People can claim to be religious, even vehemently religious, and yet have no spiritual connection at all.
And there are others who claim no religious affiliation, who seem to be entirely secular, yet they are having a religious experience.
When Jesus said, “No man comes to the Father except through me,” he means that no one can experience God except through Knowledge.
And at that point he was so completely identified with Knowledge that he could make that statement and it would be true.
But of course, this and many other teachings of Jesus and the other great saints of the world have been misinterpreted, have been used by political forces and ambitious individuals to control the thoughts and behavior of people and to gain power themselves.
(So the allies of humanity believe Jesus to be a great saint of the world? hmmm. Well, He is the “great saint” that I turn to for leadership.)
Jesus was like each one of us and, ultimately, each one of us is destined to be like Him.
I and my Father are one. Then they took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of these do you stone me? They answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, “I said, Ye are gods.” John 10:30-34
Although many of us may be repelled at first by such a suggestion, evidence for this premise is found in both the Bible and the Edgar Cayce material.
When speaking of humankind, Jesus, himself, states, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world,” (John 17:16).
Surprisingly, perhaps, a Jewish businessman came to this very conclusion in questions that he posed in a Cayce reading:
Q. Jesus was made perfect, God came into His Own. We are men not yet perfect, god not yet equal to God. He represents our so-called future, the path to the Throne?
A. Correct. He is the path to the throne, in that we, man, must become as the One as directs the way.
Q. …Like us, Jesus was both God and Man until He became God alone?
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.
Response to astronaut disclosing contact with his interpretation?
Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell was interviewed on a London radio show on July 23rd and made the following statements:
“We’re not alone in the universe at all. I know for sure we’re not alone in the universe.”
“The UFO phenomenon is real.”
“There is quite a bit of contact going on.”
“ … the fact that we have been visited, the Roswell crash was real and a number of other contacts have been real and ongoing is pretty well known to those of us who have been briefed and have been close to the subject matter.”
When asked if the intent of the aliens is hostile or peaceful, Dr. Mitchell replied, “No, no, no, it’s not hostile. It’s pretty obvious that if it were hostile, we’d have been gone by now.”
What is your response?
It’s a common conclusion, because we project out our violent ways and assume if they were hostile they would be killing us. We don’t think that they might be persuasive, underhanded, or acting with restraints. We would have no way to know this without the Allies information, and we need to get it out there, even get a copy to Mitchell because he’s not aware of any of this.
Who’s Mitchell working for? Who is he connected to?
Why hasn’t he talked about this before? If he’s been briefed, it’s likely the other astronauts know about it as well. He says, “Some do, some don’t.”
If he’s being briefed, is he being used? NASA issued a disclaimer, but he says it was not NASA who briefed him. He declines to identify who did.
This is a conscious thing, for Mitchell to say these things. Who solicited who for the interview? Is it the fulfillment of a personal intention? Who is he connected to? Is in this in some way an expression of consensus around that? Is it a planned release, a decompression?
He’s not acting as a government spokesperson. He wants people to know. He acknowledges there has been a cover-up. He’s referring not to hearsay evidence but what he knows the government knows.
Mitchell is impressive as a gentleman of intelligence and integrity. He is the co-founder of the Institute of Noetic Science, which has been going on a long time. He grew up in Roswell, and talked to people originally involved in the scenario there.
There’s obvious suppression of the facts related to all this. There has been a sculpting of public perception. Is the Mitchell interview another way to decompress the silence, so that the public can eventually say “I’ve always known this”?
Mitchell is being positioned as an expert, and his opinions are being accepted as fact. He gives the issue credibility.
It’s a controlled release, creating complacency, diluting fear, making the public receptive. We’ve been hearing the stories about the secret agreement of governments. People feel disempowered and want their power back. Without the Allies material, it almost makes sense.
National Geographic recently showed a UFO special. It seems that the power elite’s control of the media is preparing the public for these ideas. But we’re being prepared to accept it without questioning what it’s about.
What’s odd is that there is no news in the Mitchell story. He’s been saying these things for years. Why the sudden publicity? In some ways, this is a red herring, drawing attention away from the escalating front-line activity of the Intervention, especially the attempt to attract more people into initiating contact with extraterrestrials (i.e., the “citizen diplomacy” movement).
