11-27-07: "Freedom" man!

Subject: “Freedom” man!

11-27-07

Don’tcha get it?!? That’s what it’s all about, man. Don’t you want your dreams to come true when you turn 60? I say, quit taking another toke, my friend, by forgetting about what I’m saying, and let your dreams become a reality. So, don’t bogart that message my friend, pass it over to the people to see. Actually, I don’t think this open sex thing will manifest in this generation, even if it got disseminated today. But, for the future, for God, it will (if it gets started soon / sometime). “I’ve been waiting so long, to be where I’m going, in the Sunshine Of Your Love” –Cream, 1968.

Confused on which direction you should be going?:

Just submit your question to the above Reply button.

What is the meaning of life? Why did God make us?:

It’s simply because: Something is better than nothing. So get off your keister and do “something.” To elaborate in long explanatory, definitive detail, the final conclusion based on thousands of years worth of investigative study: Do something good, not something bad. Also “Do it anyway” –Martina McBride, 2007. “Something is better than nothing” also explains the creation and guided / judged evolution of the entire universe. Since God “judges” and “calls it good” then that means He doesn’t exactly know what the final result will be with every level of creation / evolution. But, since we’re the latest (mostly in the arrogant department), many folks just refuse to believe that God is individually judging us, especially if you’re wealthy. And God said He’s not pleased with how we’re dealing with things here in the Garden of Eden paradise. So unless Jesus could “say” something (Goldenrule), or if even I could “say” something (Goldenrule), that would make it the kind of world God wants, then I think God’s got us marked for destruction. So I suggest “doing” the Goldenrule with Muslims (e.g., Iran), or try to kill everyone who’s not an American, to avoid eventual nuclear war. But wait: half of Americans despise the killing of innocent people. So, I think it’s the Goldenrule or nothing. The allegoric Book of Revelation can be looked at in two different ways. I mean, we’re dealing with the kind of leaders and media that actually thought they were doing the people of Iraq a good deed by bombing and invading them. It’s obvious to me no one has really changed, and its obvious to me everyone thinks they have. So, we’re not going to know it when we’ve passed the point of no return; but again, we definitely “think” we will know beforehand.

Pussywhipped johns with their dishonest prostitutes:

http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com/index.php, You’re In NoNonsense Territory, “Does She Wear the Pants, by Marc H. Rudov?”:

Every time a man tells me, whether in person or via e-mail or on a radio show, that he wears the pants at home, I laugh to myself. I know that the opposite is true: he’s engaged in a sad game of self-delusion. … At home, these men live under the false impression that they’re in charge, and their wives and girlfriends are happy to encourage such fantasy. Women know the score. So, what does it mean to wear the pants at home?

I’m sure that’s the case if the man has an attractive wife. How about nobody controls nobody like that, and we all have open / free sex, not prostitution based sex (sex for not wearing the pants, really), as the church insists!? Insane you say? Sure, if “insane” means knowing everything you know, and a lot more.

… a man who likes to wine & dine women is signaling to them that they can control his and/or “their” treasury throughout their entire relationship -- from dating to divorce. I’ve appeared on enough radio and TV shows to safely conclude that most men willingly engage in legal prostitution -- paying to have sex with their girlfriends and wives. Some men refuse to live this way, but most relent. … Sex: most men do not realize that women are the libido champions -- they crave sex much more than men, which is why almost all of them own vibrators. Because of their ignorance -- and low self-esteem -- most men will do almost anything, from spending fortunes to doing ridiculous favors to tolerating verbal and emotional and physical abuse, in exchange for sex with pretty girls.

Wait… I’ll just put this record on the turntable:

Shania Twain, 1995:

Any Man Of Mine better walk the line; better show me a teasin’ squeezin’ pleasin’ kinda time. I need a man who knows, how the story goes … And I can be late for a date – that’s fine; but, he better be on time!

It’s that Devil lust mixed in with that dishonest prostitution – our Antichrist church vehemently supports both. But, Jesus says it’s better to cut out your eye, then to “fall” for the attractive. I bet a lot of guys can concur. Rev. 18:13 says the marriage standard takes the “souls of men.” How well put. It’s just getting harder and harder for me to become an atheist.

… in almost all cases, women wear the PANTS -- either by law or through sexual manipulation. This ought to be a wakeup call for men, but I’m betting most will continue sheepishly deferring to their women.

Yeah, the courts are as much of the evil as the churches. It all has to do with money. Read Lewis and Clark at my website to understand the basis of the problem. Cures for STDs is the solution: women will slowly become more promiscuous, making other women less able to control a man unfairly. However, if anyone other than me is heard for advice, then we are in for a great deal of future problems, as the church and courts try to fight it their way. Try telling a pastor / priest about my Jesus sex findings, and a judge who already knows it all, and you’ll understand what I mean when I say the future of mankind will look mighty glum. And don’t think for a moment you could win this debate on your own. My website is the ONLY thing, since the beginning of time, that can win the debate. Go ahead and try it, just to see the other side eat you alive. I know all their comebacks – I’m ready anytime you are.

Apparently Rudov didn’t realize to add the Bobbitt and Mary Winkler cases. Women today now know they can actually murder their husband, and are pretty well assured they will get away with it. Yeah, he better be down on his knees. Now, I’m aware men can be abusive too; so, that just further validates my solution (against the church and the courts).

We live in a country where honesty is actually taboo: A man better never mention the fact that their marriage / relationship is sex for money and/or conditions, which mainly includes the silence about this fact.

