Monday, January 09, 2006

People vs. The Banks

I saw a long comment posted by John Ruiz about our association. I would also like to confirm our only association is by revelation and spirit. I am glad for him and think the world would be much different if there were more like him. I’m not certain how misinformation and mischaracterization seems to follow Dorean. John, no offense but you offered way too much opinion concerning us after having admitted no real knowledge of us. My process was designed to bury a thorn so deep into the flesh of the bankers it could not be ignored. I consider you efforts noble and charitable but I was not called to pester the crooks for a sudden turn in virtue. Ours was a win/win scenario well plotted. I had to put my life on the line but the battle was clear from the beginning. We would seize victory or they would make us criminals. The worst mistake they could make. They must prevail with crooks as their witnesses. This is not a civil case where they can palm the judge to accept affidavits of lost note. A man’s life is more than equity. Real or fraud is going to appear. Also my bond was solid. It will take somebody smarter than the flower shop investigator to not be confused. Two years of government vengeance and no charge against the bond. Perhaps their investigators are better trained. I’m not being punished for doing what the bankers do, that would make my indictment a self-indictment for them. Read it and see what is really going on. Keep up the good fight and don’t get discouraged by their evil; truth always wins in the end if men are tough enough to get there.

62 comments:

sd said...

This one really was too good to be lost at the end of the last set of postings...

Now, I wonder what this guy means when he says the money brokers collect twice plus 20%?

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people. " - Thomas Edison, The New York Times, December 6, 1921

WillToFight said...

Tell them like it is Kurt!

Tell it like it is SD!

We gonna build this thing til it expodes in everybodies face, whether they like it or not!

Keep Studing ya'll!

To the good fight!

yeahrightwhateverz said...

Kurt said...

Also my bond was solid. Two years of government vengeance and no charge against the bond.

Um, so if your bond was as solid as you say, why then didnt you use it as evidence in support of your argument when your so called legal staff put together a bullshit response to our summary judgment hearing? Seems to me that proving your solid bond would have maybe helped us as well as 300 plus others win our cases as opposed to being laughed at out of court.

imbigo said...

The race is not given to the swift nor to the strong, but to them that endures' to the END!!!

Go get get-um BROTHERS...

I'll see you as soon as you get back to Cali.

GODS SPEED!!!!

BIG"O" 1+1+1=1

SEE YOU AT THE TOP!!!

imbigo said...

***nor the BATTLE to the strong***

imbigo said...

ZUP SOLVO & WILL!!!!

mogel said...

Kurt said: "I would also like to confirm our only association is by revelation and spirit."

Speaking of revelation, Isaiah 58: 1, 6, 11-14 reads:

"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

"Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the HEAVY BURDENS, AND TO LET THE OPPRESSED GO FREE, AND THAT YE BREAK EVERY YOKE."

"And the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones, and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters FAIL NOT."

"And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places; THOU SHALT RAISE UP THE FOUNDATIONS OF MANY GENERATIONS; and thou shalt be called, 'THE REPAIRER OF THE BREACH. THE RESTORER OF PATHS TO DWELL IN."

"If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honor him, NOT DOING THINE OWN WAYS, NOR FINDING THINE OWN PLEASURE, NOR SPEAKING THINE OWN WORDS;"

"Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to RIDE UPON THE HIGH PLACES OF THE EARTH, and feed thee with the INHERITANCE OF JACOB THY FATHER; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."

This was a scripture picked out by
Tom Shauf to apply to the corrupt lending system from "The Banker's Secret Manual". What if the transgressions spoken of are from the financial institutions? What if the heavy burdens are debt? Didn't Kurt fast for inspiration to find answers to the clients problems? Hasn't Kurt said he will fail not?
Didn't Kurt & his Dad say that the monies from the sale of these judgments will bless many generations? Couldn't the BREACH be the breach of contract committed by the financial institutions? Could Kurt be called the "Repairer of the Breach" if he is successful? Hasn't Kurt said he is an instrument for the Lord in his mission for his clients & is not doing this for his own pleasure & that God has spoken to him & that he has spent most of his life preparing for what he is doing now? Couldn't the high places of the earth be the Courts or the attention the Dorean process has attracted by people in high places? Couldn't the inheritance of Jacob be the financial blessings that "Son of prophet" has spoken of many times that is suppose to happen through the transferrance of wealth from Babylon to God's people or the remnant of people who are fighting the financial system, or could mean the proceeds from the success of the process? All I can say, is there are too many spooky similiarities to ignore the possible meanings here in this scripture.

mogel said...

