Leaving Friday in a Bang

The Texan education service has a coup by Republicans to distort history. These distortors claim to be conservative Christians, but they are really CNP-influenced corporate funded puppets. The Texas Board of Education is expected to force through a new state curriculum this week. It's a disgrace of course since this new curriculum will promote lies like usual. These reactionaries claim to want to get rid of liberal bias, but all bias is wrong regardless of political ideology. Cynthia Dunbar is a board member who believes in the lie that America as a nation was chosen by God to be a beacon to the world. America was composed of many backgrounds and creeds to enhance the principle of religious freedom and social tolerance. We, as a nation, haven't lived up at times to the founding statements of our creed. I will be the first to admit to that reality, but sincere people throughout our nation's history have strived to enact basic reforms in order to improve the conditions here. She says that she wants to promote patriotism and the free enterprise system. Yet, history in a classroom isn't about promoting any ideology whether its patriotism or the free enterprise system. It's about showing as accurately as possible the components pertaining to events from the past and the present. America wasn't founded under God per se. God doesn't need a nation to define his power or prove his power. God is expressly found in the hearts of his children. God doesn't care about trivialities, but he does care about how we treat each others and him. A nation doesn't define me. None of the founding documents don't mention that we are founded on the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. I live in a nation, but I worship God not a country. Our real patriotism totally is in heaven. These distortions of textbooks deals with religion, economics, guns, evolution, slavery, and the civil rights movement. Thomas Jefferson is ignored of him promoting the separation of church and state. They promote the contributions of Confederate leaders during the civil war when the leadership of the Confederacy wanted the rights of blacks to denied of true equality. They drop Sir Isaac Newton in favoring scientific advances via military technology. They deny the calling slave trade the slave trade, but they cal it the Altantic triangular trade. They even say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is driven by Islamic fundamentalism instead of it being a more complex issue. ''There is a battle for the soul of education,'' Mavis Knight, a liberal member of the Texas education board, said. ''They're trying to indoctrinate with American exceptionalism, the Christian founding of this country, the free-enterprise system.'' I don't agree with liberals on every issue, but even they are correct to say that this Texas curriculum is a disgrace. Ms. Dunbar wants intelligence design to teach in science classes. The Republican board members lie and say that Social Security is insolvent when the elite stole money from it regularly. The blizzard of amendments has produced the odd farce. Some figures have been sidelined because they are deemed to be socialist or un-American. One of them is a children's author, Bill Martin, who wrote a popular tale, Brown Bear, Brown Bear, what Do You See? Some Republicans are right in Texas to mention that U.S. sovereignity is threaten by the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Some of the Republican board members are right to expose Margaret Sanger as a proponent of eugenics though (Sanger is quoted as wanting certain infants to die). Sanger founded Planned Parenthood and was an interesting character to say the least. Martin was cut from the curriculum when he was confused with an author with a similar name who wrote a different book, Ethical Marxism. This is the 21st century, although many people have a mentality of the 19th century or the 18th century.






