circumvent Fair Afterlife Punishment.

I’m sure the “family standard” justifies many “Christian’s” dishonesty and corruptions.  You see, they just “agree” with God that since their family is priority, then they must profit from dishonesty and corruption to better the superior need of their family.  They’ll calculate that all their earnings will someday be inherited to their family, so it’s justified.  The old balancing act.  Well, logic and Jesus tells that you will reap rewards for helping out your family, but you will also (assuredly) suffer equally for the outside innocent people whom you’ve hurt, just like if you didn’t even have a family.  It’s like just because the 10-year-old helps himself out to more money to give to his, say, future wife, doesn’t mean he is justified in stealing his little brothers lunch money.  The wife will give him his (status-quo) return, but the younger brother will still have a legitimate grudge / resentment / need for recompense.

I’m just trying to alert all you people who “know” you’re smarter than me, of real solutions.  But “correlation” is not a perfect attribute of the human mind.  “Correlation”: “A logical or natural association between two or more things.”

“Don’t think I don't think about it.” –Darius Rucker, 2008.  Yeah, but you really don’t until you fear God.

Now, when you’re an atheist, you have your excuse for hurting others; but, when you find out that you also have an Afterlife, you’re going to be in trouble.  You say “unfair,” but logic, me and Jesus says “fair,” when it pertains to hurting “innocent” people.

Fox News’ yack and attack against Russia:

I hardly heard a thing on Fox News about the Russians’ side of the story.  Therefore, Fox News is far from Fair and Balanced.  You see, the problem is that when a major media news organization shows favoritism against another country in contention, it causes it’s viewers to only see and understand only one side of the argument.  When they only know one side of the argument, they support starting a war much more than they would otherwise.  I’m sure the reason so many countries participated in WWI and WWII is because of this same kind of bias media reporting.  Therefore, Fox News is just another one of the lowest of lows against world peace.  If Fox News was located in Russia, they’d have a bias for Russia.  Try to convince me otherwise.  But it is a serious evil that can very well cause the next major war.  So be dumb and ignore it just because you all think you’re all smarter then me.  Probably all wars in history could have been avoided if each other’s side was well informed.  Today, high up-to-the-minute media communication is very easily accessable, but because we are no ethically better than our ancestors, it’s actually worse today, as we are getting repeated, imbedded bias views, which just makes our ignorant stance even more adamant.  Again, thanks to the actual root trouble makers like Fox News.

I’m not saying I’m siding with Russia (mainly because I don’t know their side of the story), but Russia should probably leave Georgia like we should leave Iraq.

Fox News actually goes out in the streets seeking rational critical opinion; but, it’s not out there, it’s right here.  I told you those far-left liberals don’t have the intellect to be able to present a rational argument.

O’Reilly even isn’t apparently aware of Georgia’s killing of innocent people, while he compared Georgia’s innocent leader to the killer Saddam Hussein.  I mean, O’Reilly seems like he’s really not aware of Georgia’s killings; and, that the Russians took action “immediately” to stop it, while we took action to remove the killer Saddam Hussein, what, 21 years after the Dujail killings?  Maybe O’Reilly was trying to just do his typical spin, but if he knows what’s going on, then the Georgia non-killing assertion is an actual lie.  Well, I’m sure he’ll still have a job… especially at Fox News.

I like guys like O’Reilly because they will stress the importance against certain ethical wrongs, then ignore the same ethical wrongs on the other side.  Sickening to a lot of people, but I like sickening; because, ignoring sickening is not going to ever fix it.  But, again, if your intellect prevents you from stating stable, rational refutations, where only four-letter words is your argument, then yes, “ignore” and also do as Jesus highly suggests and “forgive.”  Otherwise, you will just create more of a problem (like we did in Afghanistan).  (I realize no one reading this thinks they fit in with the dumb category.  So I do have quite a challenging dilemma, don’t I?)

The reason Fox News is so bias concerning international issues may be because they’ve heard “God bless America” too many times.  They’ve lost count on how many times they’ve been imbedded with “ONE nation under God,” not “ONE HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE nations under God.”  They would educate this uneducated individual (me) how they’ve been “taught” and instilled that America is number ONE, and convey “we are NOT able to think outside our box.”  Sounds like Barack Obama thinks the same way.

What makes me nauseous is when a Fox News reporter acts disgusted on an issue where they aren’t telling the other side of the story.  I think it bothers me because you can tell they actually are sincere in their feelings, which is just displaying how more sickening dumb they are than evil.

Again, like the church, not everything Fox News says is slanted and wrong.  I’m just aim to correct where the need for change / correction / improvement is most relevant.

If you can just read the Bible, instead of “just” trusting what the religious leaders say:

…then you’d see that “Jesus” was a strong advocate for the poor and very much against the rich.  But, most people today who go to church are more the rich, or more for the rich.  There’s a definite reason for this.  It’s because today’s Christian leaders are like Fox News, and not only slant words for the rich, spoken by the Apostles (intended for a different audience), but also ignore the red-letter predominate contradictions.  This is why it’s important that God give the correct inspiration to only “one” Son of God, because everyone else has a different interpretation of allegoric inspiration.  Whenever God talks, it’s allegoric (as progress / advancement would stop if God totally revealed Himself, and the only purpose for the Universe is for progress / advancement).  One has to use logic, self sacrifice, and a very, very open mind to interpret allegory.  Jesus combined all, and with a few other allegoric / non-conclusive occurrences (especially to Constantine) “Jesus” because the most popular religious figure in the entire world (of course Constantine was “conclusively” convinced, but of course not others).  I.e., God wouldn’t have supported these further influences if “Jesus” didn’t get it right, or better than anyone else ever has.

“Slant and ignore” is the name of the media and political game:

But this popular method causes much unfairness and many innocent victims.  Self-pride is the real reason.  I’m dealing with a world full of nothing but dumb emotional animals who are (naturally) all 100% self serving units, with trouble-causing high communication skills.  The only time an ethical improvement is completed is when someone breaks the threshold of one’s 100% self serving.  Unfortunately, there are 100 incremental percents, so goodness can vary.  Guys like Hannity can probably be rated higher than 100% as he actually enjoys seeing innocent people suffer.  But most Republicans don’t.  All the lies saying otherwise that you speak, convey, and actually believe in your own mind, that you are righteous, just proves my “trouble-causing” high communication skills point.  We still live in more of a superficial country rather a happier country.  It’s like how Las Vegas looks really spectacular, but begets many victims.

Basically no one is able to think an unselfish thought.  When the question comes up if they think unselfishly, they will agree they do, but that’s just because the thought entertains their selfish thoughts.  If anyone really had unselfish thoughts, they’d care about all the dead and wounded Iraqi civilians we’ve killed and wounded, for example.  Definitely nobody on Fox News!  They’d also care about the poor and homeless more, in this great, successful country, instead of all the current excuses to ignore them.  Jesus demands to give to poor people, so much so that if you don’t you’re not “saved” (Matt. 25:34-46).  Yet hardly anyone wants to solve the problem, as my economic advice would.  Lewis and Clark reported an abundance of free food in uncivilized lands, yet few today thinks it’s fair for those who don’t work to eat.

“Lo-o-o-ve, love is strange” –Peaches & Herb, 1967:

Love will make a woman do strange things for a man, and love will make a man do strange things for a woman.  From gifts to gain favor, to taking abuse, that they otherwise wouldn’t.  If we could spread this kind of affection more evenly, it would have to be a good thing:  Less strong codependency for one, and more shareable feelings for all others, is the logical and Christ ordered goal.

“Once you get it, you never, you never wanna quit. Oh, no! After you’ve had it, you’re in an awful fix.”

Love between non-sexual people usually doesn’t cause them to do strange things.  But, the strange power of sexual love can accomplish needed things that we otherwise wouldn’t do, like trying to gain “more” favor, and forgiving others “more.”  Add some of that between everyone, and less in problematic monogamy, then start seeing everything else get ethically better.  The Democrats can talk and promise.  The Republicans can talk and promise.  But “emotions” are never going to improve until there’s free love.  Non-free-love (the status-quo) disallows the strange power of love to flourish for the benefit of mankind.  Non-free-love places the power of love to become overwhelmed in monogamous relationships, causing apathy, hatred, bias and favoritism to grow and escalate against others.

I was once employed by Fox News:

My title was “Trickle-Down Economics Tax Collector.”  I’d go door to door in poor neighborhoods to collect that special tax for the rich.  I wouldn’t just take the money, I’d first explain how Reaganomics will help the rich create more jobs for the poor; which will “trickle down” to the possible advantage of the poor.  It was a tough job.  Many people slammed the door in my face, spit on me, and I would often get beat up.  My tax collection car, that said Fair and Balanced on the side, was also quite a piece of crowbar art.  I’d tell folks that just initially, the poor will have less money, but the rich will be able to create new products and new markets, thereby allowing a second full-time job for each poor person, where the poor will not only get back the tax but maybe a little bit more!  Still, people just didn’t understand the wonderful opportunity.  O’Reilly and Hannity described them as foolish, stupid and evil; which made me feel better.  I remember one poor person was not foolish, stupid and evil and actually told me how he was glad to give me his money.  He was surely one of O’Reilly’s “patriots” as he told his wife and kids that instead of them all having supper tonight, he’s going to surrender that money so the rich man can create a second job for him.  Hannity commented how there should be more real Americans like that.  Today, I am proud to say that practically all poor people are able to now work two full time jobs, saving them from the lowest form of poverty.