Today’s Christian “values”:

It’s simply “dishonest” prostitution: sex for money / conditions.

“When we’re free to love anyone we choose … Then we shall be free: We shall be free.” –Garth Brooks, 1992. Yeah, that’s what I’m working on. Which is what everyone else seems to be working so hard against.

No one really cares:

There’s some TV show (Lie Detector) that asked people if they really care about starving people in Africa. The honest answer is “no” (which includes me). Because this is where faith in Jesus Christ comes into play, to solve the problem (e.g., Matthew 25:34-46). Oh sure, people wish it to not be a problem when they hear about it, but they aren’t going to sacrifice much to help solve it… unless they fear God. Also the more they learn about it or experience it directly, the more things they will sacrifice to help it, but even if you’re standing right next to it, you still don’t know what its like until you are fully part of it. I know one can do a tremendous amount of work to help it (which is very, very good), but is practically nothing compared to the correct writing I can do to solve the entire problem. And the incorrect, or dumb, writing or speech will just hurt it more. After watching much of the news, I don’t see any other way around it: the only solution to all the world’s problems is admitting that I (only) know more than you about it, and that’s technically impossible for any of you to admit (unless I had an excellent singing voice). The Church members who aid the hungry do accomplish “something” very good; but, it is predominately overruled and thereby limited by the Church cop-outs. I’ve heard of many “missionaries” who don’t bring food or medicine for starving people, just the message that Jesus paid their penalties for all their wrongs; which, can only please those country leaders who monopolize their (God’s) land for higher sales to Western markets, thereby letting their own people starve.

Ending world hunger is the right thing to wish for by the Miss. America types, which just means it will eventually become a reality. So wouldn’t some of you like the future record books to say that you were the one who achieved it?

Plus, overpopulation problems will be easily curbed when technology comes up with some kind of effective birth control method, like maybe a pill or a shot or something. Then with our overwhelming ethical Christian values, those countries can be utilizing it free of charge. But, wait… oh my, that would cause more promiscuities, and we all know that there’s only one thing that overrules the multitude of ethical / Jesus instructed / Goldenrule Christian values – and that’s sex only within the confines of marriage. So, I think further top-PhD analysis of the word “Freedom” would be helpful. And of course, getting to first-base, and having the tool to win all angles of the arguments for all these issues requires a reading of my Lewis and Clark pages.

Plus, the spermicide that prevents HIV and all the other STDs, happens to also be another type of effective birth control; so, Jesus’ Goldenrule will just have to stay in the back seat to satisfy English Bible word corruptions (i.e., “fornication”).

So, John Edwards isn’t even close to finding a solution to world hunger. And there’s definitely no Church (or even open-sex Church) that is even close to finding a solution to world hunger. There’s only “one” person in the entire world that can solve these problems (and many more), and I’m still driving on Interstate highways.

You say: “We’re not going to promote any of your solutions until someone we look up to says to. What do you think we all are: stupid?”

Technically impossible:

I don’t have a good argument for those who “inform” me that there’s no way anyone is going believe that I know more about this stuff then they do, or our trusted authorities or religious leaders do. If nothing else, extant reality strongly says that “saving face” concerning all the dumb things they’ve all previously said or advocated, would be all of their priorities. So, I’m just doing it because I’ve been overwhelmed by a very strong pressure from God to do it. Unless someone can show me how I’m wrong, I can’t stop it. But, yes, I would like to stop it. (Then I’d have time for sex with a lot more women.) But that would entail someone of influence to take it over, but I really don’t think anyone could do that correctly without my continued involvement. I’m sure there are many, many dumb arguments, and side issues, the general public would have that I haven’t even addressed yet. If I’m not responding to it, likely it won’t get refuted by any of the multitudes of one-step thinkers I’ve seen who are of influence in this world. It is a very, very tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive (and add hundreds of thousands of years to the mix). I’ve got the necessary prerequisites for its untangling, but that’s logically all in vain when presenting it to an animal that “already knows it all” and who is especially proud of that. O’Reilly and Hannity are really the best examples, because they actually get paid to stop progress, and to even regress it by solidifying old ignorant standards. With most people fooled by the many correct things they say. And the more O’Reilly and the churches succeed in regressing a society that is slowly progressing, more and tighter “tangled” problems are sure to arise. Where eventually, cutting the strings will be our only way to get the shoes off our feet. Then we all will be walkin’ floppy when none of us have shoe strings anymore.

More I should have told the atheist:

–About his assertion that Jesus didn’t exist: It sure sounds like there was someone taking the part of Jesus. Plus, if the Essenes did just make up the Jesus figure, then the parallel Gospels would probably be more fully on track with each other, than the many collected variations, which designates more truthful journals via valid recollections, together with expected / normal human errors and variations. Regardless if Jesus really existed or not, it doesn’t mean that the red letters aren’t the Words of God. For God to have to wait for the perfect human, it might have just been easier for God to allow the inspiration for a fabrication, based on parables and secret meanings. I think God’s going to take it anyway He can get, and we should still be grateful. And if the only way was to have it all made up, then so be it: He would still know It would eventually rule over one-third of today’s population. If the Essenes didn’t make it all up, then Jesus Himself took on symbolic meanings and such for a then and future beneficial reasons. So when attributes of Jesus and His stories are parallel with pagan myths, who’s to say those pagan myth weren’t inspired by God for the sole purpose of Jesus’ (and my) future use and eventual valid interpretations / true meanings. God / Jesus had to of known there would be Middle Age corruptions, after Christianity got its very large boost in 312 AD. Therefore, God had to be very careful with the words used and the words purposely not used, like “Eros”: If God was against open “erotic” and bisexual love, then He would have simply used the available word “Eros” in Scripture to absolutely define against it. So there! Plus, whoever was inspired earlier to portray “The god of sexual love” as a naked infant with wings, sure made it easy for Dark Age clergies to keep the logo in church art for many hundreds of years (halted mainly by Piccadilly Circus’s Eros), being that corruptors found “Eros” as no threat, so today “I” (only) can easily explain the Early Christian support of “The god of sexual love.” “I” truthfully get way too much support from the Gospels to even consider becoming an atheist. The fact that Christianity was just another “Mystery” religion should also have a secret meaning of some kind, if my teachings are to be supported by God. Only I can explain these things, where today’s church can’t. Many Christian leaders, who became atheists in the 1950s, decided that they’ll just continue to use the Christian name for their own selfish agenda. If nothing else, that’s were their income comes from.