In Malachi Chapt. 1, Esau means RED HEAD CHILD and Rothchild the banker was a red head child. Esau (Edomites) settled by the Black Sea where the Rothchilds, the bankers of today, CAME FROM Edom and changed their names to Jewish names claiming to be Jews but were not. See Rev. 2:9, 3:9. The Bible claims that today's bankeres are of the synagogue of Satan. See Genesis 25: 30-34, 27: 30-46. Esau is trying to get back his birthright. Through the lending fraud, you might say that has already been accomplished, but that heritage or birthright is not really theirs & hence, will be taken away.

neodemes said...

He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

Ephesians 4:28

Maybe Kurt will make you a Mogel007 vanity plate?

Heck, maybe you will get a chance to make your own before its over.

TwinGift94 said...

neo and jrb,

If this blog was a discussion about landing on the moon you two would be the first ones to find some BS argument against it. You two would say, yeah we can see the moon but its too far away; nobody could ever reach it. You'all are just a bunch of dreamers. yada, yada yada.

Let us have our discussion and let us live with our decisions and beliefs. Why do you righteous naysayers care about us. To you were just a bunch of crazy idiots running around challenging the banking system. For some odd reason you both keep coming back. Hummm, maybe you fear us for being something you will never be. Maybe its easier to sit and judge on the sidelines. For whatever reason you seem to relish trying to make fools of your fellow man.

You should have more important things to do in your lives so scram.

Peanut Gallery said...

Can I hear a big...Amen to that?

son of a prophet said...

"If this blog was a discussion about landing on the moon you two would be the first ones to find some BS argument against it. You two would say, yeah we can see the moon but its too far away; nobody could ever reach it. You'all are just a bunch of dreamers. yada, yada yada."



BTW-

no one did land on the moon. It was a 'Hollywood' movie produced in England.

As the space agencies admit that there is no atmosphere on the moon, this means that there is no air pressure, this means that anything put there would expand slowly until it exploded.

The only thing that could withstand -0- psi pressure would be at least 1/4" thick steel. So, unless the astro'nots' wore a steel suit, (which they did not) they would have expanded slowly and exploded on the moon.

simular to a balloon placed in a decompression chamber; expands slowly until it explodes; nothing to contain the internal pressure. A human has 29-30 psi all around it. It it goes to less than this, it cannot function.

Now, you may say that the spacesuit was pressurised. OK, but what kept the spacesuit exterior from exploding? Nohting, because it never happened. Nobody ever landed on the moon.

so, why the BIG lie?? Same as everything else. CONTROL.

ticktoc123 said...

And the world is flat. Witches are hiding under the bed and big brother loves you!

son of a prophet said...

world is round O

witches, aka/big bro/govt. hiding under bed watching/listening you!

big banksters counting your money and planning on how to give you less of it. lol!

son of a prophet said...

now for the erudite, amongst us..





Fractals

From Gary Lammert:

George, when will the fat lady sing? Soon. Too soon. It would be much preferable for the people of the world if the Federal Reserve and World Banks could continuously monetize all of the enormous debt, pension, and entitlement obligations that has been created by the historically anomalous continuous yearly positive GDP growth that has linearly occurred through debt expansion during the last fifty years- but that will and cannot not happen. As long as there is a significant private sector subject to the conditions of profit need, ongoing consumption of goods and services, employee wages, and their own pension obligations - self feedback macroeconomic corrections will inevitably occur.