(Lots of poor people would tell me: “We’re already working the two full time jobs.”)

HIV transmission facts:

Since HIV has to transfer via blood to blood or like semen to blood, they say you can get it from oral sex, because if the receiver has a cut in their mouth, they can contract it.  But, they say you can’t get HIV from kissing or shaking hands.  What if the two people kissing just finished flossing where both their gums are bleeding?  Brushing and flossing might be something someone might want to do right before a date, or before they enter the bedroom.  What if the two shaking hands have dry cracked hands because of wintry weather?  Therefore, we are definitely not getting factual HIV information from the mainstream to at least some extent.  So, I’d like to know what other “errors” we’re being told.

Today’s conclusion on nonoxynol-9:

Just to lessen promiscuity, the following conclusion has been found:

Ortho Options CONCEPTROL vaginal contraceptive: Gel, side of box:

This “alert” statement is to overrule earlier understood facts, based on the next warning’s “can” then “may” words, which are inconclusive words that can range to the lowest percent.  And if it’s 1% you know spin guys like Hannity are going to take it to their advantage 100%.  Regardless, don’t you think Americans have the “right” to make their own decisions, instead of today’s media leaders making the decision for you?

The Guide to Living with HIV Infection; John G. Bartlett, M.D., Ann K. Finkbeiner; John Hopkins University; Fourth Edition, 1998; “Chapter 2, Preventing Transmission of HIV Infection: Understanding How HIV Is Spread | Preventing Transmission through Sex, Drugs, or Pregnancy: Safer Sex,” p. 43-44 (By the way, I don’t have HIV: someone suggested this book):

Unless the woman is one of the “few” who have an “allergic reaction,” then it is “safer” to use nonoxynol-9; and, especially when you get to the point in your relationship where you’re not using the condom anymore.  Plus, it’s even beneficial to wash afterwards with soap and water.  Now, I know for a fact that the vast majority of people are not aware of these facts: and, I believe that if the vast majority of people were aware of these facts, then they might / would likely not now have HIV and/or other STDs.  Overall / regardless (unless you’re actually allergic to it), it is safer sex when you use or add nonoxynol-9; but, people really don’t know that.  Now, am I some kind of evil person trying to bring this to light (and religiously), or is it that our mainstream leaders and media are the evil ones?  The fact of the matter is that a condom can hamper sexual enjoyment, but a spermicide does not hamper sexual enjoyment; therefore, reality dictates that, a lot of the time, the condom is not going to be used.  But the spermicide could / would be used, if only people knew about it – along with using soap and water afterwards.  (People today actually think using soap and water after sex is an insult to their partner. – Another evil caused by today’s “conditional love” standards.)

It all has to do with money (and the greed ignorance of same) (and fully supported by traditional dishonest Church teachings):  After effective birth control (the pill), society started becoming more promiscuous; because, monogamous marriage is not what everyone really wants!  Promiscuity causes more divorces.  Divorce causes the need for financial child support payments.  And what do probably half the fathers do when it comes to paying child support?  They don’t, or evade it; which causes “welfare” taxes to go up (to feed the mother and children).  What’s the number one thing the public pressures politicians to do?  Lower taxes.  Case closed.  But that takes about an eight step thinking process; therefore, very few people are able to figure it out; especially when they are misinformed about spermicides and washings in the first place.  I may be the only one in the world who has the whole of the reality.  I’m even supported by the fact that everyone knows that chemotherapy and other cancer cures / treatments are provided as “options” to cancer patients; but, chemotherapy can actually kill you in certain cases.  (You see, chemotherapy doesn’t hurt the tax payer.)  Therefore, in the same aspect, spermicides should also be given / taught as an additional STD / HIV preventive option for couples (and even / especially promiscuous people); but, today, it’s not only not introduced as an option, but is actually strongly discouraged by our mainstream medical authorities (if you’re somewhat knowledged about it).  You see, doctors only know what the colleges / journals teach, and the colleges (and even the journals) only teach what the politicians and media approve.  How would you suppose “the people” would vote if they were given the option to suppress options or not suppress options?  Well, we are supposed to live in a democracy, but we obviously don’t.  Well, if they voted-in not suppress options, which they would, then they couldn’t blame the politicians for having to raise taxes.  So the top people who believe suppressing anything is better for the majority, is lying to themselves.  And, ironically / stupidly, they don’t realize they’re not hurting themselves by not suppressing it.  Therefore, it’s more of a matter of ignorance than selfishness.  You know, “ignorance” – that’s the thing that caused hundreds of firefighters and policemen to race up the Twin Towers, slowing others from getting out, when “logic” should have seen that it was all going to crumble down. – Sure, now we’re not ignorant in that kind of case.  In case you top advisors are aware of no personal advantage for your suppression, then that would mean you are just doing it for today’s Christian “moral” cop-out reasons; which, again, are also dishonest based.

This might be a good time to refer you to my compilation about Lewis and Clark; which, not only explains the ethics of the problem, but provides the only possible ethical (and best) solution.  Because, it’s just a matter of time before someone in the media investigates and reports the preventives and cures for all the STDs.  And, without proper ethical teachings, we’ll just be starting the 60s all over again.  Plus, with today’s “independent women,” marriage is on its way out, anyway! – Today’s taught psychologists can only deceive patients against reality for a short period of time.  It’s like the slavery issue: everyone today is able to easily understand the evils of slavery; but, before its abolishment, churches, etc. truly believed that slavery was just part of the proper hierarchical order of mankind, and therefore opposed its abolishment.  After marriage is “discovered” to be “not the best option” then everyone (200 years later) will also easily realize it as evil; probably as much as they now strongly and adamantly believe it’s the right moral to follow.  “Slavery” – no, we’re not ignorant about its evils today; but “marriage,” yes we still are.

I understand that a woman can test the spermicide on her wrist to see if they get a rash.  Logically, if she doesn’t get a rash, then it’d definitely be advisable to use.  But, again, many today “just say” it wouldn’t be.

Ortho Options® CONCEPTROL®, Direction for Using, obtained 2005:

Well, if Nonoxynol-9 works so well without a condom for birth control, then maybe it works just as well for the prevention of HIV/STDs.  Lots of women who shouldn’t take the pill, because they smoke, etc., use this product per their doctor’s advice.  But for STD prevention?  Not if the colleges and journals are pressured to exaggerate the facts.  Again, an overdose of Aspirin will kill me, but a doctor may still recommend it.  Research was very slanted, using African prostitutes over-using nonoxynol-9 probably ten times a day, who probably make better tips for anal sex anyway.  (Anal sex can tear lining.  Receiving anal sex is the primary way HIV is transmitted to both men and women.  That’s why it’s big in the gay community, somewhat among heterosexuals, but hardly known among lesbians.  If a guy’s got it, he very likely got if from a man, not a woman.)

Purchased a few years before:

Purchased November 2004:

It’s now getting to the place where the condom manufacturers are being successfully pressured (or fooled) into denouncing the “non-hampering” way of having “safer” sex.  If nonoxynol-9 can “increase” the risk of HIV, as some declare (based on the rare allergic rash factor, and prostitute statistics), then why do condom manufactures want you to wear something that can “increase” HIV risk, if the condom breaks?

http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/usa_94/out-9402.html, Nonoxynol-9: Better Safe Than Sorry?:

DURING THE PAST TWO YEARS (1994 article) a little-publicized health battle has been waged out of the glare of the media. It concerns nonoxynol-9, a disinfectant found in everything from baby wipes to laundry detergent, as well as in sexual products such as contraceptive foams and gels, condoms, and lubricants. Invented as a contraceptive, nonoxynol-9 was found to help prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, and herpes by killing sperm and cells in the vaginal tract. It also kills the human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) in the test tube, according to laboratory tests of commercial sexual products. As little as 0.05 percent of nonoxynol-9 in a solution stops HIV from reproducing, while a 1 to 5 percent concentration may kill cells harboring dormant HIV.

Conceptrol (above) says “Nonoxynol-9 4%.”  That’s 80 times more than “0.05 percent.”  I’m going to keep using it.  Hey, you millions people walking around with herpes: Aren’t you glad and proud of our media’s Fair and Balanced reporting?

It all has to do with lessening promiscuity.  Why?  What’s wrong with promiscuity?  Mainly because it’s against today’s church.  And because politicians are too dumb to see the benefits of a Nationally Paid Child Support Program; and, won’t even bring up the subject, mainly because… it’s against today’s church!  So, what’s the root of the problem?  It’s today’s church!