You see, if you are able to believe that God can’t do everything, then it’s easier to believe in God, and understand more about Him. Otherwise, saying that God can make everything jolly-lolly perfect anytime He wants (even via prayer), just causes more people to become atheists.

The god of the computer:

I think the best way to describe Microsoft is that a bunch of idiots just got lucky at some point in time. I suppose the root blame should go to IBM in the early ‘80s. I know there’s lots of things right about Windows and Office, but there are still several dumb things that I have to be reminded about several times a day, that could have been easily better thought out (no better in Vista). Today, this imbecilic organization thinks it’s God, and there’s nothings worse that a bunch of idiots with power, who think their next thoughts are for the benefit of mankind. Bill Gates and President Bush must have gone to the same school. All Microsoft has ever done is steal others’ good ideas, then worsen them by adding their special differential / fashionable touch. Yeah, I’m sure there are a “few” exceptions.

The Afterlife:

The best that I can figure is that there are two kinds of Afterlifes: (1) A totally “Spiritual” one where God (at best) allows you your “with God all things are possible” via allowing you hallucinations of whatever you want it to be, based on (and limited to) knowledge of your current life experiences. E.g., if you died as an infant, you’re not going to have near as many options to understand or be able to deal with, to experience more desired scenarios, as you would if you lived a full life. (God can also cause you current life hallucinations, like making all in Egypt see the River Nile as blood, or it rain frogs, etc.; but, that’s a lie of reality, which doesn’t cause anything to “achieve,” or make better, in tangible workings.) But, there’s one thing you won’t be able to do, and that’s to do things in the real physical world, to grow and create more and new based things to discover and want, which leads to (2) Your total physical resurrection as promised by Jesus, which “Science” will eventually develop via the copying of your entire memory data into your same DNA but improved physical body. Then you can earn much more to add to your Spiritual hallucinations provided by God (who has much more control of the “Spiritual” than He does of the “physical.” (So don’t get cremated.) Now, there definitely appears to be Judgment in both of these arenas. So being good is still necessary. And I think many of you will not even be able to enter the physical world again; but, that’s not my call, that’s the call of our future descendants who will be of perfect ethics, and will likely be unable to allow corrupted souls in, as it could cause way too much of a negative disturbance in a perfect (but fallible) utopia. Jesus says you must fully have a Goldenrule heart before you can enter this Kingdom. Punishments may be set up to change your heart, to feel the same pain and suffering you caused on “innocent” people. I know by observation that no one’s heart ever changes until they actually become the victim of wrongs, the exact same ones they felt justified doing to others. Unless, of course, they change via reading about Jesus, but they have to “really” change (no cop-outs); and, with our current church influence, most of us are just somewhere in-between. However, stolen items that you never returned, e.g., or were even unable to return to the direct actually victim, will be in need of fair retribution, according to Matt. 5:23-26; just like if you murdered someone in today’s realm, you’ll still go to prison for the rest of your life, or even get the death penalty. “Fairness” does not let you “just get out of it” just because direct amends to the innocent victim you just killed can’t be accomplished: that’s even assuming you’re sorry and remorseful. Revelation 13:16,17 says all have a “mark” to account for the things we have done (“hand”), and for what’s in our mind (“forehead”). So you will not be able to “sell” the sins you “buy” throughout your life, just because your “mind” feels remorse of something beastly that you have “done.” You have to like “hand” the actual victim their restitution. I think what fools a lot of people today is their own lies to their selves that makes them think they’re sorry and remorseful, but that’s just because they’re facing punishment for it, like the Dog Chapman N-word case. But, Rev. 13:16,17 states the mind is separated from the actions, and that only an action can “sell” a sin of action, that has been bought. Likewise, the evil determinations of the mind can be sold simply (but not really so “simply”) by the changing of one’s mind, that has bought evil thoughts (which is default). It appears action sins causes fair retribution punishment (a “do” thing), because all Judgments correlate with the true down-deep wishes and suffering of the victim; but, one’s evil (non-Goldenrule) mind, can keep you from re-entering the physical world. I think to enter the physical world, you’ll have to be willing to suffer equally for all your sins against innocent people, or you simply don’t have the corrected, fair judgment Goldenrule mind. In your Spirit Afterlife, I’m guessing God will rid your mind of your evil probably the same way. And if He does, you’re probably good to go into the physical world. I could be that your acceptance of suffering equally for your sins, gets you into the Spirit Afterlife, but your accepted sentence won’t be carried out until you re-enter the physical world, which will probably be mandatory at that point. But, I don’t see anyone accepting the suffering for their sins if they have many of them, and/or of high degrees. I can. Some day, I’ll get to feel my head being cut open with the back of a hammer, if I get my way. Maybe you’ll be moderately suffering in like limbo, like in an awareness coma, until you prove to God that you’ve willing to suffer equally for all your sins. I think warmongers will be seeing what they’re missing in limbo for a very, very long time, until they agree on the fair suffering. Sounds like it might be as complicated as real physical life.