The idea that we can’t save ourselves is like a weed that has been planted in our culture. We’re putting hope into something that we don’t have any way of understanding.
The Christian experience has us expecting salvation. The Muslims are expecting the 12th Imam, who should be preceded by apocalypse. This same kind of expectation exists in other faiths as well. People are expecting some kind of big event.
What people really need is to know about the Allies. It just puts the pressure back on my plate again about speaking more for this. There is a population out there that is fresh and could really understand more of the Allies message. It’s common sense, and speaks to you inside of yourself. It’s not just a belief. I come out of these meetings feeling, “What can I do more?”
The Intervention is relying upon deception and not upon technology to achieve its results. Outright invasion of this world is not allowed in this part of the galaxy and cannot be openly conducted by those who are intervening in the world today. The allies of humanity, in their testimony, reveal why this is true. Because of these constraints, the Intervention must rely upon persuasion and deception. Those who are intervening in the world today are very small in number and cannot use military force to accomplish their goals.
As the Senate begins debate on legislation to overhaul the nation’s health care system, Democrats and Republicans are expected to offer an array of amendments on the public option, abortion, immigration and the financing of the bill, among other issues. Senate floor action is expected to last most of the month, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., hoping to pass a bill before Christmas.
FP: How about the Left? They pretend they are for human rights?
Mashua: Leftists pay lip service to women’s rights, but they are full of empty words. They derive fame and recognition from the pain and suffering of women. They only talk and travel just to show off; they do nothing to help or join in the fight against FGM.
Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) urged a group of chief executives on Tuesday to think of ways to help small businesses and extend credit to help heal the economy.
The Arizona Republican acknowledged that these aren’t the responsibilities of big businesses, but he talked about how angry Americans are about financial institutions getting bailed out while they are struggling, and he said access to credit is a big issue.
“My urgent plea to you is think of the small-business person who is the engine of the economy,” McCain said.
He spoke to the annual WSJ CEO Council meeting where nearly 100 chief executives gathered Monday and Tuesday to discuss business and political issues and meet with top policy makers.
McCain said he sees a need for both financial-institution reforms and lower corporate taxes. He also said he’s worried about a rise in protectionism that he thinks will be abetted by President Barack Obama’s administration.
He also took a swipe at the administration’s move to financially support battered auto maker Chrysler Group LLC. “Does anybody here think Chrysler’s going to make it?” McCain asked. “I don’t.”
Meantime, the senator talked about the disconnect between what’s happening on Wall Street, where the stock market has surged since March, and in a broader economy where Americans are still struggling.
“They love to pick up the paper and see that the recession’s over,” McCain joked.
John McCain warns biz'men that voter anger will bring protectionist, pro-regulation populist REPUBLCIANS to Congress wsj.com/capital
We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.
Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one’s own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.
The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. “My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger,” goes one of the Arab world’s most honored maxims.
The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.
Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with “the people” and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to “engage” the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.
On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: “Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them,” they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to “engage” Tehran’s murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn’t one of American diplomacy’s finest moments.
Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy.
(If I were Mr. Obama I would get Mr. Ajami to the White House pronto!)
Each senator brings demands to the table. Nelson has said he could support a public option that allows states to “opt-in.”
Landrieu has suggested she could live with a “trigger” that kicks in if private insurers don’t expand coverage fast enough.
But Lincoln and Lieberman have sounded more staunchly opposed to the public option, making it harder for Reid to fashion a compromise that gets him to 60 votes.
Another target for Reid is Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a trigger supporter who could also be persuaded to join Democrats if they accept the changes to the public option advocated by centrists.
There is one idea that supporters hope could rally the centrists: Call it the nonpublic “public option.”
It’s an idea from Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) for a national insurance program that is neither run nor financed by the government.
It could win over moderates because it wouldn’t be a direct government expansion, but it would also satisfy liberals because it would be a national health insurance program designed to compete with private insurers from Day One.
(the nonpublic “public option.” — This is not how I understood Carper’s state opt-in. I thought there would be a trigger for either a public “option” or coops.)