Now, if you lucked out early in life marrying a good woman, and have a low libido, then you are glad the church condemns promiscuity (because again, you are unable to think outside your box).  But, all the rest of the people would very much like it if you could simply quit condemning them for being “unlucky.”  Well, “simply” doesn’t overrule “dumb.”

So, it definitely makes sense how our government would suppress STD and HIV cures.  It’s NOT far-fetched.  It’s NOT like the conspiracy theory people’s 9/11-inside-job exaggerations.  There’d definite cover-up with “rational” purpose here.  Or I should say “ignorant” purpose.

The only Fox News rebuttal to Reverend Wright’s statement was when they just asked others their opinion if they thought the government created the AIDS virus.  That’s far from looking at the facts.  Fox News is real Hell-bound reporting, and true trash in this country.  And they have no argument against me.  They’re smart enough to know they’d lose in debate, “rapidly.”

Hey, without scanning it in, I just read a later Trojan condom box:  They removed the “NOT for extra protection against AIDS and other STDs” and are now actually saying that both the condom and the nonoxoynol-9 should be used under their HIV (“and many other sexually transmitted diseases”) prevention note.  Well, now we’re getting somewhere, or I should say, getting back to the 1980s.  They warn that if you get a “reaction” to the nonoxynol-9 or the latex, then consult your doctor.  Which means if you don’t get a noticeable “reaction” then you’re good to go, for HIV and STD prevention!  And Mr. Logical says that since the nonoxynol-9 also kills the viruses, then you should never have questionable sex without using nonoxynol-9 (unless you get a rash).  But, many people do especially to the eventual point of taking the condom off.  That should be when the nonoxynol-9 should definitely be used!  However, no one will because the media won’t educate people about it! !!  Why?  It all / 100% has to do with lessening society’s desire for promiscuity, to both (1) lessen welfare taxes, and (2) subscribe to today’s dishonest church morals / cop-outs.  So “I” ONLY! have the solution with my Nationally Paid Child Support Program, and my fornication, agape love, etc. Bible word research.  I don’t see how there can ever be another solution, unless James Dobson can actually create a miracle making everyone stay monogamous and together, and happy!  Regardless, the media having the time to do fluff stories about Anna Nicole Smith and O.J. Simpson instead of educating the American public about nonoxynol-9, are the ones who will suffer equally in Fair Afterlife Punishment for all the HIV and STD sufferings attributed to lack of knowledge.  I wouldn’t want to be one of them.

This “world” needs another Bob Woodward; but, awaiting “miracles” is what’s standing in the way.

With this obvious nonoxynol-9 corruption / suppression (well, you who’s reading this is part of it), it just makes sense that “cures” for HIV and STDs might be out there and also suppressed for the same exact reasons.

So it’s going to be O(b)ama / Bi(nla)den:

So what’s “nla” stand for: In law?  We’ll find out.  And if you switch Obama’s “b” to an “s” you get: Sin law?  And I don’t know what that means.  I hope it means Osama’s law, because that’s what it says when you transpose and add the pertinent characters.

Democratic National Convention: Hillary speech:

She does know how to say the right things.  I noticed there was a very large (interrupting type of) applause when she talked about gay rights.  Of course, during the Clinton administration, they didn’t do as much for gay rights as they could have.  Also the socialized medicine got halted during the Clinton administration.  So what makes anyone really think the Clintons would be any different this time?  Well, again, she knows how to say what the people want, which is half-way to getting it accomplished.  A few months ago I told about the unique malicious virus that I got by mailing to Hillary’s email.  Well… at this point in time, I don’t see any reason to waist any of my time searching for another way to include her back on my list.

Barack Obama:

The jury’s still out on this guy.  Probably little in policy will change if he becomes President, as was the case in most past liberal administrations.  He talks a lot about change, but little about what that will be.  All I’ve seen on the plate is stuff that continues to dance around the problems that might make small improvements, and in some cases would make things worse (but with good intentions).  I mean, you can’t change much in policy constrained within the current major status-quo (religious) barriers, until it’s change that breaks these major obstacles (my five issues).  If the people like the idea of change, mine is the only real change that will “solve” all liberal kind of problems.  Many are religious corrections, but since there is a God, religion plays a major part.  Atheists are just beating a dead horse (good intent, but lack rationality).  Again, the only reason there are so many atheists today is because religion has been so well corrupted to justify the sinners / wrongdoers, and to suppress God’s greatest gift to mankind.  Both historically intended to help the rich get richer; therefore, both are the epitome of the Antichrist.  Again, the allegoric word “Antichrist” doesn’t mean something that you think it would be, like just saying it’s those who advocate sex outside of marriage: it means it’s something (very) major that you are unaware of, like today’s corrupt church.  The increase in atheism shows its effects, but understanding “why” is still oblivious to you.  “Unnecessary” / unfair problems WILL continue until there’s (1) a religious support for promiscuity, and (2) a non-disputed teaching of Fair Afterlife Punishment.  The other solutions will quickly fall into place once these two problems are solved.

While you all are thinking I’m crazy, I’m thinking you’re all “dumb.”  If you were all such great and good people, you’d tell me how I’m wrong.  Ironically, those who ignore me the most are the “righteous / good” religious authorities.  That’s because they’re all the dumbest.  Fox News will stand in a liberal parade asking a bunch of idiots for solutions, but won’t debate me.  That’s because they apparently know who they can beat and who they can’t.

I think Obama is going to say whatever he thinks will help him get elected, but will probably retract to a more liberal stance when elected, as surely he promised the victims of society all his life that if he ever became President, he would not forget the little man.  But, still, if he isn’t reading my stuff, then he’s not going to “know” what really needs to be changed, obvious by his past abortion stance.  I can assure you that.  If these conspiracy theory people are right about anything, then a guy like Obama can probably clean up a lot of that.  But, that’s only taking care of problems that are the “obvious” kind of problems.

Obama apparently also only hears what our media reports concerning international issues.

So apparently BidEN and PalIN are both IN.

Antiwar protesters bust windows and get violent at Republican National Convention:

If you’re protesting against war / violence, then you shouldn’t use violence to support your point.  But, if you’re protesting for war, then yes: violence would help support your point as it shows / displays the advantage of the solution for which you support.

I realize there’s a possibility that the violent people were really spy like people working on the other side, just to make the war protesters look violent, as this scenario has happened in Kansas City.  My guess is that the police would be very lenient to pertinent arrests, once they found out what was really going on, as the police motif is biasly in support of war.  “Who” you are, instead of “what” you did, has everything to do with who gets charged and convicted by system people.  The strong sexual desire that women possess, is probably the biggest generic bias, placing the rich over the poor as secondary (unless the media’s watching), showing how powerful sex really is, and is a clue to how its power can change the entire world to an eventual utopia, once sex is utilized correctly.

Antiwar / far-left people generally convey a sense of more anger because they are more the victims of society.  But, most of the time one can make their point better by just making the point in the calm ordinary way.  Animals have to use emotions to express their desires and intent.  But, human’s can instead use their high communication skills to better make their point, which also circumvents the stress and pain needed to motivate one to anger.  Using foul language and the finger isn’t debating a point.  But, calling someone “dumb” pinpoints the specific area of need for improvement (of which also requires explanation, which I always do).  If I just used other four-letter words, I would only be showing my anger about something that I may not have yet explained.  Anger doesn’t always keep itself on the side of fairness (the “bug” in animal/human “software”), as many people will get angry right or wrong.  Self-centeredness is the manifestation of the Devil.  Therefore, if you want to better support that your grievance is on the side of fairness, then you need to forsake anger, and sensibly debate the issue with facts and logic.  Since society is more dumb animal than logical human, politicians, for example, many times will use higher emotions to stress a point, where motivating only by logic may fail.

Republican National Convention interrupted because of Hurricane Gustav:

If a rain based issue had interrupted the Democratic National Convention, and if I was one of those miracle cop-out Christians, I’d stress that God showed his disapproval of the Denver convention by interrupting it by an act of God.  But I sure ain’t hearin’ that kind of put-down from the liberals against the Republicans.  If we were to let “acts of God” guide our religious beliefs instead of obeying the instructions from “One” (Jesus), then we’d probably end up starting the human sacrifice stuff again to get rain for our crops.

Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter pregnant:

I don’t understand why that would hurt her vote from Republicans.  I mean, she apparently advised the daughter with the abstinence-only advice; because, she probably wouldn’t have ended up pregnant if mom would have furnished effective birth control.  The Left’s emphasis on the subject doesn’t necessarily hurt Sarah’s place among the conservatives, it’s just a noteworthy example that shows that abstinence-only advice overall is not what’s best.  (I can’t believe I’m the only person who realizes this.)  I.e., when a Republican ends up being a “victim” of their own advice, it not only shows its error, but it’s also rather humorous.  