So, I highly recommend achieving restitution before you die, otherwise “Fair Afterlife Suffering” will be your only choice, where restitution might not involve your suffering, but “Fair Afterlife Suffering” definitely will.

So, just remember “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is still the only “fair” conclusive Judgment. Jesus just tells us to “forgive” others simply because we’re all too stupid to be able to correctly pass “Eye for eye…” judgments. The Jews proved that to God. Even if we have all the correct facts in a case, favoritism and ignorance of true right and wrong, runs amok in our minds, even from the legislative side. Future perfect people will have all the true facts, to be able to implement the correct discipline. (“Never hurt an innocent person” is the only legislative law, so you and they have it now.) So, leave the correct and perfect retributions to them the next time someone wrongs you (and turn the other cheek). It requires “faith.” (Not Protestant / Antichrist “faith” that you won’t face Fair Judgment.) Now, sometime before all this physical resurrection can happen, “I” have to make the present world change into total and correct righteousness, because I’m the only one who has the knowledge of what that is. So, you can call me crazy, but just try to convince me that I don’t have a very important job.

If I’m right (or, I should say: if the Bible’s right), then this should scare the heck out of you. And if you’re scared, you have hope. Never hurt an innocent person, then be a very charitable person, and learn this from birth, and you’ll have absolutely nothing to worry about. Jesus guarantees it. I just wish I knew then what I know now!

"... like a record, baby":

For a guy that spins his own issues an awful lot, he sure does complain a lot about the evil of others who spin their issues. You’d think O’Reilly would be appalled by the spin of his opposers, and endeavor to be better. But, I think O’Reilly actually doesn’t realize he spins as much, and probably even more, than others. It’s pathetic. To fight to just be “right” (“I’ve got to have my way now, baby”), it seems everyone wants to spin to the particular stereotype they’ve adjusted to. They become more embedded in their stereotype when they find appreciative support from others in the same mindset. I, who don’t fit it with any current stereotype, need to be strong and remain very lonely until something breaks. Oh, I do see how easy it would be to simply fall into some existing stereotype. Life would be so much easier, to have a group that I can fully correlate with. But, I would be falling away from further in-depth logic, which I think is something very, very special, and worth holding onto. (“I set my sights on you. And no one else will do.”) I’m not really out anything if it doesn’t sail: the rest of the entire future world is, that’s all.

Why did O.J. have an orange face in the courtroom?:

Simple: He’s the Juice, and specifically he’s O.J. which stands for “orange juice.”

Drew Peterson:

Just in case he believes in God, he’ll be very happy and satisfied hearing how Jesus paid the penalty for his sins. I’m sure other police will agree. If he happens to get charged, he should say, “Hey, Mary Winkler got off, why can’t I?” I’d be his best defensive argument, really. You see, he could holler, “Unfair! favoritism! bias justice!”

I overlooked putting this one in an older email:

Me:	Why does that bother you?
O’Reilly:	Well, what if I said, “So easy a sarcastic religious critic can do it”?
Me:	Well, that spin wouldn’t make sense to me.
O’Reilly:	Why not?
Me:	Well, sarcastic religious critics are…
O’Reilly:	Are what – lugubrious?

Hey O’Reilly:

“Responsible” parents provide birth control for their teenage daughters! Is that pithy enough? Plus, O’Reilly truly believes that adolescent boys are the “victims” when they score with their teachers. So, he’s really way out there. And his is typical of the kind of minds that are controlling this country. Stereotypical also of the Antichrist (Protestant cop-outs). And no one can believe those kinds of minds would suppress STD cures and preventives. “Dumb”: The world “needs” someone who is not it.

What’s “Freedom” really all about?:

What’s the real key thing that Americans died in the battlefield to prevent? Adolf Hitler, communism, etc. would allow Freedom of Speech. They didn’t mind people talking. No one can realistically stop that. The only Freedom I see that those kinds would suppress is “critical” talk: saying something bad about someone of authority or their politics, religion, etc. You see, by default, the weak human animal doesn’t like being told they are wrong about anything. So it’s natural for a leader to force obedience among its people. “Saving face” is a very standard, default and a very historic means of self pride. But, the greater laws of the United States allows and invites constructive criticism, to be in accordance with the higher intellect, overruling our animalistic / self-centered emotions. Therefore, if you’re a private business, or a government agency who has ever blackballed an individual for saying something bad about you that you personally didn’t like, then you are of the same lines as Adolf Hitler and communism. I.e., you don’t deserve to be an American. So, please, “try” to improve sometime before you die, to be worthy of being recognized as being more (somewhat) than just another dumb emotional cat or dog. I don’t know about the rest of you, but being blackballed by others is my life story. I’m “not smart enough” to know what I shouldn’t say. So, “I” am the epitome of American Freedom. And since I’m yackin’ about slant drilling, crossing the dishonest prostitution truth line, etc., then that makes me much more of a key example of American Freedom than any of you other media. Pointing out the multitude of church cop-outs just shows I’m smarter than all the rest of you. There’s my self pride comin’ at ya, which is majorly different than your self pride.