GM is the prototype of of a formerly great private enterprise undergoing feedback collapse. Its debt burden and pension obligations are too great; its profit margins are collapsing as Asian engineers produce a better product, competitive even with the added cost of transoceanic shipping. The overproduced housing industry will soon follow as ongoing consumption of its widgets is being limited by the wages of entry level service workers who must pay annual property taxes on overvalued domiciles. Debt must be serviced and the co-conditions of the wages, cost of living, and debt load of bottom feeders who provide the pyramidal base support for the various speculative bubbles will effect the immutable feedback that rights the imbalances.

The ghostly fat lady, reminiscent of previous fat ladies throughout economic history, is on stage, up to the mic and clearing her ample throat, as the equities rise to their inevitable weekly fractal apogee. This inevitable and deterministic action will conclude the positive valuation activity of great right shoulder to March 2000's summation's head. Last week a terminal maximal x/2.5x/2.5x weekly growth fractal was identified. That 30/75/75 maximal weekly fractal is set to reach its apogee .... this week - not last week. Verification of this 30/75/75 weekly pattern can be accomplished by looking at the TMWX weekly charts on the 3-4 year durations- and counting the weeks contained within the individual growth fractals as determined by nodal lows. The first 30 week duration is weighted summation of 34 and 23 week bases.

The timing of this weekly apogee matches two other major daily fractal apogees. For the sake of argument assume that optimal growth for the March 2000 right shoulder is destined to follow an ideal, nonstochastic, and deterministic x/2.5x/2.5x maximum weekly growth fractal. Support for this notion is justified by the recurrent theme of near perfect x/2.5x/2.5x maximal growth for smaller unit fractals occurring throughout the right shoulder's evolution. To reach the optimal 3rd fractal growth of 75 weeks, starting with a first base of 56 days beginning in August 2004, a transposition was necessary for the third sub fractal.

The ideal sequence with a base of 56 days would be 56/140/140. The second growth fractal did indeed end exactly on day 140. However, the third sub fractal began with a base of 31 days. The ideal growth fractal of this sequence would be 31/77/62-77. 7 July,2005, the day of the misguided British Islamic youth attacks, did have a lower low than the first 31 day base. This occurrence attests to the perspective that major world events can have small, transient -but unsustained effects - on market trading and fractal evolution. The next low occurred exactly as fractally expected on day 77 in October 2005. The Wilshire is currently on day 60 of 62-77. Notice that the first high of the third sub fractal occurred, also as ideally expected, on day 31, 25 November 2005.

The other concomitant daily fractal growth sequence is the often identified 11-12/29-30/20-21 of 24-30 day maximal daily sequence. It appears that the final blow-off for the right shoulder will involve the simultaneous conclusions of the major weekly growth fractal pattern and the natural ends of the two dominant daily sub fractal growth patterns. The European and Nikkei equity market are also marching to their own near time ideal fractal growth conclusion with a different base sequence.

Every day of valuation growth toward the maximal natural fractal growth paradoxically, in relation to the devolution in 1929, shortens the overall decay pattern. The fat lady will most likely be an unbearably off key and shrill soprano, singing a very short piece as compared to the 32 month devolution in from 1929 to 1932 and 2000 to 2003. Be prepared . Expect the unexpected.

Gary Lammert

Peanut Gallery said...

Son of Prophit said,

A human has 29-30 psi all around it. It it goes to less than this, it cannot function.

Not so. The atmosphere is 14.7 PSI at sea level, and gets less and less as your elevation increases. So according to your logic, people would explode on Mt. Everest. True as you fly higher you need to be in a pressurised cabin or suit. That pressure is slightly above one atmosphere, or just about 16 to 18 PSI.

The suits worn by the astronauts were pressurised to just above one atmosphere as well, well within the structural limits of the rubberized, kevlar, layered suit.

Jet airline tires are pressurised to about 80 PSI, do they explode as you reach altitude?

The lunar excursion module was constructed of thin sheet aluminun. bout .048 inches. It to could stand being in a vacuum with an internal pressure well above the 16-18 PSI pressure it was charged with.

son of a prophet said...