Hey, what’s the age of the boyfriend?  If he’s 18; or just older than Bristol, then on his 18th birthday – that’s statutory rape, isn’t it?  Well, O’Reilly will surely stress that horrible crime.  Right?  What do you mean “wrong”?  You mean O’Reilly will harshly press authorities to nail the normal couple but not someone on his side?  How bias and worthy of dismissal!  I’m not saying O’Reilly will be fired for being unfair and bias, but that the world would just be better off if he was.  However, during today’s transition-away-from-the-marriage-standard-society, guys like O’Reilly should be allowed to exhibit their evil bias, as people will better learn during our transition, exactly what is evil and what is not.  So I should say, “O’Reilly, keep up the good work!  It’s necessary for the betterment of those living 100 years from now.”  It’s getting done in a way that O’Reilly doesn’t see.  I mean, most of us are already fully aware of O’Reilly’s spin, strongly divided by whether we are against it, or if we’re evil and support it.  But those dumb Country and Western listeners, for example, who have big pride in supporting right instead of wrong, they need to catch more of O’Reilly’s inconsistent bias / evil, to the point where they actually start questioning it.  Then the righteous hearts can be on the righteous side, and therefore not look so dumb.  If O’Reilly is correct that all media other than Fox News is “liberal,” then that’s a great deal of rich people being on the correct side.  That means the most evil of all rich people (Fox News), who still have the power to control the minds of nearly 50% of all Americans, are losing.

By the way, I like Country and Western music because one can be pretty much any age to enjoy it.

Barack Obama suggesting that media not present candidate’s family problems, depends on the relevance of the subject.  Again, this pregnant daughter thing shouldn’t hurt Sarah in politics, but again, this is an issue that will make people “think” that abstinence-only advice might not be the best, thereby supporting the liberal view.  So, Barack Obama is just as dumb as everyone else trying to suppress it.  Or, only cares about his own family more than important issues.  Plus, Freedom of Speech is always going to overrule even Barack no matter how much he stresses his point.  I just stress making things an issue only if there’s really some good that can come out if it.  For example, the only good in the Monica Lewinski issue was that “I” can explain how frivolous it really was, and how “dumb” everyone was who thought it was such a big deal.  I even “justified” his lies about it as it was private information (as defined by today’s society).  Ask every American on national T.V., under oath, if they’ve ever masturbated, and see how many “lie.”  Better yet, let’s go back to 1960 and do it.  (Well, a person that masturbates would indicate he would have a higher libido, which might cause him to make an idiot out of himself in front of another person [Paula Jones].)  The only victim in such an affair and lie could be Hillary, and she was just victimized by the court allowing the case.  Unjustified attacks against people can never end until my thesis becomes the standard.

“If” Sarah loses popularity because of the pregnant daughter thing, then that would be because her kind (Republicans) aren’t going accept the fact that abstinence-only advice failed, and instead “just” spin it that Sarah still must have done something wrong.  That’s “bastard” like material in conservative tradition.  Eventually, Sarah might “realize” that her side in the (more) evil side.

Conservatives are using the word “maverick” to complement people now:

“Maverick”: “One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group.”  “Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence.”  That’s great, even though a conservative is the farthest thing from a maverick, as “conservative” means not being independent in thought from the established group.  “Conservative” means sticking to the schedule.  But, saying it, is half way to making it happen.  So I think it’s great (to use the word).  Ironically, “maverick” is more what Obama’s “change” message is.  “Maverick” is even a better description of what “I” am.  So, I thank ya’ for using a word with such pride in which “I” excel more than any other.  A “maverick” doesn’t drop bombs on innocent people: a “maverick” finds a different way.

I like Sarah Palin’s fighting corruption, if that’s really correct.  That’d be being a maverick.  We could use some of that here in Kansas.

Over twice the distance beyond the conservative planet Blurp:

…sits the liberal counterculture planet Far-Out, Man!, of which’ sun burns “cooler” than our sun.  But, at one time, Far-Out, Man! tolerated a family / marriage based culture, where wives and husbands constantly through dinner plates at each other.  After one incident, a certain innovator became crippled from plate damage, who could not work any longer, therefore had the time to ponder a better way.  First he took the unbroken plates and saucers, and was able to reckon a different plan that allowed them to fly through the air more upwardly, to soar far above the intended victim, thereby achieving a solution to end the marriage problem.  The plan was so successful that the plates, and especially saucers, could go just about anywhere upward without limits.  Far out into space, being the objective of the culture, a new generation formed.  After visiting many other planets and cultures, they discovered “pleasure” (less pain and more pleasure) in the arms of more than one partner, from many who were once stricken with the multitudes of marriage problems.  Well, things went wild at first, flying erratic zigzag patterns during orgasms around mysterious planets never revealing themselves, until nature settled them down with an optimal sexual spark that was so intense it became the alternative energy to fuel their space saucers.  After centuries of educating practical all planets for a better way, sharing their new knowledge with no spin, they found their hardest goal was in trying to help the most conservative, gullible, warlike, and religiously brainwashed planet named Earth.  Finding that whenever their saucers neared the Earth planet, a strong triangulation and surveillance listening method was being beamed back and forth, hearing with irritation every Freedom remark said by the Free-Lovites (from the planet Far-Out, Man!).  Quickly lowering their head antenni, they exited back to their own galaxy, so to be only watched 10 million years in the past.  After hearing about this discovery, the conservative Zurps from Blurp wanted to visit the Earth planet, so the Free-Lovites gave them an older conservative shaped rocket ship to fly to the conservative Earth.  The Zurps landed at the future location of the largest memorial to Earth’s first World War, but in retrospect to 1880.  The smarter conservative Zurps from Blurp were able to easily influence a partisan bias separating many countries, all the time being “smart” enough to know to not tell anyone that they were from another planet.  A short time later, the honest Free-Lovites from Far-Out, Man! also visited particularly Earth’s government, media and religious leaders.  Refusing to believe said innovative off-the-wall advice from anyone claiming birth on another planet, the first World War commenced.  The “green” message shown by the color of their skin also did not find favor or consideration.  Well, you know the rest of the story.

“And in the end we shall achieve in time the thing they call divine. When all the stars will smile for me. When all is well and well is all for all and forever after. Maybe In The Meantime wait and see. We love the all the all of you.” –Spacehog, 1996.

The big five-O:

I never thought the day would come when Madonna would be too old for me.

The Patriot Act:

I need to argue the “probable cause” for my surveillance; because, all my commentary is only Freedom of Speech, and there are absolutely no threats being made.  And there are probably over half of all Americans who have harshly put-down the President.  I mean, the American in me is getting a little sick of all the microphones; added slowness of my computer having to upload everything I do to “someone” (that somehow overrules all my spyware programs, deleted cookies, etc.; GPS on my car; people leaving solid evidence that they get in my car and house when I’m not there.  And that’s not to mention the added harassment I get from people who come up and start non-realistic conversations, some trying to provoke anger from me – which always escalates after I share that information with someone I know on the phone (I’ll probably get more now by writing this / complaining).  I mean, who would want some idiot secretly in their house, especially when they have absolutely no valid “probable cause”?  I mean, if the premise of their investigation is only harassment because they “don’t like” what I say, then who knows what other corruption / slanting they’re capable of.  Maybe it’s just more my local authorities doing the harassment part – “a prophet is not welcome in his own land” – but I need to get to the bottom of it either way when I get the time.  If they’re doing it to try to get me to shut up, then they will get more the opposite of their goals.  (If everyone else would like me to shut up, then just unbiasly do the Goldenrule. – Ain’t gonna happen – is it? – until something sexually makes it happen.)  (Again, you may truly be unaware of your own bias.)

If my thesis was the same as James Dobson’s, then I’m sure I wouldn’t be under surveillance.  The tone of my preaching is not any harsher than Southern Baptist preachers, or O’Reilly’s; but, they’re probably not having their privacy noticeably infringed, only because they preach what everyone has been “taught.”  Why have Freedom of Speech if all authorities already know it all?

If they’re doing it to me, they may very well be doing it to you – again, if “they” simply don’t like what you say.  Plus, the tax payers are having to pay for it all.  And government employees like to brag how they just do what they “want” instead of what their real job is.  It’s kind of like a game to them all.  What’s worse is that the government says they can’t catch computer virus senders, hackers, doctors and hospitals that overcharge insurance companies, etc. because they don’t have “time” to investigate it all, but they sure have the time to just harass me.

The Patriot Act is apparently a government program to not only stop terrorism, but is also for the fun of those wishing to suppress Freedom of Speech in this country.  You see, our forefathers didn’t make the First Amendment because there wasn’t a tendency for authorities to suppress what they didn’t agree with.  And that would have to include a later awareness that authorities can be in error: a notion assumed to be false by practically all authorities even today.  Human self-centered power and ignorant emotions still rule the evil mind.