Hannity’s definition of “freedom” is: “Freedom” to only care about America. “Freedom” to not do the Goldenrule. “Freedom” to help the rich get richer (lots of countries throughout history have done that). “Freedom” to kick the poor when they’re down (lots of countries throughout history have done that). “Freedom” to suppress or spin vital information and facts against its people (all of you do that). (Hannity would say: “Well, the rich pay more than the poor.” ) “Freedom” from Fair Afterlife Judgment. Etc. Now exists a better word to use: It’s called the “Goldenrule,” which “explains” the right kind of Freedom, with no mistakes.

It should say:

http://www.bibleplaces.com/westernwall.htm, Western Wall, “Prayers”:

The most holy place in the world accessible to Jewish people, prayers are offered up at this wall built by King Herod in the first century B.C.

Three times a day the Jewish people pray (morning, afternoon, evening) and they do so with phylacteries tied around their forehead and wrist and with the white and blue prayer shawls.

I believe we’d have a solution, if they reiterated this Goldenrule statement three times a day. Anyone got a can of spray paint?

Isn’t King Herod the dude who ordered the slaughter of all children “from two years old and under” hoping to kill the infant Jesus (Matt. 2:16-18)? Pathetic! And it was Herod’s son who later beheaded John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1-12). Worshipping a wall is a good example of idolatry: God and His Word (now in one word) is the only thing that should be praised. So the items, chalices, alters, etc. should all be things of the past: the Word of God (Goldenrule) should be the only thing praised, as long as it stays as text.

How’s about this?:

No, I wouldn’t push it. The Word of God needs to stay just a Word. When the Goldenrule name becomes Pope, then all the answers will be easier to figure.

Duh Phelps Family:

The ironic thing is, they’re really not doing anything wrong if you believe in the corrupted English translation of the Bible. If the Bible was really condemning gays, a “victimless crime,” then they should be pressuring the message. So, “I” can appropriately discuss how appalling they are, but none of you really can, can you? If I was burying a son, I would only think it as good if someone nearby was preaching something that needed to be said to make it a better world. You should agree, if you believe in the English translation of the Bible, James Dobson, the Pope, etc. Otherwise, you’re just proving to me you’re all idiots. Thanks, but I think I have enough proof that you’re all idiots. If anyone “likes” me, then I’m not doing everything right.

O’Reilly reports from Afghanistan:

He says the Afghan people like Americans a whole lot more than the Iraqi people do, and that attacks against American soldiers is actually null. But, with a question mark on top of his head. Maybe it’s because we have a much more worthy cause for being in Afghanistan (burkas, beards, maybe booze [?], etc.); and, mainly because we may have avoided killing innocent Afghans, or we hid it better. Because, I can’t see how our soldiers could do things like machine-gun down farmers, blow up restaurants, power stations, civilian fallout shelters, etc. while we were dropping food packages out of airplanes. Crazy me thinks I influenced Bush during the Afghan invasion, where apparently my stuff was not monitored near as much before the Iraq invasion. We need to find a better way for Presidents to monitor my computer, rather then only right after a major U.S. catastrophe occurs.

O’Reilly says Iran is supplying weapons for the Taliban:

Also for Iraqi insurgents. I think the spin leaves out that just about anybody can purchase guns from Iranian gun dealers in Pakistan, without written government approval. I’m guessing Iranian leaders are not involved. But, if they are, with all the major threats we’ve recently made against them, they might slightly just want us out of their area: I know me and President Kennedy would (if we were born in Iran). I say make friends with Iran, while it appears it would be easy; or I’ll be explaining the differences between the words “easy” and “difficult” in future mailings. “Impossible” might also come into play. And, just make friends with any other country that develops nuclear power. Heck, I don’t see why we just don’t make friends with all the countries in this world. If there’s a leader who plans to hurt “innocent” people (anywhere), shoot him; then tell the next leader (that their people appoint) to never hurt an “innocent” person!!! Of course, we’ll lose our integrity – which might make matters worse – if we still have Presidents in office named either Bush or Clinton, as those have proved they will kill innocent people wherever they feel it’s to their advantage.

Hillary Clinton:

I really don’t know much about her, but I don’t hear her condemning her husband for dropping bombs on innocent civilians in Iraq and Yugoslavia. So, I can easily assume she would do the same kind of thing. She is a different person, but I don’t hear her condemning her husband for pardoning several criminals right before he left office. You see, one doesn’t pardon a lot of people just before they leave office, unless it is something the American people would be opposed to. So it’s easy to assume he just released “real” criminals. Do we really want eight more years of trash? Especially if lobbyists’ pay-offs are really the ones who control any issue. Edwards or Obama? I like giving the benefit of the doubt; but anymore, I really don’t thing anyone has the capability to turn out right, unless they have my full guidance. If they want it pithy, they can simply read the first half of my home page. If they want it from Jesus (and Others), they can just click the first link on my home page. If they want to mess up, they can go to a modern day church.

Sure, she might have more experience, but that could just be more experience in knowing how to get away with stuff. Let’s let someone else in who can give us at least six months of honesty.