It’s possible that the public option will be dealt with through a manager’s amendment, offered near the end of the debate, that ties up loose ends on the bill.
It could include tweaks to the public option, ways to toughen up abortion restrictions in the bill (another concern of Nelson) and any other targeted attempts to secure a single senator’s vote.
A bill that will require the US administration to develop a “new multifaceted strategy” to tackle the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has been passed by the Senate’s foreign relations committee.
The Lord’s Resistance Army disarmament and Northern Uganda recovery act authorises US$10m in additional funding for humanitarian aid for those outside Uganda affected by the LRA and $30m for “transitional justice and reconciliation”.
It requires the US to work with multilateral partners to develop a way to disarm the LRA, while ensuring civilians are protected, reported New Vision.
The LRA terrorised northern Uganda for more than 20 years before moving its bases into the Central African Republic (CAR). Despite a ceasefire, the rebel group, under the leadership of Joseph Kony, have refused to sign a peace deal with the Ugandan government until arrest warrants issued for Kony and his officers by the International Criminal Court are withdrawn. The ICC is refusing to withdraw them.
Post-election polls revealed that the Swiss would have rejected the ban were it not for feminist involvement: 39% of women were in favor of the ban, as opposed to 31% of men.
Why is that?
Radical feminists argued that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols” and reminders of Islam’s oppression of women. Socialist politicians were also fearful at the prospect of the minarets being built; one exclaiming that she felt that their construction would be “a signal of the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women.”
But the issue seems to have struck a nerve in a broad specturm of Swiss women, and not just Socialists and radical feminists. Julia Werner, a housewife, put it this way:
“If we give them a minaret, they’ll have us all wearing burqas. Before you know it, we’ll have Sharia law and women being stoned to death in our streets. We won’t be Swiss any more.”
Predictably, the Muslim world is enraged over the vote, and if the furor over the Danish newspaper cartoons portraying Mohammed three years ago is anything to go by, the Swiss are in for a rough time.
The rightwing Swiss People’s Party is planning further steps against the spread of Islam in Switzerland following voters’ approval of a ban on new minarets.
High on the agenda are tighter legal measures against forced marriages and genital mutilation of women, as well as a ban on wearing the burka in public and special dispensation from swimming lessons for Muslim pupils.
This past week, my home and my life were graced by a very heroic houseguest. I am talking about Seyran Ates, the Turkish-German lawyer, author, and freedom fighter who flew to New York City to spend six days with me, to talk, laugh, dream, strategize, hang out, hide out.
PC: Give them my study on this very subject. Translate it into German. It might be useful. These feminists sound like those who also say that wearing a headscarf is a form of resistance to colonialist oppression. Meanwhile, Muslim men walk around dressed as westerners, with cell phones, i-phones, computers, girlfriends, etc.
SA: They just don’t think that human rights are universal. They believe in cultural relativism. This way of thinking became worse and worse and made it harder for me to do my work. I don’t just have to fight against Muslim fanatics but against left-wing Germans who explain to me what I have to do, explain that who I am is sick.
PC: How do the radical or fundamentalist Muslims sound?
SA: Yesterday, I read an article about a study which found that 60% of Turkish men did not believe a woman should go out of the house without her man and more than 60% of Turkish men said the should ask permission. I also read a study in which 30% of Turkish university students believe that honor killings should be allowed. Imagine what less educated Turkish men might say.
PC: I agree with you. The fight for women’s rights is a symbol for all the important battles of the 21st century. The fight for real democracy as opposed to totalitarianism, for human rights and individual freedom will be won or lost on the battlefield of woman’s rights.
SA: I hope the West does not give in. But I am worried. There seems to be some confusion in America.
I don’t know why the West is only taking baby steps against fundamentalist Islam. Why not be strong like the Islamic world and say, this is how we want to live.
PC: The West is in major apology mode – for racism, colonialism – so therefore we refuse to call barbarism by its own name.
PHOENIX – Tuesday night President Obama will address the nation about his plans for Afghanistan.
Arizona Senator John McCain, who opposed Obama in his bid to become president, is glad Obama seems to be getting around to his way of thinking.