I stand corrected. I had mixed up the units. I meant 29-30" of mercury, or as you say 14.7 psi sea level.

Nonetehless, I stand by everything else I have said.

Peanut Gallery said...

SOP,

You stand on the physically impossible

tcob247 said...

FROM MOGEL....


Didn't Kurt fast for inspiration to find answers to the clients problems? Hasn't Kurt said he will fail not?

Could Kurt be called the "Repairer of the Breach" if he is successful? Hasn't Kurt said he is an instrument for the Lord in his mission for his clients & is not doing this for his own pleasure & that God has spoken to him & that he has spent most of his life preparing for what he is doing now?

Couldn't the high places of the earth be the Courts or the attention the Dorean process has attracted by people in high places? Couldn't the inheritance of Jacob be the financial blessings that "Son of prophet" has spoken of many times

In Malachi Chapt. 1, Esau means RED HEAD CHILD and Rothchild the banker was a red head child.

From SON of Prophet....

no one did land on the moon. It was a 'Hollywood' movie produced in England.


To all outside observers....

It is apparent there there are some very kooky people in here.
This has many simularities to a cult

May the force be with you.

(Kahooey...how is the consterktion business going?)

Kurt....do you want me to send you $20 for the commissary that was stolen. I was so sorry to read that. It must have pained you so.

Maybe that will give you the incentive for another fast since you are God's annointed.

Peanut Gallery said...

O.J. Simpson did not kill Ron and Nicole, and we did not land on the moon.

There is a parralell here. O.J. Simpsom starred in a 70's movie called "Capricorn One". It was about a staged landing on Mars. This movie is what started all the"We did'nt go to the moon" stuff.

Get out yer strightjackets.

imbigo said...

I did see a dvd that shedded a lot of questions in my mind about us really landing on the moon. "Something happened on the way to the moon" if you can find it you should check it out. But if you dont believe that the government could cheat out of you money with a note you will most likly have a problem with the dvd.

BIG"O" 1+1+1=1

SEE YOU AT THE TOP!!!

ZUP SOLVO & WILL

son of a prophet said...

Peanut Gallery said...
SOP,

You stand on the physically impossible

9:40 AM







maybe for you my son....but physics has nothing to do with it, or the Spirit....lol

imbigo said...

excuse the grammer!!! did'mt proof read.

imbigo said...

did'nt

WillToFight said...

grammar

hahahaha! hehehehe!

What up Big O!

WillToFight said...

pa-tay-toe pa-tah-toe

Peanut Gallery said...

SOP said,

maybe for you my son....but physics has nothing to do with it, or the Spirit....lol


So you are going to ignore the physical laws of the universe, that God Himself created? Or does the "spirit" tell you they no longer apply. BTW, don't condescend by calling me son.

Can the Holy Spirit contradict itself? That would take a yes or no answer. Daddy

Stillwaiting said...

People, stop the BS. Just ask the obvious question. Kurt/Scot/Dr.F can you or can you not cancel our mortgages and provide us with the windfall of money like you said. My guess is I will not see an answer from any of them and the rest of you will continue to write about the moon, PSI and God. Let the three Muskateers answer and stop filling the blog with stuff that doesn't pertain to the real question. Unitl the I am forever stillwaiting.....

tcob247 said...

stillwaiting


I'm afraid you are going to be still waiting

Kurt is more concerned about the $20 commisarry he lost in the jail than he is answering the question you posed.

There is a reson why they don't address your question.

Because it can't be done

Thats why all you see on here are the wackos thnking that Kurt is the 2nd coming of Christ and the astronauts never waked on the moon.

They are in LA LA land like their Jail bird (2nd time) leader.

I too would like to see one of them answer the question, but you will get a rant from "canvas" Kurt about how he's got the Govt. right where he wants them

Elmer Fudd said...

LoL...Sad But True..

son of a prophet said...

Peanut Gallery said...
SOP said,

maybe for you my son....but physics has nothing to do with it, or the Spirit....lol


So you are going to ignore the physical laws of the universe, that God Himself created?