How about: Mr. Critical For President:

Sure, I’d run under the Goldenrule Party. All the more difficult jobs in this country (and in Mexico) would earn a raise. All the loafers could live in the woods full of free food, clean water, free building materials, and a handed down knowledge of craftwork (or give’em a week at Silver Dollar City)… or, on a non-degrading method of welfare; or, could keep their either self-made or inherited wealth and rich lifestyle. Anyone who comes up with a better idea for a product or service, and if we implement it, they’ll get a guaranteed suitable reward. No more good ideas getting away because of stronger competition, bad implementation, flawed marketing, or pay offs. Then everyone would put on their thinking caps, instead of the multitude of apathetic employees we are stuck with today. Constructive criticism will, of course, be encouraged, and maybe even rewarded (if implemented). Until somebody says something against “me”! Then I’ll understand why Presidents carry lifelong grudges instead of negotiating fairness. I wouldn’t care about the innocent people who had to die or suffer for my personal revenge satisfactions and pride in winning. I’d vow to get’em all before I left office. OR, I’d be such a pacifist that I’d simply let Chávez, Ahmadinejad, and Jong Il push me out of the White House, so they could set up their torture entertainments against the American people. When they’d had their fun with a number of innocent Americans, they’d just order their guards to go out into the streets and randomly fetch up another dozen or so, to be tortured alive, for their sadistic viewing pleasures. Well… the Republicans are lickin’ this up. OR, maybe it’d be somewhere in-between the extremes (if that’s possible): Only those who hurt “innocent” people will be dealt with harshly like Ronald Reagan would, and those who haven’t hurt an “innocent” person will get treated like Jimmy Carter would. Who’s gonna successfully argue my hard-line severities against those who hurt “innocent” people, and “just advice” for those who are doing something that just hurts themselves? You see, generally, people “don’t” want to hurt themselves. So, when they’re ready to take harmful drugs, scare ‘em about what will eventually happen to them. Also, in a society that treats everyone fair, I betcha they won’t have such a “need” to blow their mind out into outer space: they might just like it here on earth better, with all this open sex (unless someone has proof of moon maidens). Sufficient food stamps and a welfare check to everyone (rich and poor) would definitely curb the stressful stigma about simply expecting what Lewis and Clark had in Kansas City 200 years ago. Shucks, it might just make loafers want to go out and work for… “more.” Today, you lose your welfare, if you work (it just emotionally sounds bad). Plus, it doesn’t pay as much as Kansas City did to Lewis and Clark, or an Indian woman with 20 kids walking behind her. Everyone had plenty. And when they worked, they had completely and 100% “more.” Mormon founder Joseph Smith actually thought it was the Garden of Eden. So, everyone is entitled to something like “paradise” first, then any work they do is just “more.” I think today one has to stay at a Las Vegas resort hotel before they can feel like they’re in paradise. (Read the latest entry I added to my Lewis and Clark [MORE] page here.) And, if your job is really hard and/or dangerous, then enjoy the several cruises you’ll be able to take every year. That oughta quickly build a tower to the moon, because they’ll be so many people lined up wanting to do the hard and/or dangerous jobs, that thing ‘er get done. Inner cities won’t look like slums anymore.

Everyone will be eating a lot healthier; or, we’ll just serve Chilled Monkey Brains, Creamed Roaches, Rocky Mountain Oysters (bull testicles), and Deer Penίs, until everyone really understands the nutritional equivalent to what they think they want to eat.

Could Israel be the real aggressor there?:

Yeah.

“Karma”:

“Karma” isn’t good. Or, fitting of reality. Karma basically says that everyone who is wealthy, in good health, and/or has a good love life, is a good deserving person; and everyone who’s poor, unhealthy, and/or has a lousy love life, deserves it because of bad things they must have done. Mine is the only logic that fits with both reality and the Bible. Not because I want to be boss, but because that’s just the only answer that agrees with intelligence (which is where I shine). There are simply a lot of evil and undeserving wealthy people as Jesus so strongly informs. And His telling about this high degree of evil is what the Gospel says is why He was crucified. Otherwise, His crucifixion was in vain. And, the Protestants don’t only make it in vain, but spin it to exactly what the evil wealthy want it to say. (I can’t believe any wealthy person reads my stuff. Technically it’s impossible to get my stuff disseminated by our mainstream media.) Reincarnation is not what is going on, from the past or present; unless you want to refer to it as our eventual tangible resurrection in the future. No where in the definition of “karma” does it say that “hurting an innocent person” is the definite and only thing that justifies retribution. Fair Afterlife Punishment (both spiritually and tangibly in the future) is the only thing that requires “faith.”

http://www.answers.com/utopia, “Utopia | Word Tutor”:

The idea of Utopia is mischievous as well as unrealistic. And dull, to boot. — D. Lilienthal.

Well, that’s real optimistic. I still say that if we develop a society that teaches everyone a strong Goldenrule, where parents and adults are the best examples (instead of the contradictions and cop-outs), and there’s “faith” in Fair Afterlife Punishment as the Bible says there is (instead of all the cop-outs), then things ought to fall into place. As influential as the Protestant and Catholic churches are today, and with the marriage standard, there’s absolutely no way one can even imagine the possibility of a near perfect utopia. Hence, the reason for the above statement. Concerning blue collar crime: A cruise ship basically doesn’t have police. If everyone was as satisfied with life as people who can afford cruises, then the world would simply not need police (again, for just blue collar crimes). It’s entirely possible that we “could” all live in a society where police and laws are basically a thing of the past. Apparently I’m one of the few that can imagine that possibility; and, who is researching it.