I don't agree with the Mexican President Felipe Calderon's anti-Second Amendment rhetoric. I reject the view of disarming Americans. Calderon wants the U.S. Congress to renact the Assault Weapons ban. The problem with this proposal is that assualt weapons are so small in the total amount of gun crime that eliminating them didn't cause an massive increase of gun crime using assault weapons (which includes shotguns). Calderon promotes the lie that drug cartels and gang violence are fueled by our supply of firearms (when most of the guns sent there are from non-U.S. nations). Calderon oppose the Arizon immigration law, which I oppose. Some are using these developing to promote open borders, which I don't agree with though. President Obama said that "we are not defined by our borders" during a press conference welcoming Calderón on the White House lawn. The Arizona law doesn't deal with corporate exploitation of illegal immigrants or border security. I don't know why Alex Jones supports it. Mexico has problems too with a police state and it bans guns for ordinary citizens. Massive crime rates occur when guns are totally banned in a nation. That's a historical fact. Calderón’s Call to Disarmament is particularly inappropriate before Congress, who are Constitutionally barred from making any law which would violate any part of the Bill of Rights– secured to the people and several states in balance against the power given to the Federal Government. Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama support the assault weapons ban. Attorney General Eric Holder back away form supporting such a ban. It is hypocritical in a way for Calderon to condemn Arizona when Mexico has a more severe policy against illegal immigration than America has. Mexico has corruption, violence, drug cartel, and other police state measures. More intergration of North America is still a threat. The SPP was exposed by numerous patriots. Barack Obama, Calderon, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper meet in secret in their Guadalajara, Mexico summit in August of 2009. NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, and SPP promote globalization and not true economic benefits in North America. If they truly suceeded in developing reforms in North America, why is there economic turmoil here and cartel threats. CFR member Robert Pastor and others desired a North American perimeter to the transmission of goods and services (that violate the Constitution). The United Nations has been anti-gun for a while. This is evident on their statue of a tied up gun in the NY grounds. There is disinformation by establishment liberals that the U.N. is great. That's false since corporatists via the Rockefeller family gave money and land to build the U.N. The G-8 not the Group of 77 run decisions there in a major level. The U.N. supports sterilization programs, abortion, and they have been conflicit in sex scandals among their peacekeeping soldiers. The originators and early leaders of the U.N. have been members of the Council on Foreign Relations. At the same time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently renewed her campaign for the UN Small Arms Treaty (NEW START), urging the Senate to ratify the treaty signed back in December with the Russian Federation. The catach is that small arms can be ambigiously include guns. Authoritarian regimes in the 20th and 21st centuries have stolen guns from people to enslave and exterminate them. How could we in the United States allow ourselves to be disarmed at a time when law enforcement along the border have warned citizens to buy guns because its sheriffs, police and other authorities cannot protect the border zone? We should cooperate with Mexico, but Calderon ought to improve his own house too in a better fashion. Criticism is a 2 way street.




Rand Paul is having his controversy. Like father like son I guess. Ron Paul has been exposed as bashing the 9/11 Truth Movement, believing in the lie that any government interference in society is akin to socialism, and having ties to a Masonic fraternity group. His economic philosophy existed from aristocrats who had ties to the pro-European Union movement. That's Ron. Now, Rand Paul made headlines recently. Rand Paul told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that he supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet, he didn't say whether he will support or not support whether any private business can discriminate against people based on race. He also said that he believes in the right of racist people to say mean things, but he denies being a racist or supporting segregation in the United States. What is the truth? The truth is legally, free speech is definitely broad. You can say anything you want with exceptions like slander, threats, etc. Although, even in a private business, there is still government regulation. Even a private business can't do what they want whenever they want like discrimination, selling poisons, doing fraud, and other acts of abuse. You still need a public charter in numerous cases to form a business. Using Rand's logic, BP can pump oil in any U.S. coastline abritarialy, companies can sell lead in their products, and private businesses can have theft or they can have fraud. So, Rand Paul is wrong to acquire that extreme liberatarian mindset that government regulation ends in private functions. Private functions are still bound on legal parameters set up by federal government. The Civil Rights Act acted as a legitimate means to prevent discrimination in the workplace whether that workplace is in a private or public format. Nothing in Rand Paul's statements were controversial since his views are common among a certain segment of the U.S. populace. I don't believe he's a serious racist, but he just adheres to that extreme form of libertarianism (except on some of the morality questions). He is is an ideological extremist. He is so categorically opposed to public regulation of private enterprise that he cannot even bring himself to say that the Woolworth lunch counter should've been desegregated. You don't have a right to do as you please on your private property as Aleister Crowley believed. You have no right to murder, and do fraud on your private property. That's against the law. Limitations exist. I believe in the existence of private property and private property rights, but I reject private or public corruption. This doesn't mean that all regulations are legitimate. Some regulations are fine and some regulations are wrong of course. Simplistic ideology does nothing to meet the real needs of the enviornment, health, education, our civil liberties, our foreign policy, our labor, our economic system, etc. Rand Paul is running for the Republican Senate seat in Kentucky. I don't hate the man, but I do disagree with the man on some issues. He's being hit by the neo con crowd too in trying to force him to accept their archaic views on foreign policy.