WRONG! God created the universe; man defined it by 'physical' laws (physics, mathematics, etc.)

ALL PHYSICAL LAWS WILL SOON FAIL, IE., NO LONGER APPLY.



Or does the "spirit" tell you they no longer apply.

I ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION. BUT DONT WORRY, YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE 'SPIRIT' WILL BE TESTED SOON, MY 'FRIEND'. HOPE YOURE UP TO THE CHALLENGE. HOWEVER, I FEEL THAT YOU WILL HAVE A LOT TO LEARN, AS AN AMATEUR.





BTW, don't condescend by calling me son.

I wasnt being condescending, for you speak as a immature son in matters of the Spirit for which you seem to know little.

Peanut Gallery said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peanut Gallery said...

SOP,

You know nothing about me or my spirituality. I have asked you questions regarding the word of God that a neophite should be able answer, but you don't, Why because you nothing of what you claim to have knowlege of. You don't know the answer or care not to research it.
You are constantly telling everyone to do their research regarding the banks. Why don't you do a little research into the Word, you may learn something. I have repeatedly challenged you regarding Scripture but you don't answer. Or does the "spirit" tell you differently. So I ask againg. Can the Holy Spirit contratict itself?Yes or no



How will my spirit be tested?

imbigo said...

Anything new to say tcob?

grammar!!!!!!!!

spell chech please!!! LOL LOL LOL

BIG"O" 1+1+1=1

SEE YOU AT THE TOP!!!

imbigo said...

check*** LOL

sd said...

Hey Peanut,

It's getting quiet in here so...

I'm sure you are the only one with the correct answer but I'll try to give it a shot anyway.

PG said: Can the Holy Spirit contratict itself? Yes or no

I'm sure that whichever side one takes someone can put up an arguement for the other but here's my side and I'm sticking to it.

An absolute defenitive -NO-

Even the perception of contradiction is of the flesh and not of the spirit.

He has not and will never need to contradict himself. If contradictions exist they are born of the flesh.

His thoughts are not our thoughts and our thoughts are not his thoughts.

He is all powerful in perfection.
There are no contradictions in perfection.

If contraditions are thought to exist, it is our error in thought that brings them into existance - not his.

But somehow he has made even our perception of contradicitons work to the fulfill his perfect plan.

Now, My arguement will always be correct because I will always be able to say that if you disagree, it is an error in your thinking.

Next

tcob247 said...

imbigo said...

...............................
spell chech please!!! LOL LOL LOL

note you will most likly have a problem with the dvd.

did'mt proof read.

...........................


Hey Imbiggio

I will if you will
LOL

By the way
Do you have anything new to say?

imbigo said...

I really dont have anything to say ( to you ), I just want to know if you have anything worth listening to.

Peanut Gallery said...

SD, I appreciate you answering the question, but it is SOP who has slandered me by calling me immature in spirit, and of having little knowlege of spiritual matters. I am waiting for his answer, but I doubt I will get it, because he knows it will lead to other questions he can't or won't answer

Peanut Gallery said...

Next question.
Can the Holy Spirit contradict the Father?

tcob247 said...

IMlitleO

worth as much as your drivel

You say......

BIG"O" 1+1+1=1

SEE YOU AT THE TOP!!!

I say.......

BIG "K" 1 scam + 1 scam = 2 prison terms

See you in the BIG house

sd said...

PG

Sorry I did not back up my last post with documentation.

I would say that a Contradiction could be construded as a lie...

See Titus 1:2

In hope of eternal life, which God, THAT CANNOT LIE, promised before the world began;

I didn't get any arguement on the last answer, but as you are not asking me, I'll leave the answer to the next question to someone else.

Hey PG, they are good questions
so, if no one answers, don't leave it hanging.

sd

sd said...

I got one for somebody.

Everyone knows that Jesus was born a Jew but

Was Jesus a Christian?

Why? or Why not?

Peanut Gallery said...