The Iraq situation is like this:

Say I decided to do some helpful missionary work in another country. But all I got back was violence against me for doing the good service. I think the right thing to do would be to just come home. Plus, if I had to kill some of their innocent people in order to do my good deed, then I would “understand” why there was violence against me. Now, from this point in time, I could still stay and pursue the good deed, but I would have to realize how I really don’t have a legitimate complaint when someone tries to hurt me in revenge for the innocent lives I destroyed. Plus, my credibility for the good deed intention would be next to zero if I had spent 12 years before doing things that only hurt the innocent people of that country who I say I’m wanting to help. If I was really a dumb moron, I’d continually tell them that my hurting of their innocent people was necessary to complete my good deed in removing someone who hurt innocent people in the past. And, only people who are dumb morons would believe me. In the meantime, I would whine and complain a lot about the people who still don’t believe my contradiction of rational reality. And, mostly, I would personally never understand why no one believes me. Sometimes the thought might cross my mind that I was in the wrong, and that it being the reason why so many people would not believe me, with why so many on the victims side wishing violence against me, thereby requiring a continuous one-sided offense against the same many more new people who justly want to hurt me, justified by a new and even greater self-centered immediate fear caused by my mistake; but, this thought would dismay me, and I would quickly revert back to continue to believe that my initial irrational lies are valid. Then I would quickly realize that one does not have to be Adolf Hitler to make major, major mistakes and still keep his job of the highest trusted decision making power in the world, and still be well liked by a great number of people, even when the mistake caused even more people in this world to dislike them, with even more valid reasons: to justify the recruiting of even more terrorists. The motto of this story is: When you find out that terrorists want to kill you for a “reason,” you don’t ignore the reason, then just continue to add more justifications for the “reason.” You see, when you “ignore” the “reason,” then it’s “easy” to make the same mistake again, and again, and again …. If I was a terrorist leader, I just don’t see how I could so easily persuade others to die for a righteous cause, unless I had some proof of some hurt or killed innocent people in the explanation.

If someone comes to me and tells me that they plan to do good deeds for me, and they explain it as something that I really don’t see how it benefits me, but then they kill my mother and sister to implement it – then I would be able to “easily” understand my new desire for revenge. Even more so, when I remember how they lessened my food, shelter, and medicine for 12 years prior. I mean, I’m sure much of the media over there tells their own people about the atrocities committed by the invasion, and twice before (unless we’re suppressing their freedom even more); so I think an American soldier is looked at by many of the Iraqis like we would look at the 9/11 terrorists if they were still alive, and parading down our streets with weapons in hand. Yeah, I must be either a super genius or a super idiot, because I still haven’t heard anyone else explain this stuff this way, have you?

Layin’ it out on the table:

On 11-6-07, O’Reilly said we’re justified in killing innocent people in war, when we’re doing it to save our own lives. So that means O’Reilly would block a bullet with little Jessica Lunsford’s body. Is he more evil or is he just an idiot? Saying he’s an idiot gives him the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn’t block a bullet with Jessica Lunsford’s body, but O’Reilly would: So, which one of us do you think is more worthy to be in God’s world? In honesty, no one kills an innocent person to protect other innocent people. If the “line” is otherwise, then there is no line, and whatever secular (or religious) laws or ethics one wants to break for any kind of self fulfillment is justified, and is what makes America (and the Protestant Church) great. (So, I like just gave you a valid history of war.) So, if we can have it all while making every other country a slave, then that is good in an American’s mind. You just wait England and Canada, once we’ve enslaved the rest of the world, we’ll eventually get to you. Sure Fox News, just keep bragging about your “fair and balanced” reporting, concerning those little issues, so watchers can continue to feel proud and trust you’re doing it with the big issues as well.

The biggest warmonger cowards in the present world is by far the United States. And currently, we’re planning a high casualty attack against Iran who hasn’t invaded anyone for a long time. (The 1979 grip we had with them took place on their ground, not ours.) The unfairness of them wanting nuclear weapons for protection from said threat is “realistic.” But, I still don’t believe Iran has the ethical right to kill innocent Americans. Let’s pray that there are no minds like O’Reilly’s living in Iran. Okay?

MSNBC’s To Catch a Predator:

I thought entrapment was against the law, but I guess it’s just a “defense”:

http://www.answers.com/topic/entrapment?cat=technology, “Law Encyclopedia | Entrapment”:

The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it.

“To Catch a Predator” show is about the entrapments of normal thinking men looking for sex and/or a girl friend, persuaded them into wanting to have sex with an easy sounding teenager girl. That just tells me how everyone is just an idiot first, and solving real evil and problems in this world is secondary. “Decoys” are told to sound “eager about having sex.” Basically, they allure the victim in by pretending to sound like a really hot and easy female in a chat room, by presenting an “offer.” Later, they’ll entice him at the right time by making it sound like the only way he’s going to get it, is if he agrees to have sex with her at her young age, which just makes the whole deal into a plus. When he shows up at the house, whamo, he’ll be damning God for the rest of his life, for giving him “normal” sexual desires, with things like 20 years in prison. The only thing these guys are guilty of is disobeying a (ridiculous) law that shouldn’t be a law. And God’s very, very strong sexual desire, in this very, very sexually suppressed society, is the way to accomplish entrapment. I bet they could “catch” hundreds of times more men willing to break this law than illegal drug use laws. And we all know how authorities are “winning” that fight. MSNBC thinks they’re smart by endeavoring to ruin the lives of any and all men who would have sex with a teenage girl. Gee, I do wish them total success, so I can live in a country where there’s very few other men around, so I can have all the millions of (adult) women to myself.