Probably the provoking me thing is some kind of test to see if I’ll get angry, for possibly some kind of commitment justification, or more likely just for fun.  Regardless, I guess I’m supposed to think that I’m the one that’s evil by not wanting them to do it.  John Lennon complained about this kind of harassment too, so why can’t I?  Plus, the slander and degradation of my reputation has got to stop:  Many times I have seen signs indicating they ask other people to help them in watching me, of places I go.  The danger is that those people will assume if the authorities are watching me, that I must be a bad guy and deserve it in some kind of way; which at times have appeared to cause a few provokings and acts against me from these newly informed idiots.  When no other reason for why it occurs, it’s easy to conclude what’s behind it.  Surely these people stepping out on their own, think they are helping the authorities by employing their wrongs against me.  Whenever someone is talking behind your back, who has a strong bias against you, spin and exaggeration has to tell a totally false story.  And second, third, etc. generations of it spoken to third, fourth, etc. parties always escalates it worse.  I mean if Fox News can spin issues on the airways as well as they do, then I can only image how many enemies I must have practically everywhere I go from authorities talking behind my back!

It makes sense that the more people one has provoking them and being unfair to them, the more the chance that they are going to break; but, there’s no way I will, since I know that’s what they want me to do.  Still I’d rather be rid of it, or just have less of it.

I know I’m dealing with animals that only understand tone and negativity to the norm, but I’m really not anywhere near the tone and irrational theme of lots of other websites / bloggers.  I assume that because I’m so right, is what bothers them.

Socialized medicine:

Republicans want doctors and hospitals to continue to overcharge insurance companies.  Plus, their theory is also that no doctor would ever lean towards the greed of not really curing their patients to keep the money coming in.  But, I’ve personally seen many of my doctor bills drastically escalate in the last few years, way above cost of living increases.  Apparently it’s a pattern across the country, that, like oil prices, will eventually mandate socialized medicine, as only the super wealthy, and of course those in the medical field, are likely the only ones left to oppose it.  But then that’s a very powerful / influential few.  It’ll eventually lose shortly after it gets to the point where Fox News reporters start feeling the brunt.  But then there’s that ruling secret society I keep hearing about.  If it exists, it’s just apparently just secret to the overall majority of people.  Major surprises will be had there when they find out they have an Afterlife.

Instead of the Arabs thinking the Israelis are mean, they should think they are “meen”:

But they can’t with today’s religious standards, right?  (Ask an Israeli.)

Green, etc.:

In the middle of much time spent organizing all my books, when I discover that there’s a better arrangement that I could have pursued, I’ll sleep on the subject for a few nights, then redo the entire configuration, causing all the earlier time to be wasted.  But when I finally get done with doing it the better way, I’m always glad I did.  The same for energy, environmental, etc. issues:  After sleeping on it for a few nights (in your case a few decades), we will find it better to tear down all the old and make all new.  The dilemma is when it lays many people off work.  With my economic plan, there’d be an easy transition, but today begets way too many victims when we change for the better.  They say that the very few rich people who stand to lose because of the change, influence the politicians more than anything else.  Well, that’s an obvious evil.

Who should I vote for?:

I’ve got an Obama-Biden sticker the left side of my rear bumper, and a McCain-Palin sticker on the right side, of course.  When I drive… I’m seated on the left side.  But when I make the woman drive, I’m on the right side.  I guess it depends how much I like the date.  Maybe if I don’t like the date, when I go to vote, I’ll have to sit in the back seat.  But what if I like the date?  Well, then she can sit in the back!  Maybe I’d better just stay home that night and not vote.  Glad I finally settled that problem.

After watching Sarah Palin’s speech in St. Paul:

So, who’s gonna really have to run the country if Sarah ends up President?  Come on… you Republicans are asking the same question.  It sounds like she could run a good PTA meeting; but, whether she’s ready to be in charge of the bomb and take on Ahmadinejad, Putin, and North Korea, surely has Republicans in doubt.  Of course those might find some sympathy for the U.S. when our President starts crying when she finds things not going her way.  I usually don’t criticize things people can’t help, but tell me if I’m wrong: isn’t being President an important job?  You shouldn’t have let her follow Rudy Giuliani.  Fred Thompson the night before.  Those are guys they didn’t pick.  It sounds like to me that the aging John McCain would rather try to win an election by targeting the female vote, rather than what’s good for America.  Eh?  Fox News said it was “powerful” and “a heck of a speech!”  Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha – you’re stuck with her now.

Alaska: The entire state is not even the population of metropolitan Sarasota.  (Sarasota is in Florida.)  (It’s near Tampa - St. Petersburg if you’re looking at the map.)  Sara(h)sota isn’t anywhere near the size of metropolitan Chicago.

This isn’t a sexist opinion, because I didn’t feel this same way with Hillary.

Moreover, apparently the Republican’s word out there is “aggrandize her,” because a person with a good B.S. detector can easily see the crock.

I mean she’s more of a bulldog than Reese Witherspoon, but Madonna appears more Presidential than Sarah.  It’s how one hold up when the real tough stuff starts coming in.  And when truth and reality contradicts that conservative philosophy, it ain’t going to be easy.  You have to learn how to either be a good liar and exaggerator like John McCain, or you have to conform to fairness.  I would have little stress because I have all the basics figured out.  George W. Bush says he finds comfort in God.  In other words, he subconsciously retains all the standard cop-outs and miracle beliefs.  I bet probably every time leaders on both sides of a conflict “ask God” if they should invade; and, when both tell that they were comforted / supported in their decision, one (at least) still has to be wrong if both were asking the same “one” God.  Human self-centeredness definitely overrules any specific-incident God inspiration.  Only the logic of Fair Afterlife Punishment can solve problems.

Hopefully someday I’ll be admitting I was wrong, after she’s been President.

Sarah sounds like Julia Sweeney.  Sarah looks good with a baby in her arms, more than Hillary would.  Maybe a non-aggressive woman would make a difference, but not when she’s advocating aggression.  In relationship counseling, psychologists use the word “aggression” meaning a self-centered interest in only a one-sided view for improvement, with no regard for the betterment of the other side; and “assertive” as argument and/or discipline for the betterment interests of (or fairness for) both sides of the issue.  So if “assertive” is good in helping married couples get along, then it’s good for Presidents to use in foreign relations.

Fairness versus “winning” the game:

I don’t know everything about him, but Barack Obama seems to have a fairness agenda on foreign policy instead of the “win” right or wrong policy that Republicans only promote.  It does appear that Obama thinks it’s not electorally advantageous to state a solid fairness stance, as that would have to detail where the U.S. has been unfair in the past as the cause of the many enemies we have today.  He apparently thinks most Americans will refuse to admit that the we are capable of ever being in the wrong, as admitting error is not what’s called “winning” the game, as we are a very sports oriented society.  Still the difference between Obama and the Republicans is, respectfully, the difference in “considering” fairness, and totally ignoring fairness and stressing only the “win” factor, totally regardless how we play the game.  Anyone who uses the “win” word describing the Iraq situation is just one of the pinheads who really just ignore fairness; therefore hampering the solution.  I mean really, we’d have to eventually kill everyone in the world outside of the U.S. if we all remain adamant about winning always ignoring fairness.  The Bush spin, then spin some more, the even spin some more, to justify the pride in invading a country, is still seen as fairness to many Americans.  Just because many Republicans love fooling themselves into the theme that we are never unfair, doesn’t lead to a solution, as those in those other countries “know” they’re being treated unfair, and will always react / retaliate.