I want to write about Lloyd Marcus for a long time. Now, I have that chance. He is the famous black man wearing a cowboy hat and singing plus dancing in Tea Party rallies. He's a man in my mind that's naive about a lot of things. He believes in the neo conservative agenda in a more slick fashion than a Glen Beck or a Sean Hannity. Now, he made a recent stereotypical, half truth article about the black church. The black church in general have made great, lasting contributions in American society and that's evidently true. Now, Lloyd Marcus writes that the Black church collectively has a commitment to Barack Obama. I don't agree with that. Some churches do have that, but not all black churches. A church should be independent of adhering not to the Republicans or Democrats unconditionally. They should be free and independent. He is right on some things. He's right to bring up the fact that most African American voters voted for Barack Obama, and that abortion is morally wrong. Obama is very much pro-abortion and I don't agree with his support of even partial birth abortion. People are starting to realize that abortion is heavily effecting the black community (and black people from across the political spectrum realize this). Abortion negatively effects many people too. It is important to ask legitimate questions about Barack Obama. I don't support Barack Obama on every issue, but I don't hate the man. I don't believe in showing vitriol against the man. Lloyd is correct that in mentioning that we should not made an idol of man whether that man is Bush or Obama. Lloyd Marcus denies that some neo cons and Republicans want to suppress black America. He's naive on that since Governor McDonnell is trying to get austerity cuts in education, many Tea Party protests have shown offensive, racist signs, Rand Paul doesn't say whether he wants private businesses to discriminate against people, and there are other examples of this extremism. He said that Barack Obama supports gay marriage, but he doesn't totally. He supports civil unions, but he opposes the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. He supports states deciding on this issue. This issue is controversial and the federal government has no right in my mind to influence a person's marriage decision via coercion. A person can agree for disagree with the make up of marriage though. Lloyd Marcus's greatest error is his whole agenda of entitlement. He supports the Austrian economic agenda believing that the free market alone will solve poverty and nearly all other socio-economic issues (or "Let them eat cake" or "get up by your bootstraps" type of mentality). That is wrong. He distorts the Bible in supporting his views too. Regardless of what he writes, the rich regardless get over tax laws by allowing the poor to pay many taxes (on the local, state, and federal level). This isn't class agitation, but this is class reality. He admits that the government should support giving and charity. Yet, Lloyd needs to realize that the government constitutionally providing the General Welfare of the people isn't stealing wealth via redistribution. It's a common feature of the function of government. Paying taxes to fund services isn't theft, but it's the fruit of work. Taxes shouldn't be extremely high, but at the same time, taxes exist as a constitutional reality as found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. You need roads, bridges, schools, etc. to survive as a nation and charity isn't enough to fund these entities. He lies and say that regulation is the enemy. No, too much regulation is wrong, but moderate regulation is a key component to limit fraud and abuse in the government plus corporate worlds. Some regulation are bad and some are good. The financial meltdown-inducing quadrillion-dollar derivatives bubble could never have existed without the repeal of a particular government "regulation" -- namely the Glass-Steagall Act. The idea that an unregulated market for goods, services and financial products leads to prosperity, equal opportunity and fairness spits in the face of history. The Bible says that if a man does not work, he should not eat (II Thessalonians 3:6-12). Yet, the Bible don't say allow your neighbor to die in streets. See, Lloyd Marcus believes in the Malthusian lie that we allow those who can't work (because of disability, age, illness, etc.) to starve to death. Sorry, I don't think like that. We have compassion sent toward all men. Malachi 3:5, have God says, I am “AGAINST THOSE WHO OPPRESS THE HIRELING IN HIS WAGES?" Marcus won't mention that verse since he doesn't agree with promoting real labor rights in this country. Jesus said ‘YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON,’ the love of money! THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL." Jesus as Lloyd mention did say that the poor will be with us, but that isn't an excuse to not help the