No Jesus was NOT a Christian.He was surly an orthodox Jew, who kept the law(Torah) perfectly. He is the living Torah.The first believers, such as the deciples were also orthodox Jews who continued to practice Judaism throughout their lives, they were not Christians either, they were followers of Messiah Yeshua. Yes they even sacrificed at the temple until it's destruction in 70 AD. They understood that the Torah was not done away with, only it had been fullfilled by the Master. Followers of "The Way" as it was called in the first century did not separate themselves from their fellow non believing Jews as so commonly taught.They continued to go to the temple and keep Sabbath(on Saturday)to follow the food laws etc,wetc,etc. Even Paul who so often is believed to have been transformed on the road from a jew to a Christian continued to practice his Jewish faith, he did afterall say that he was a "Pharisee of Pharisee's"

Peanut Gallery said...

Here's one

Was Abraham saved? If so, how?
If not, why?

Ace said...

Where's Clue? Did he take an early retirement???????????????????????

KYHOOYA said...

Toco said:
(Kahooey...how is the consterktion business going?)

Oh! I'm so very sorry, Was there a miss spelled word in my last post? I must have overlooked it Thank you, It was so kind of you to point that out for me. I will make the correction right away! Plz forgive me, I can't beleave that someone of your intelect would stop what I'm sure is a grulling schedule to show me the errors I have made. This is such a great honor. Again please forgive me and I will do better in future post. I don't feel like such a complete Ass now that you have how it is that one word can realy fuck up the Hole post.

LOL In a BIG WAY!


Right! what a little tiny tiny speck of a man you must be.

By the way I'm still waiting for tat e-mail you were said you send. Like I think your going to do it but here go's for third time.yackntrack you know what to put here hotmail. & that thingon the end com.
you know I wouldn't want some seeking program to pick it up on here. so there you go for the Third Time.

Put up or shut up!
Constructed SPECK!

P\/c

sd said...

I like that,

In addition, Christian was a negitive term not used until after Christ had left earth.

Another way to justify that he was not is say that Jesus did not die for himself. He had no sin to be washed away by his own blood.

He didn't need a Savior

I need to make sure I get my facts straight on the Abraham question before I make a fool of myself.
Be right back.

sd said...

Abraham was saved because God called him rightous and also in Matthew 8:11 Jesus said:
"I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven"

Peanut Gallery said...

SD,

What made Abraham righteous?

Christian doctrine states that no one is made righteous without Jesus.

sd said...

Also
Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Abraham showed by his works that his faith was in God alone. This is why Abraham was saved. He was saved by faith in God alone. His faith was "justified" or proved by his works. He was not justified FOR his works. His justification or salvation was APART from and PRIOR to his works. But the works will always follow because the heart that is redeemed will desire to glorify God and submission to the will of God.

sd said...

Here's one that I can't answer for mayself.

Cain went to NOD east of Eden and took a wife

Where did Cain's wife come from?

sd said...

Thank you PG,
You don't know what you did for me tonight.
I really needed what I recieved.

Goodnight All

sd

KYHOOYA said...

son of a prophet said...
Peanut Gallery said...
SOP said,

maybe for you my son....but physics has nothing to do with it, or the Spirit....lol


So you are going to ignore the physical laws of the universe, that God Himself created?

WRONG! God created the universe; man defined it by 'physical' laws (physics, mathematics, etc.)

ALL PHYSICAL LAWS WILL SOON FAIL, IE., NO LONGER APPLY.