As I recall in the many months before our invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush presented several different conditions at different times, each ordered to Saddam Hussein that we will attack if he doesn’t agree with each.  As he did agree to each one, Bush would rescind his part of the agreement to not attack, just to present an all new condition or attack, each of which Saddam Hussein agreed on, until he refused to leave his country.  Why would George bother ordering all the earlier conditions if he was going to invade regardless?  It’s because George was looking for a legitimate excuse, but kept not finding one, as Saddam agreed to each (non-exile) condition.  George was allowed full view of everywhere in Iraq including directly under Saddam Hussein’s bed.  I guess when one dances around something they want to do, looking for a valid excuse (as it was post-1998) it’s “better” than just invading without any valid excuse, but Barack Obama “might” honor his promises… more.  Like the North Korea thing had been going well until recently.  I’m going to guess we, a bully power abuser, broke a promise or something, which caused the dissent.   Every time will break a promise and the other side essentially disciplines us, we either have to either eventually eat crow or leave the problem to escalate.  So, I suggest that we don’t make any promises we don’t intend to honor, instead of thinking that since we’re boss, we can do whatever we want; because, again, we’ll end up having to eventually kill everyone in the world for peace:  If we’re going to take over the world, we should do it with honor, consideration and fairness.  Of course the Republicans are going to verbally agree with me, and actually believe it in their own minds, but do another.  So it’s a catch-22 situation until everyone admits they’re not as smart as they think.  What gets me the most is how the Protestant based tenant “faith alone” allows the mind to be this constant ignore-half-the-facts,-then-spin-the-rest condition more than anything else.  This “faith alone” instruction is so overabundant / over-advertised in this country that even Catholics do it subconsciously.  I know the pithy term “faith alone” is not necessarily the phrase everyone uses, but when you trust that only by believing that the name, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is essential for salvation, then you believe in “faith alone” even though you may have never heard the pithy term.  That’s the easy to do, easy to accomplish thing to simply “believe” placing the Goldenrule secondarily, therefore not necessary at all for salvation.  And the trick works very well in this country, so much so that secular law enforcement is really the only thing most people fear in this country.  Not to mention how many things one can get away with something in secret.  And, most secular laws do support fairness, but the enforcers (the police, the judges, etc.) of the laws still cherry pick for their personal bias and corruption thanks to “faith alone.”  There’s simply no way people like George W. Bush can become a “reborn Christian” unless you make it “easy” for him to accomplish by just requiring him to “believe” in something easy to believe requiring no difficulty or sacrifice, that’s irrelevant to something difficult to accomplish like the Instructions / the Goldenrule.  You see, the crucifixion and the resurrection don’t have anything to do with the Instructions of Jesus.  It’s like saying I believe there is a school building around the corner, but I don’t have to bother sending my kid there everyday.  I know I “should” send my kid to school, but it’s not necessary for… education (salvation).  Today, in the U.S., we all actually think we are sending our kid to the school, when we really aren’t!  And if we’re really strong church goers, we’re sent the kid to the school like once a year, then / so we can easily exaggerate our answer: “Yes, our son goes to school.”  It is really that pathetic.  All thanks to “faith alone.”  Catholic confession isn’t much better, but going from bad to worse is not what should be the religious standard.  Again, our secular laws are very limited in finding truthful facts, and today is very bias for the trickery of the wealthy.  Now, if you ask any “reborn Christian” if all this is the case, they’re going to tell you it’s not; but, it is.  So you tell me how to correctly expose it.  If today’s churches start preaching the Goldenrule-alone for salvation, they’re going to lose their congregants and their fundings.  So it sounds like to me, religious truth can only be exposed by someone like me willing to do it not for money.  Therefore, getting the “free” truth exposed for others to follow is as simple as getting it disseminated.  If my stuff got as much exposure as the Anna Nicole Smith case did, it’d be done.  “Simple” but so hard, because “the few” who can disseminate it, are so much catch-22 controlled by what I was talking about earlier.

Reasoning out the truth in one thing, but you tell me: how can religious truth be known necessary for a better world, that no one (with money) wants to hear?  It would actually also help the rich, but they are too… naive to know it.  It’s just something that would place the game back in the fields and arenas where they’re supposed to be.  Plus, greed is not the attribute of a happy person.

The more people that tell me I’m wrong about how “faith alone” doesn’t overrule Jesus’ Instructions: the Goldenrule, the more I realize that this is a very hidden evil.

All should listen to Republicans and Fox News:

Many people who lean Left state they don’t like watching commentary on the other side.  That’s a big mistake, because the more Republicans and Fox News talks the more their unrealistic dishonesty and bias is revealed.  Their true colors shine through quite often; especially when they have a guest that’s so dumb they actually believe their thesis is fair and righteous.  The more honest people that can know exactly who the real / worst evil is in this country and have more examples to share, the more people will be able to fight and vote against it.  It needs to get seen and talked about “more.”

John McCain speaks at Republican National Convention:

Oh… I didn’t know McCain wanted to start a war with Russia.  He didn’t say that directly; but, it doesn’t take too much smarts to read between the lines.  I should point out something John might not be aware of: these kinds of threats could cause Russian to invade us first (if/when he gets elected).  Many, many wars have started “just” because the other side became truly frightened.  I hope John said it just to pressure some political leverage our way; but, the more convincing he was (and he’s an “expert” in sounding convincing), the more Russia will take it seriously and strike us first.  Remember, Roosevelt’s motivational passive threats was the “real” reason Pearl Harbor was bombed.  (Of course how can anyone “remember” since we’re all hearing just one side of the story?)  Nevertheless, John pretty much directly said he thinks we could militarily win, which does add lots more authenticity to the indirect threat.  And, as we worry about the slight assumption of Russia trying to regain lost areas, they are probably worrying more about us trying to implement our realistic / documented One World Order objective; which could definitely include the starting of a war with Russia.  And it sounds like we’re just looking for a reason if the morals of the Georgian case are really just like our Yugoslavian case of 1998, which is what the Russians claim / think.

I just hope John isn’t as dumb as George thinking that Russia would “just all of a sudden” realize the great benefit to Russia by us implementing massive violence against them, like George thought in Iraq.

I recently heard something on Fox News saying that after we leave Iraq, we might make the Iraqis pay us restitution for all the trouble we had to endure ridding their country of that heinous dictator (you know, the one who wasn’t lying about the WMDs.)  Even O’Reilly told Obama that Obama had been “perspicacious” in voting against the Iraq invasion.  Well, if that’s that case, then that means that we were in the wrong!  And if we were in the wrong, then restitution to us is not only contemptible, but we should be paying lots of restitution to them!  Plus, O’Reilly’s discreet acknowledgement even –justifies– the Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda killings of Americans in Iraq (if we shouldn’t have started the war, then we shouldn’t have killed anyone).  Don’t you hate logic?  But that takes a two or three step thinking process to understand; so, don’t worry O’Reilly: none of your viewers got it.  And a tiger doesn’t change his stripes when we admit we were wrong then stick around trying to achieve and maintain the same goal (us taking over Iraq, then the world).  When you’re saying we shouldn’t have invaded, you’re saying that Saddam Hussein wasn’t a real threat.  We’ve reverted our “reason” to be there by its strategic position… to help Israel.  O’Reilly, look up the word “ludicrous.”

Plus, it wouldn’t surprise me if John McCain wants to take over Russia to eventually take over China, just for revenge of his time in Hanoi.  Or, that being his underlying motivation.

President Bush currently might be a better President than John McCain, because President Bush may have learned some lessons by now, where John McCain is just starting all over again, where he starts by thinking he already knows it all, and can’t make a mistake in a final decision.

New World Order (the good parts of such):

It can be had without violence, but only if it’s via sex and religion.  There will be less leaders wanting to play the “I like it different because it’s my way” selfishness / power game once open-sex (with a desire for diversity in looks) world becomes standard.  People will simply be more conforming to the interests of others: all others across the globe.  It’s like how today a husband is usually more conforming to his wife’s wishes because she is the object of his sexual desire.  Women, now-a-days, are the ones who are deliberately trying to be nonconforming to their husbands, as sex is looked at as a duty rather than a pleasure.  Those women would tell me I’m wrong about how they could make their mind enjoy sex if they could only free their minds of all the dislike and dishonest prostitution standards they’ve been imbedded with.  Plus, satisfying sex breeds love and contentment; opposed to controlled sex (today) which breads greed, anger, abusive power over others, etc.  It’s really the difference between the Left and the Right.  Mine is apparently the full logic of the Left reasoned completely out.  The Right is more “government controls” when it comes to sex.

The only reason lots of women die in today’s wars is because our military doesn’t actually see the people being hit.  If our boys could see the women before they dropped the bomb, they might still carry out orders, but it will bother them quite a bit more.  That small (or really large) dissatisfaction will cause no one to want to invade a country in the future, once open-sex become the norm, because bi-sexuality will be equally desirous; and, would thereby cause reluctance in desire to want that kind of “value” to be harmed.  Therefore, today’s strong gladness our soldiers feel when killing another man will be totally gone, like it is today when a soldier actually sees the woman he is about to kill (even when she has a load of explosives strapped around her).

Joke time:

It’s time for some well deserved cleaver Republican comparison humor:  Hey, do you know what the difference is between a car and a train?  The car has a steering wheel!  HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!   Hey, do you know what the difference is between a book and a CD?  The book has paper pages!  HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!  Hey, do you know what the difference is between an orange and a blueberry.  No… a blueberry is smaller!  HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!   Well, I think that’s all the laughter once can take during an entire election season.

It’s gotta be my way, or I’ll become an atheist!:

Some say they have “found” that there’s no God.  One can’t discover that God doesn’t exist!  All they’ve “found” is that the exaggerations and cop-outs that churches dwell on today, completely intended to help the rich feel better, isn’t valid.  That’s all.  The fact the things exist, with “progress,” not by mistakes, but by limited underlying intelligence / drive, proves there’s God.  Us judging God incorrectly is one of our many needs for improvement (“bugs” in our software), which God is “limited” / unable to “just” correct.  Or, you’d all fully follow the Goldenrule.  Fact: Lots of people exist under God’s domain.  Fact: Everyone wants things to be just for their own self-centeredness.  You tell me what God’s instruction should be?  You tell me why few think it’s the Goldenrule?  “I’m” telling the answer again.  So God does reiterate.  But not in a way that would halt unique progression.  The Old Testament tells that God used to communicate directly to people, but not only did everyone just do as they wanted instead, they also “commanded” God to figure it all out for us.  God doesn’t really figure, we figure.  We’re made by God to figure.  God just enjoys the unique accomplishments: the things we like, and dislikes the things we call pain and suffering.  God discovers things as we discover things, like the fact that once someone has suffered equally for the hurt they’ve caused to others, they don’t want to cause that kind of innocent suffering again; especially when we know in advance that we will suffer equally.  The God developed, but fallible, evolutionary drive of God doesn’t “just” create the perfect DNA the first time, it first sees / finds / discovers a near goal for advancement, and saw / found / discovered a need for each to have protection, associated with the “bug” that every entity is too self-centered.  The Bible starts with the fact that a vegetarian diet was available and for consumption, which animals failed to follow, and chemistry doesn’t “just” change so nutrition can’t be found in the flesh of other animals.  And the latest “bug” is that God can’t “just” force Fox News to be Fair and Balanced.  The Goldenrule is like the seventh “day” in the sequence of Creation advancement, that will eliminate the many, many problems associated with the self-centeredness “bug.”