poor. James 2:5 says “God has chosen the poor of this world.” Verse 6 tries to remind the Christian church that rich men are their OPPRESSORS. The Bible condemns the corruption of the rich from Genesis into the book of Revelation. Jesus said He came to preach His Gospel to the poor (Mt 11:5). See, Lloyd Marcus has a distorted view of proverty as a sole condition of morals instead of a condition that ought to be fought against. Also, I don't agree with Obama on every issue, but he had tax cuts in the middle class and the super rich regularly don't pay huge taxes now. Lloyd Marcus talks about big government. The government should be just efficient to protect and help people. Marcus makes the deception that America is a Christian nation when no where in the Constitution mentions this. The Christian Chris Pinto has a new DVD coming out proving that much of the founding Fathers were occultists and Freemasons (not true Christains by their secret quotes. Benjamin Franklin was a member of the Hells Fire Club, Thomas Jefferson condemned the Bible, and Thomas Paine hated mainstream religion completely. The Hell Fire Club have had orgies, occult rituals, and other forms of debauchery). America wasn't a Christian nation since the First Amendment forbids an establishment of religion by the government. Also, America back then did have Christians though. He talks about Obama canceling the 21st annual "National Day of Prayer" ceremony at the White House which was started by President Truman in 1952. Obama stated his reason as "not wanting to offend anyone." The real issue is how we shouldn't worship a nation, but worship God alone. There is nothing wrong with prayer. Lloyd Marcus expects me as a black man to follow the Tea Party movement when they contradict my own personal belief systems of infrastructure development, real educational growth (with the race to the bottom tactics), help to the poor beyond just charity, real economic populism, and the promotion of total human civil liberties. I believe in the Second Amendment or gun rights, but I don't agree with cutting services from the poor while our military budget is extremely bloated in its expenditures. There has to be a safety net to maintain financial plus socio-economic stability in the lives of the citizens of this country. I will pass on dancing to the tune of the Tea Party. I won't be a Republican or a Democrat. I like being independent. I don't agree with Barack Obama on every issue, but the Republicans are no different (they just have a different flavor of nefarious corruption). Now, LLoyd Marcus calls himself an unhyphenated American and that's his right. I disagree with this since I am more than an American. I live here, but I am a black American and an African American. My roots are from Africa and I have every right to not be ashamed of my heritage. I have the First Amendment right to call myself whatever I wish. He's a hypocrite by not wanting to be called an African American, but he's President of a group called the NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color). Life is bigger than some Left/Right paradigm that Lloyd Marcus seems to promote. Life is about being independently minded and aware of the truth.








Secret Societies like Freemasonry have links to Gnosticism. Freemason Timothy Hogan (or the district lecturer for the Grand Lodge of Colorado) wrote about these links in his article called "Gnostic Reflections in Freemasonry." This was created in July 9, 2009 saying that: "...Gnosticism and Gnostic thought are mentioned several times in the Scottish Rite degrees..." Regarding the term “points of light,” in a September 1788 letter from Freemason Alexander Hamilton to Freemason George Washington encouraging the latter to run for the presidency of the U.S., Hamilton wrote: “…the point of light in which you stand at home and abroad will make an infinite difference in the respectability with which the government will begin its operations….” And on October 3, 1788 Washington replied: “In taking a survey of the subject in whatever point of light I have been able to place it….” Thomas Jefferson was once the Secretary of State under Washington. Jefferson supported the French Revolution back in 1789. Edmond Charles (or Citizen) Genet was the French envoy to America back in 1793. George Washington didn't agree with Genet forming Democratic Societies in western Pennsylvania. There was the Mingo Creek Democratic Society in Western Pennsylvania. These societies influenced the creation of the Whiskey Rebellion of July 1794. Before Jefferson resigned as the Secretary of State effective December 31, 1793, George Washington asked him to request to make Genet leave the U.S. Genet was suprised at Jefferson's request to him since he said that Jefferson had “initiated me [Genet] in the mysteries” that influenced his hatred of those seeking absolute power. This isn't unusual since Thomas Jefferson supported