Gettin’ to the nuts and bolts: I don’t get how a teenager’s mind would be “messed up the rest of her life” if she had consensual sex. Please, somebody smart, please explain it to me! (Just click, click to tell me.) I do, however, realize when someone “tells them” that they have been victimized, then that can mess up the rest of their life, because people (teenagers) are dumb enough to “just” trust authority. So the “real” evil is the ones who say it’s wrong, and make laws against it. These laws against teenagers having sex is just an emanation from the Antichrist lie of the corrupted definition of fornication, originally designed to stop teen pregnancy, because of their lack of financial support (grandpa’s got to pay for the “bastard” then). So it all comes down to my Lewis and Clark free food findings. And our very dishonest prostitution / marriage standards. So, sweaty, you need to learn you don’t just give it away: you must sell it first, via demanding conditions and prerequisites; and, your parents may just not want to discuss the prostitution lie with you until you get older, for the strange concealing reason that no one can rationally explain to me. I think MSNBC and our worthless authorities are just very, very much dismayed by females who give it away free to men who normally don’t “deserve” it.

I know this show is pretty entertaining, but isn’t there a way we can catch people who plan to hurt “innocent” people? I mean, I know they’re out there. Then I could be proud of our authorities, and not feel I “need” to write so much. Plus, selfishly, there’s a lot less chance of me becoming a victim of a “real” crime, if taxpayers’ money went toward solving “real” problems. If the legal system says that entrapment is a “defense,” then it shouldn’t be done. If the line doesn’t get drawn somewhere, what stops my opposers from continually trying to entrap me with something. (I guess nothing.) I shouldn’t have to be subject to it all, just because I’m smarter than they are (unless I’m getting sex out of it). What stops the next Democrats in the White House from entrapping guys like O’Reilly? Etc. How can anyone make it a better world when all the ones pursuing greater ideas just get harassed? Isn’t that just Nazism and communism? I think Nazis and communists are just “honest” about their suppression of oppositions, where we are so dumb we actually “think” we’re not corrupt. I mean, thousands of Americans lost their lives during WWII so we would not become like that, yet we are that. The John Lennon harassment is the best example. You should be able to tell that my tactics for a better world aren’t corrupt, because I spread it so freely and openly. Can politicians and other authorities say the same? So what does it really mean when someone is trying to conceal something they really don’t want others to know about, while they “think” in their minds they are trying to make it a better world… like slant drilling for example? Is there a country anywhere in this big fat world that fully tells both sides of the (big) stories?

And all the dumb lies of these entrapped victims are ethically justified by the example made by the lies that entrapped them.

The pathetic legal aspect of it is that our trusted authorities violate what they consider a law that should be overlooked (entrapment), to enforce a statutory rape law, that even the teenage “victim” thinks should be overlooked.

Fox News correctly says things are getting “better” in Iraq:

That good. Even if it continues to get better, I still think it’s going to be a long time before Iraq is in the state it would have been, if we could have somehow “enthused” Saddam Hussein and his family into visiting all the great places to see in this world. George would say, “We did! We just called it ‘exile’ to satisfy our personal expression of dislike. The lives of American soldiers is of secondary priority.” If the media would have fully explained about slant drilling, then Americans might not have had such a need for a personal expression of dislike. So, who’s really worse, President Bush, or the press? And, I don’t see a real change: I just see a lot of people who just think they have changed. Because, they could still bring up the slant drilling information, but refuse to. So, things will probably just get worse, especially when we begin to think we have ever “won” the Iraq war – but, watch all the true trash bigots say we have.

It “moves” even with serious STDs:

Years ago we were all taught that any kind of sex interest outside of marriage was naughty. And if you wanted a job that made money, you needed to think that way. But today, only guys like O’Reilly conform to these old (but very strict) standards, simply because they are highly educated: highly brainwashed.

Fact:

The vast majority of people who have a post graduate degree think they know it all, but don’t. I’m reminded of that fact all the time.

Somebody, try to think!:

I agree that excessive advertising about American soldiers who rape Iraqi women will just cause more unnecessary problems. These are isolated incidences; it’s stuff that’s just going to happen now and then with the law of averages: I’m sure President Bush doesn’t support it. I remember back in 1990, though, our great news organizations took advantage of news about Iraqi soldiers who took liberties with Kuwaiti women, so to imply that Saddam Hussein supported it. I seriously doubt he did. It’s really easy for me to see how our great news organizations today are just evilly biased. If I had a brother or sister who died on 9/11, I’d be furious with our great American media, who is so logically the cause of 9/11. – And will be the cause of future problems.

But, President Bush does support the “killing” of innocent people, whenever it’s to our military’s advantage! And Americans aren’t even smart enough to realize how it’s the cause of our failure (even if we’re now able to start licking our wounds). Our media just makes everyone think that the Muslims are attacking us just because we aren’t Muslim. Try to understand, no prophet would last very long in senior rational minds, and grow to the size of Islam, if he just ordered his people to “just” kill anyone who is not of their particular following. But, a prophet can cause much growing stability who says it’s okay to hurt those who have first hurt you. Which is what I understand the Koran is about.

Anyone who supports war, or who is against immigration, is a definite Antichrist. Meaning, they don’t follow the true instructions of Christ who told us to “love” our enemies, etc. How can you kill an enemy if you love him? How can you disallow someone to live in your country when you love them? It’s because we have a very Antichrist Church today. The word “Antichrist” means they appear to be Christian, but actually convey the opposite of what Christ taught! There’s no clearer example than the Protestant Church. I mean, it’s so clear to anyone who reads the actual Bible, that I can’t believe I’m the only one who knows it. Well, I’ll keep doing what I can easily see to be what’s needed in this world, until I know someone else has got it.

Mr. Critical – It’s the Goldenrule, man:

TO SEE PRIOR TIMELESS WRITINGS (and more):

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