I just read some finding about how some of histories events biblical; & non and how these could of happendin the more physical than the magical way. all though in witchever way they did happen I'm sure it was a site to see. here are the finding's in my word's because I can find the site. Some have thought that when "GOD" cast down his will on earth that instead of bing a Magical or unexplained event, It is more of a phyisical display andis only limited by earth's power and that that is limited only by to that that make up this planet. (plz let's not get into some big debate on the many areas that this topic touches on. This is just for the FYI and not to start a debate about what God can or Can not do) after reading the above post I thought it would be interesting to share this.
Take it as you will . What was said was this, the stories throughout history show in them that "God" was who gave us the laws of earth and in doing this God was also limited by those same laws. So when we hear of stories like the"Red
Sea"or the "Ark and many proclaim then as Magical or unexplainable, Know dought they were something to see. as time go by the big ??? has shifted to more of haw he did thing other than if he did them or was real. The Egghead's of the world have come up with some interesting thoughs on it. Example the Red Sea is now thought to have open by the wind blowing at 65mph against a reef that is in the same place that the Bible tell of. The reef was much larger at the time but they have done some models of the wheather around the at time and it was common to have a wind that was substained for a long time and blowing against that reef could of created a Wall of water very high as in the story it could have be long enough to have the Jews walk accross and just as the Romans started to follow the wind could of stoped so there you have it this is only one of many stories like it in the same read it was thought that as I stared with this . That God did make this thing happen by his power but that he can only do the thing that can be done here on earth and is limited by it rule of the physical bounderies (but we can see thatis more than enough to drive hi point home)

I also read about the Ark being spoted on top of the montain in Turkey by a S.A.T a shadow thatis the right size and shape and tha there has been sent a team to core sample for carbon dating to the spot. we have not been able to go up there do to the "Cold War" and the thought that we might be using it as a way to spy on USSR. So how about that seem's taht "faith" might get a little help soon and that some might want too check themself's if all the story are found to be true what you think?That is it, I'm done. I working on the short story these day's in the hope of driving my point with more understanding. It's like this I think alot faster than I could type , you get the picture. He but good thing I have old TOCO aaaaround to make sure I don't leave any mistake's, Thank godness for that. What would we do without him? Now there's a thought


P\/c all L8r

tcob247 said...

kahooey.....

If you are going to write a short story could you please hire a proof reader so we can understand what you are saying.

I would like to hire your contrecktion company to build me a lego castle
When can you start?

You never gave me your e-mail address funny boy.
The last one you gave me was a fake.
Good try idiot

son of a prophet said...

STOP POSTING ANNOYING MESSAGES ON THIS BLOG WITHOUT USING YOUR REAL NAME, -OR- GO TO JAIL!!!

GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL
DO NOT PASS GO
DO NOT COLLECT $200


FOR REAL, NO KIDDING!!!





Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a BLOG as long as you do it under your REAL NAME. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

A law meant to annoy?
FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained
A practical guide to the new federal law that aims to outlaw certain types of annoying Web sites and e-mail.Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired


SO STOP ANNOYING US! lol ;-)

Stillwaiting said...

So, this blog area is a place where you write about the government and religion. Correct? This area has nothing to do with what Scot and Kurt were trying to do but couldn't. All that is written is very interesting to read but has nothing to do with the facts or lack there of in this case about our mortgages. Even at the top of this page it reads, "Mortgage fraud and People vs. the banks" I don't see where it says let's write about the government or the Bible/God etc. I have to believe that not a one of you or maybe a very small number of you haven't sat down and asked God to help you with this issue we are all going through. I think if I am not mistaken that if we are posting here it is because we are all in the same boat with our mortgages that includes the money we spend and the problems we are all having. And when I say I am still waitng it is passive to the extreme. In closing I do believe that the system is wrong and is stealing the life from us all. Think of it this way, Sign up with the DG: $2000 plus, Litigation/now bad credit and possible loss of your home; $Hundreds of thousands, breaking the code and winning: PRICELESS!!!

Peanut Gallery said...

SD.

Abraham could not have been saved by his works. We all know that works or deeds, or adherence to the law(Torah)can not provide salvation. Abraham disobeyed God, by listening to Sarah and having a child (Ishmael)with her handmaiden Hagar. He did not wait for the promise of God giving Sarah a child in her old age. By taking matters into his own hands, he was disobedient to God.
Abraham was saved by his faith in Messiah,or the promise of his coming. Remember Eve at first thought that Cain was the promised Messiah, because God said that through her a savior would be brought forth to crush the head of the serpent.