Today, all the rich people think that since God can do miracles, they assume they’re all righteous, or God would take away their money.  As a result, these miracles (originally intended to cause people to follow Jesus, Moses, etc.) is now serving the totally opposite message.  So, you see, God can’t do any more miracles, or it will be taken to the world’s overall disadvantage.  So if you don’t receive your personal self-centered communication and/or action directly from God, then there are good reasons why.  Mainly because you would take advantage of it just for your self-centered interest.  By the way, all the miracles, parting of the Red Sea, raining frogs, etc. were all God placed hallucinations, as God can’t really safely change the laws of physics, but can manipulate your very tiny mind data.  But, regardless, hallucinations are a lie of reality, and therefore will not really give you that job, money, mate, etc. that you pray for.  And, can very well cause major future problems as I’ve stated above.  Stating that it was the only way to gain a stronger following, Jesus actually clues the truth at first that Lazarus is sleeping, then momentarily changes it to Lazarus is dead (John 11:4,11,14), only to accomplish the miracle for everyone to see.  With effective birth control, my teachings are at hand, and don’t require hallucinations / lies / clues, which would eventually just further reinforce the rich against the poor.  Otherwise, my great name would have to be used by someone in the far future to regain my teachings against the rich and for the poor; which is the same as the lost teachings of Jesus.  Oh yeah, it’s printed in every Bible (against the rich and for the poor), but it’s still “lost” as practically all of today’s churches cater to the wealthy.  Mainly with cop-outs.  The only reason most of the wealthy are still against unmarried sex is because they are “conservative”: they are still holding onto the pre-1960s ideals, instead of being smart enough to realize a better way since the advent of effective birth control.  You see, things their parents / teachers taught them have “worked” for them.  Therefore, they haven’t been “victimized” which is what is “essential” for “change” / improvement.  Why do people have to become a “victim” before they seek something better?  Honestly, most accurately and essentially – because they are “dumb.”  Oh I know they will all disagree with me.

If Jesus was here, He’d only preach in a church with a dirt floor, as long as someone in the world still has to live on a dirt floor.  So churches, think about that one the next time you tell everyone to believe in Jesus.

John McCain is for “change”:

Sure… he wants to “change” progress back to the ideals of the 1950s.  And then further “change” the 1950s to even more of a slant for the rich.  So yeah, he’s for “change”: as being the only thing poor people will be working for.

John McCain was never an “innocent” victim during his visit at the Hanoi Hilton.  Likely all John could think was revenge against his captors, not that he deserved the ill treatment because his war aggression was wrong.  Or I should say: both sides were in the wrong, but John’s participation in it regardless of his side, just make things more wrong.

In war, both sides lose:

…to some extent.  I’m, of course, talking military lives, etc. on both side of pretty much any battle.  America ethically shouldn’t want a President that endeavors to bring more wars.  At no time should one celebrate a victory in a war or battle as most everyone does, because both sides are victimized to some extent.  Would you celebrate hearing that we’ve won the war, and also that they are sending your son home in a body bag?  Certainly not, but most others would celebrate.  Why?  Again, “dumb” rules everywhere.  Ethical knowledge is definitely lacking in the world.  Cop-outs of the churches rule these problems vastly more than you think.  If God could make everyone think the Goldenrule, then it’d be the 7th day in the noteworthiness of Creation.  Of course, atheists would say that “accidents” caused it, not God.  Well, I’d say “accidents” (trial and error) haven’t caused it yet, unless you want to consider that “logic” can be an accident, along with the accident that that “logic” somehow gets disseminated.  Still, only a belief in God caused the “logic,” as will the “accident” of it getting disseminated.  In other words, neither “logic” or the dissemination of it can be accomplished by “mistakes”; because, if I’m wrong, no one is ever going to disseminate it.  But the atheists would still argue that the since some news guy turned “crazy” by some “accident” noted by many people’s initial response, is what saved the world from ultimate destruction, and therefore allowed the species to continue.  I will argue that it was the “drive” of God that changed it, not by trial and error.

For the time being we’ll just keep “accidentally” thinking we all practice the Goldenrule, until the accidental realization changes everyone’s mind.

Only ONE WAY:

Honest Muslims, Native Americans, even atheists would have to agree that there’s mainly one thing that would make the world a better place, and that’s the Goldenrule.  Therefore, if you’re God and you don’t see the Goldenrule as the best way for salvation, then God’s missing something.  But, I fear not suggesting that God could be wrong, as I value the ONE who tells that God is seeing it right: Jesus in Matthew 25:34-46, which has 100% to do with good works (for others).  So I’m covered and God’s covered.  Unfortunately, we are the few Christians who are, as most will tell that there are other ways to salvation, with things like “just” believing in His resurrection, which anyone can “EASILY” do.  But, WHENEVER you say there’s another way to salvation, then you are saying that the Goldenrule need not be done.  MANY people ask for solutions to the many problems in the world.  Turning the largest religion in the world (Christianity) from other ways for salvation, to ONLY the Goldenrule for salvation, would surely be the greatest solving aid.  The only obstacle is the few: the major sinners: (apparently) the most wealthy.  Again, I’ve shown MANY examples how people will “just” believe: “just” trust what their preacher / priest says more than the logic of the Goldenrule.  So it IS corrupt preachers / priests that are the key to world problems.  Oh yeah, I can start my own religion at the bottom, and have people serve me; but, my only practical endeavor can only be to change the current teaching of today’s religious leaders, back to the red letters of Jesus.

Mathew 25:34-46 indicates that both the good and the bad will be unaware that they have been tested, indicating that one need not even be a “Christian” for salvation.  But, with Jesus, you can easily “know” exactly how to be saved and exactly how not to be saved.  Again, obviously the ones who will not be saved are the power people today who prevent it to be taught in everyone’s mind, as the ONE way, as verses 41-46 indicates that any other taught method to salvation is irrelevant and incorrect.  For those who are in-between the two extremes: sometimes you’re good and sometimes you’re bad, Matthew 5:22-26 allows your entrance via varied temporary time in Fair Afterlife Suffering, where restitution to the direct actual victim is the only Jesus-indicated way to bypass each particular part of Fair Afterlife Suffering.  Otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have bothered to advise to do it “quickly,” obviously before it’s too late: conditions disallow you to make direct amends (victim deceased, cannot be found, you’ve lost the financial ability, etc.).

The right and left Hands have been inverted:

By reading more of Jesus’ teachings, one can tell that there is a great divide between the rich, whom He says has little chance for salvation, and the poor, who have practically a guaranteed chance for salvation.  This is generally politically divided today by the conservatives (the Right) and the liberals (the Left).  As Jesus uses His right and left hands to distinguish the two, one has to realize the rich and powerful conservatives (vastly in greater control of the media) have taken the liberty of the title of the good “right,” but they are most noteworthy for being the most greedy, and are the actual corruptors of the church.  (What O’Reilly calls the Left media is still mostly Right, as they are in just a transition of leaning a bit Left.  If those “Left” media where really Left they’d see the logic of my statements and pressure religious leaders to end the cop-outs, as the Goldenrule is the best thing for the poor and the many other victims in this world.)

What got me going:

Just in case you’ve ever wondered how I got into all this religion, after having uneasy feelings in fellowship with others, I got into personally reading the Bible in the early ‘90s.  I ended up strongly speaking principally for this for the poor and against the rich issue more than any other (and I was not poor). – When one reads the Bible without others’ commentary, the Red Letters stick out much greater.  I talked little about sexual morals, as I also believed that fornication meant sex between single people (and I had the misfortune of having to ride the singles’ rollercoaster after my wife died of cancer in 1989), until the mid ‘90s when I discovered that fornication likely only meant “prostitution” in the days of Christ, and later confirmed it in the original Greek.  Rational logic started to make sense and things “fit” more into reality and with other major parts of the New Testament.  After greatly easing my (single’s) conscience, it was also apparent that I had discovered a MAJOR corruption.  Sharing these findings became my only duty to God from then on, as I saw no one else trying to correct this.  If I hadn’t had that early personality clash with other church members (as I also have with many other people) (the slightest nervousness can mess up my speech), I would today probably be just like the rest of you: believing all the incorrect spin and artificial salvation cop-outs.  Moses was also impaired with inferior communication skills / personality.  As his brother Aaron was his communication link to Pharaoh, mine is apparently the word processor.