“I’m pleased that he is sending somewhere around 30,000 troops,” he said. “I think it might have needed a little more, but I’ll rely on the judgment of our military commanders on that.”
But, McCain is not fully behind Obama’s plans.
“I think that the process has been carried out for such a long period of time that there’s no doubt that it has caused American public opinion to be doubtful as to the president’s resolution,” he said.
McCain is also concerned there is not enough Afghan army and police, but he is eager to hear the specific’s of Obama’s plan when the President addresses the nation.
Controversy regarding the public option provision in the Senate’s health bill remains fierce, leading many to wonder what a compromise would look like, The Christian Science Monitor reports.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs to win a majority of centrist votes for health care reform in the Senate to get to a filibuster-proof 60 votes.
“That math makes it difficult to see how the public option, as it is currently constituted, can survive.”
Debate over the public option could derail compromise on the reform bill.
Reid will have to balance and compromise among the centrist Senators who are skeptical of such a plan and liberals who say they won’t support a bill without it (Grier, 11/30).
Roll Call: “There’s an air of mystery surrounding just who among Senate Democrats is going to broker a critical compromise on the public insurance option.
Few besides … Reid (D-Nev.) appear willing to have their name attached to whatever messy accord the Senate will have to agree to in order to get the health care reform bill off the floor,
even as many are working behind the scenes to find the legislative sweet spot. …
Reid earlier this month named a trio of Senators — Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) — who were working on a deal, but not all three appeared pleased with being identified” (Pierce, 12/1).
USA Today, in the meantime, examines the Senate bill and just what treatment it gives to the public option and compares it to the House version of the health care reform bill (11/30).
“the legislative sweet spot” — that’s an odd way of putting it!
In an exclusive Associated Press interview, President Barack Obama’s aunt describes her anguish over no longer having contact with him after the revelation she had been living illegally for years in the United States. (Dec. 1)
Onyango reserved special words of kindness for former President George W. Bush for a directive he put in place days before the election requiring federal agents get high-level approval to arrest fugitive immigrants, which directly affected Onyango. The directive made clear that U.S. officials worried about possible election implications of arresting Onyango.
She said she wants to thank Bush in person for the order, which gave her a measure of peace but was lifted weeks later.
“I loved President Bush,” Onyango said while moving toward a framed photo of Bush and his wife standing with Barack and Michelle Obama at the White House on inauguration day.
“He is my No. 1 man in my life because he helped me when I really needed that help.”
The most interesting news last night was low-key but noticeable. In early evening details of the routes for the protests of 16 Azar (7 December) spread across Twitter. There were references to new student movements organised in recent days.
It is still more than a week before National Students Day, but I have a sense that precisely because of the Government efforts to stamp out any significant dissent, particularly through the arrests of student activists, that the efforts to ensure a mass turnout have re-doubled. This may also be fuelled by the determination to show that the movement is not dependent on statements and actions “from the top” but is ready to press its demands at the grassroots.
The irony is that, on National Students Day, there will have to many non-students who are also on the streets.
Knowledge is the only part of us which cannot be deceived, corrupted, manipulated and responds only to God. It is the means God has bestowed upon all of us to be able to see, to know and to react appropriately when things become difficult.
“Question: You mention that individuals are being taken all over the world. How can people protect themselves or others from being abducted?”
“Answer: The more you can become strong with Knowledge and aware of the visitors’ presence, the less you become a desirable subject for their study and manipulation. The more you use your encounters with them to gain insight into them, the more of a hazard you become. As we have said, they seek the path of least resistance. They want individuals who are compliant and yielding. They want those who cause them few problems and little concern… Yet as you become strong with Knowledge, you will be beyond their control because now they cannot capture your mind or your heart. And with time, you will have the power of perception to see into their minds, which they do not wish. You then become a danger to them, a challenge to them, and they will avoid you if they can… The visitors do not want to be revealed.”
– from The Allies of Humanity, Book 1, The Sixth Briefing
Republicans generally gave Obama high marks for deciding to send 30,000 more troops.