As to the question of who Cain married. That is a tricky one. Since there is no mention of other people being created in Genisis, some church shcolars gave the answer thusly. Because of the long life span of post fall humans, ie. Adam and Eve, is was assumed that they had a multitude of children throughout the generations, and these children interbred to populate the earth. Their reasoning is that since the fall had not happened that long ago, our genetic make-up had not been corrupted to the point that would cause the defects and mutations we see today when close relative have children together. There is one major flaw with this thinking.Children, at first, could only be born through incestuous relations, a clear violation of Gods law. Since he does not change, how could he allow such a sin as incest to occur? He could not. It goes against His character.LEVITICUS 18:9 "Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your fathers daughter or your mothers daughter,whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere"

This my opinion on the matter. Remember this is an opinion. God had to have created other people at the same time or shortly after Adam. The account of Adam and Eve and the garden and all is about Israel, his chosen people, and the lineage of Messiah. The other people that were possibly living outside of the garden were representative of the other nations(Gentiles) that could have at anytime entered into a covenant relationship with God at anytime they chose,much like it is today. I am short on time, so I have to go. I appreciate your interest, and look forward to your responce

Elmer Fudd said...

Ace said...
Where's Clue? Did he take an early retirement???????????????????????

Dear Ol Dad's got him locked in the closet again poor thing...He must really be sweating with all that leather on and gagged with that ball in his mouth. Ah he loves it who are we fooling.

sd said...

PG

As you stated this is opinion only.

Ref: Cain’s Wife, where did she come from?

I really don’t believe in the other people theory.

My 1st Theory
Incest maybe not a violation of God’s Law until after Lev.

While I agree that God never changes, remember that he knows us and our makeup completely; After all he made us in his own image.

God being perfection, his image must have originally been the same until sin entered in.
Imagine a perfect gene pool.
It is said that all are descended from Adam and Eve.
Therefore in a manner of speaking all relationships are incestuous.
So saying that God does not condone incest is only partially correct. It is a conditional statement.
In a manner of speaking, Adam had sexual relations with a part of himself.
After all Eve was made from his rib. Now you can’t get much closer than that.

I acknowledge the verses you mentioned in Leviticus as being a commandment from God but the commandment is specific to definition and what a violation is and what God’s command was when he gave it. Up until the commandment was given it may not have been as much a risk to the gene pool.

God’s standards did not have to change for him to make a commandment to us to do or not to do something that was in our best interest. In other words, God did not change, the change was in man and he recognized it (a weakening gene pool) and gave us remedy for the changes through his commandment in Lev.

This is also some of my ammunition against Darwin’s theory of evolution.
In evolution life evolves and gets stronger and more advanced.
But I believe that man as a physical being has gotten weaker.

My 2nd Theory
or at least another possibility

Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7 speak of angles as sons of God.

A daughter of Adam and Eve could have been one of the daughters whom the sons of God saw as fair and took for a wife.
Descendants of that daughter would have provided sons and daughters available for relationships that would not be considered incestuous.

Gen 6:1&2 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Some will say that the above verse state “when men” not “when man” but I say that this may not have been the only occurrence of such events.
The lineage of Jesus shows us that Jesus was a direct descendant of earthly man but his father was not Joseph. His earthly ties back to Adam and Eve are only through Mary.

Just some of my current thoughts and unlike God, I change often.

Hope this is not too jumbled to understand.
sd

sd said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peanut Gallery said...

SD,

I have a meeting to attend, so I will have to be breif. I will post more later.

As to the Livitical Law having not been imposed at that time. The Torah(law) was there from the beginning."In the begining was the Word" Jesus is the word made flesh.

Remember that Cain was mad at Able because God saw favor in Ables offering. The Torah was on the hearts of mankind from the very beginning and was in effect from that time.

Noah was instructed to take two of every animal, but was instructed to take seven of every clean animal. Why, because they were to be used for an offering unto the Lord. Levitical Law was well in practice before it was given as a reminder to the children of Israel at Sinai.

Catch ya later.