I remember two different local churches I was affiliated with back then sent me a letter of anathema actually requesting I not return just because I informed them of my truthful fornication findings.  Well, that made it clear to me that I had something really, really huge; and, that the Apocalyptic “Antichrist” is alive and well overall in today’s church.  And that they are all too stupid (and pussywhipped) to know it.  It’s like I wasn’t even supposed to even think that fornication could be a lie.  Again, I’m not making it up: these are the Greek language facts I presented.  Ignoring them would not be on the side of God, especially since it’s His book.  Sacrificing self for the word of God is something only the very few can accomplish.  And I did present my findings to them in a very kind and considerate manner.  Today, I’d like to go back and tell them what I really think about all their standard artificial salvation cop-outs, with Red Letter support.  But they’re just peons compared to whom I’m now addressing.

If I was President:

I wouldn’t order our troops out of Iraq.  I’d just quit having the government / taxpayer fund it:  I’d “privatize” it.  Then O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. can set up a fund for everyone who wants to contribute, so they can all “win”!  That way General Petraeus and his men would be allowed the Freedom to stay in Iraq and work for the fund; but, if they wanted to rejoin my military, they’d have to come back to the States.  Plus, war supporters will have the full Freedom to place another surge into effect any time they want, without having to debate with bureaucrats.  Then we’d all probably find out real quick how “important” it is to “win.”  Wait a minute O’Reilly: You mean you’d allow the next American soldier to die over there, but you won’t give all your current and future savings for the same purpose?  I understand.  No, you don’t need to explain: I understand.

Is Obama on his high horse?:

I’m guessing so.  He’s earned way too much in way too little time, which can probably make a person think they’re of deity status.  A person can think things out more when they’ve been bumped around more.  Therefore, you could say he’s more “spoiled” than John McCain, and therefore more mistake-prone.  (I’m talking errors in how to reach a goal.  I’m not saying I support McCain’s goals.)  I also think Obama should try to get back to his original antiwar, take from the rich and give to the poor, etc. constituency.  He should quit trying to please the evil of the Republicans, because John McCain will still get the warmonger vote as well as “the few” vote.  By the way, there’s a real possibility that the post-surge “improvements” have been more coincidence, as all historic post-war insurgent aggression eventually always starts to improve at some point.  You see, there’s a strong logic in Iraq that those true evil invaders / baby killers deserve discipline; but, there’s also a strong logic to get police back on the streets, etc.  The logic of not supporting a surge still remains, as there are little ways for any number of soldiers to stop suicide and IED attacks, plus the fact that we can never surge enough to search every house in Iraq.  So there will always be a hiding place for those planning attacks.  So, there has to simply be less of those kinds of insurgents still alive in Iraq.  And intelligence operations are probably the same either pre- or post-surge.  Again, the surge implementation had been a gradual increase, but the big drop occurred suddenly after an apparently very relevant instigative safe-house was taken out (via intelligence).  So the logic of Barack Obama’s rationale against the surge remains correct.

Obama needs to go back to saying that Iran is really not much of a threat to us (and that we could likely get along), and offer West Texas to any Israeli who wishes to be more Godly.  I’m talking all moving expenses and initial comparable housing setup be paid by our wonderfully holy Americans who want to end violence against the Jewish people.  That’d probably be a fraction of the cost those same “holy” Americans would enjoy paying for a war with Iran.  Plus, my plan assures peace for the Jews, where the other plan just fills all the rivers over there with blood.  Any Jew who passes the offer to move would be on their own.  And, when peace is complete, I’m sure the Palestinians would love our tourism dollar from either me or any Jew who wishes to visit the Holy Land museum… unless any of us started causing any trouble of course; as would be the case at any tourist attraction.  You say, but we would not have “won” the game!  Yeah, I know.

Obama saying Iran is a concern, is just making Americans “think” and “worry” that it is and therefore in need of a violent aggressive solution.  So, trying to please the other party via lying just to get votes, overruling what made him popular in the first place may cause the end of the world.  Obama should argue my (only) solutions to O’Reilly, not just lose his integrity in front of a master in exposing someone’s weak spots (O’Reilly).

John McCain is too good of a leader, which makes me worry:  He’ll efficiently make sure he starts more wars so we can “win” more, and will optimize helping the rich while kicking the poor as hard as humanly possible while they’re down.  We will end up with a wider divide between the vast majority working more toward minimum wage, while the vast few will be having more, so they will be able to employ all the poor people, again to minimum wage.  More people will have to work two full time jobs to have basic needs.  That way there can be more things made that will only be consumed by the rich (the few).  Future crime will escalate, but no one will know why.

Barack Obama was worked on a mutual endeavor with terrorist Bill Ayers:

I’d say it like: just because both might like cheese pizza doesn’t mean Obama supports terrorism.  And if this guy Ayers is a terrorist… then why isn’t he locked up???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers:

Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot.^[7] The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.

I think that would justify being locked up.  And authorities are harassing me!  “Dumb”: It’s all over the place.  What if “I” was standing there at the time?  Well, then Ayers would be a “hero” in the eyes of both liberals and conservatives.

Again, only a moron uses violence to protest war.  If your gripe can be said in logic and fairness, then instead write it, then keep writing it until you die.  Otherwise, you’re just the same kind of trash that you are targeting against.  I’m not finding anything about religious cop-outs overruling Jesus’ Fair Afterlife Judgment or the Goldenrule in the Ayers article, so Ayers would have done better by just staying home.  If you don’t know the root of the problem then there’s no way you’re going to permanently fit it.

Botched abortions:

Hannity shows his true colors by his cruel and rude verbally attack against Barack Obama, insinuating Barack supported infanticide.  Well, I’ll have to agree with you Hannity on this one.

But then, again, I’m waiting for a moral reason why abstinence doesn’t prevent someone the right to life, to match the rational argument for right to life at conception.  I mean, in right to life logic, isn’t a woman that’s not walking around a dark alley right now hoping to get raped, preventing someone to come into this world?  I think the “moral” reason would be the same “moral” reason why I should give a proper burial and Christian ceremony for my toenail clippings, fallen hair and dandruff.  Probably should add in feces.  All that substance is human “life,” and it’s all larger human life than an embryo at conception.  Well, we should respect human “life”!  But, I’ve never heard of pro-lifers burying with Christian ceremony, their deceased pieces of “life.”  I mean that stuff has all the DNA information that defines the entire person.  And they’re going to just let it fall into the carpet and be continually stomped on it like it’s the DNA of a dog or cat?  Again, the line should be when the kid starts feeling pain, as pain and happiness has everything to do with “human” morals.  And study on embryos at conception (smaller than dandruff) is pursued to definitely help human happiness and stop definite human pain.  Again, pro-life at conception people are just using their extended conception line to support their cop-out message to God to bypass Fair Afterlife Punishment for their real sins that hurts “innocent” people.  They don’t give a hoot about excluding the pain and suffering of the unborn, because they don’t care anything about the pain and suffering of the woman who quickly decides she doesn’t want to be pregnant (prior to the pain and suffering of the unborn), nor the people who can benefit from stem cell research.  Jesus told that someday, religious ethics will not be determined by signs, mysteries and miracles, but only by rational logic.  It’s called His Second Coming.

An additional higher mother’s health line:

Whenever the baby can be safely delivered (with no harm for the mother) and survive on it’s own it should never be killed.  But, when there’s a real serious threat to the health of the mother, then I don’t know where that line should be.  That should be the real challenge we all should debate.  Probably a small court hearing with the doctor(s) should be the people who make the decision in each case.  Not some peccant doctor in Wichita who spins it every time to his financial advantage.  My “pain” line of somewhere between 7-20 weeks, should be sufficient time and pressure for a woman to have these health risks determined beforehand.  Oh, but then what’s she supposed to do when the boyfriend breaks up with her after the 7-20 week abortion line?  Especially if she attends a church?  Today, she’ll have to make up a way out of it, thanks to today’s determined “Christian” morals against sex out of marriage.  Having a baby out of wedlock, especially without a father, will surely cause non-favorable signs and gestures from church congregants, that’s even if they have a cool pastor / priest; simply because it helps make the congregant feel they’re better circumventing their own “assured” Fair Afterlife Punishment.

Wait (something for the defenseless animals):

People respect human life, but not animal life because they are bias!  No other reason!  They don’t respect lessening / stopping “pain,” which is the essence of said goal.  Those should not be trusted in vital decisions either.

Mr. Critical – I don’t endeavor to have any friends – that’s the only way I can reach truth.

TO SEE PRIOR TIMELESS WRITINGS (and more):

http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/