“If you would have told me a year into the president’s administration (that) he would have doubled our presence in Afghanistan … plus not reduce our troops meaningfully in Iraq … I would have a hard time believing it,” Dan Senor, who was a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq under former President George W. Bush, said in a conference call arranged by the Republican National Committee. “So I’m pleasantly surprised.”
That said, several Republican lawmakers had a serious reservation about Obama’s plan: They disliked setting a timetable for beginning to withdraw troops.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he had “deep concerns about setting a date certain,” while Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said, “It’s like saying you’re going to play the first three quarters with your first team and then take them off the field.”
McCain said that Obama should order U.S. forces to leave only when the mission had achieved success. When McCain was asked how he defined success there, he said, “The same way we defined success in Iraq: Put down the opposition, and make them take a knee.”
The House needs 218 votes to pass and will likely get most of the 177 Republicans and more than half of the 258 Democrats.
Chaffetz said “there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who are very wary,” of a troop increase.
The Senate could have an even harder time passing additional war funds. Many Democrats on Tuesday said they are undecided about a troop increase, particularly if there is no way to pay for it, and it would take just 41 votes to block a war funding bill.
Sen. Jeff Sessions acknowledged the troop increase will be a harder sell for Republicans than the surge in Iraq.
“Do we create more terrorism by being there?” Sessions said. “These are real questions. We have to be more moderate in our goals for Afghanistan.”
“It’s shameful we can send men and women into harm’s way and not have the courage to come up with a way to pay for it,” said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.
“I’m not at all certain we can afford this many-year commitment,” Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said.
(I find it very hard to believe that Obama will have a hard time getting required votes for additional war funds.)
Obama also faces some stiff resistance to a further troop buildup from fellow Democrats, who question whether the U.S. can still achieve victory in Afghanistan.
Some lawmakers have called for a “war surtax” to fund the surge. The White House has been cool to that idea, and Obama made no reference to it.
But a $30 billion pricetag is a difficult sell to Americans, and members of Congress, who have grown jittery over federal spending as they’ve watched the new president sign a $787 billion economic stimulus bill and aggressively push a near $1 trillion health care overhaul.
While supporting Obama’s plan, Gregg said, he had doubts about setting a specific time for the troop drawdown.
“I don’t think it’s good to set a specific date for when you’re going to start to draw down troops, because I think it may embolden the Taliban or it may undermine the willingness of local Afghan leaders to support us because they would be afraid that we’re going to leave,” Gregg said. “On the other hand, the President’s argument is that if he doesn’t set a specific date, there will be no forcing mechanism to get (Afghan) President (Hamid) Karzai to speed up and bring on line the Afghan security troops that are necessary in order to take the place of our soldiers.”
Adding 30,000 troops means spending $30 billion more a year. Gregg said he hopes this would be paid for by either redirecting economic stimulus money or freezing non-defense-related spending.
“The priority for a nation is to support the national defense of the country,” Gregg said. “That’s the first obligation of a national government, so I think defense takes priority over other spending areas.”
The newest incarnation of the public option will be unveiled next week, the Hill reports.
Although a new, government backed health plan would only cover 1% to 2% of Americans, according to CBO estimates, the public option remains central to the debate — at least in part because of its symbolic resonance for both sides.
Harry Reid has tapped Sen. Tom Carper to try to come up with a compromise that’s agreeable to centrist and liberal Dems, the Hill says;
the WSJ recently reported that Carper has been working on a version of the public option known as “the hammer.”
Details aren’t clear, but it sounds like the new insurance plan would be created by the feds but managed by a non-governmental board.
It would be available in states where insurance is deemed to be unaffordable;
other states might be able to choose to offer the plan.
1.Can Muslims blame the Swiss people for being afraid of Islamization in their country?
No, especially while the entire world sees the inhumane applications of Islamic law (Shari’a) wherever it is implemented.
It should come as no surprise that the Swiss people don’t want a system that even today practices discrimination against women, gays and minorities in the name of religion.
The vivid images of stoning women and hanging gays in the Muslim world should make any sane individual inclined not to allow such an intolerant system to grow in his country under the banner of freedom of religion.
The writer is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one-time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawaherri, who later became the second in command of al-Qaida. He is currently a senior fellow and chairman of the study of Islamic radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.