the Illuminati and its founder Adam Weishaupt. Genet was an Illuminist. He first went into Russia as French Charge d'Affaires in the late 1780's and worked there with the Illuminist Prince Pavel Dolgorukii. Pavel Dolgorukii was the maternal grandfather of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Since the Jacobin threat was in France, Genet stayed in America. He married the daughter of Governor George Clinton. Clinton was President Thomas Jefferson's vice-President. Genet created "democratic" rebellion there. In 1802, John Wood authored A Full Exposition of the Clintonian Faction and the Society of the Columbian Illuminati in New York, etc., referring to "the mutual affection and sympathy which exist between Mr. (DeWitt) Clinton and the Columbian Illuminati." DeWitt Clinton was Masonic Grand Master of New York and Gov. George Clinton's nephew. The Freemason and French Revolution particiaptn Marquis de Lafayettee brought to the U.S. in the early 1800's Madame Francoise d'Arusmont. She is known as Fanny Wright. She worked with Robert Dale owen in his New Harmony, Indian commune. This was the first of its kind in America. By 1828, they joined Orsetes brownson to create the Working-Men’s Party in New York. Brownson in The Works of Orestes Brownson revealed their plan as follows: “The great object was to get rid of Christianity. The plan was… to establish a system of state—we said national—schools, from which all religion was to be excluded,… and to which all parents were to be compelled by law to send their children…. We were to have godless schools for all the children of the country…. The plan has been successfully pursued….” This represented the values of the French Revolution infecting America. The Carbonari revolutionary group of Italy promoted similar tenets of the French Revolution. Madame Blavatasy joined the group. She was wounded at the Battle of Montana near Rome on November 3, 1867. The leader of the Carbonari was Giuseppe Mazzini, who was referred to as an “established point of light when rays traversed the world.” Occultists view the concepts of rays and the points of light as hermaphroditic. In Luciferian Alice Bailey’s The Rays and the Initiations (Volume 5 of A Treatise on the Seven Rays), she explains that after the 4th initiation, “All that remains is a point of light. This point is conscious, immutable and aware of the two extremes of the divine expression… [which] are fused and blended into the One. Of this One the divine Hermaphrodite is the concrete symbol—the union in one of the pairs of opposites, negative and positive, male and female.” It's interesting to note that there is on page 36 of a special edition of U.S. News and World Report titled "Secrets of the Lost Symbol" an ancient stone depiction of the Persian/Roman sun god of light, Mithras, with 7 pointed rays of light coming from his head. Semiramis has 7 pointed rays of life. Even the Statue of Liberty goes look kind of hermaphroditic. The androgynous agenda is easily promoted in popular culture and the New Age. Theosophist Shirley McCune in her co-authored The Light Shall Set You Free, where she claims: "The goal of all humanity... is to become androgynous." Shirley wants the Age of Aquarius. Much of the information in her book McCune says was "channeled" to her from Master Morya, the same "Ascended Master" mentioned by Luciferian Alice Bailey and by the Arlington, Texas headquartered Robert Muller Schools around the world (Muller was U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for decades). Alice Bailey was anti-Semitic and views the Jewish people as standing in the way of world peace. He viewed Hitler as bad, but called all of the Zionist movement in America as apart of forces of evil. Some Zionists are indeed trying to do evil in the world while other Zionists just want peace. All Zionists aren't monolithic. This is similar to the view of the anti-Semitic Albert Pike in Lectures on the Arya (published in 1873, with copyright 1930 by the Scottish Rite Freemasons’ Supreme Council, Washington, D.C.), wherein he declared, “The single fact that we owe not one single truth, not one idea in philosophy or religion to the Semitic race is, of itself, ample reward for years of study, and it is a fact indisputable, if I read the Veda and Zend Avesta aright.”Alice Bailey admitted that threats to promoting the new world order is Sovereignity and Nationalism. That's true since the nationalist movement is one bulwark preventing the globalists' real plans from coming into fruition. In 1891, Cecil Rhodes formed the secret Society of the Elect “to take the government of the whole world,” in his own words. Toward that end, a member of Rhodes’ Association of Helpers was noted world historian Arnold J. Toynbee who, in Copenhagen in June 1931, delivered a speech stating: “We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.” Rhoes Scholar Strobe Talbot in writing in TIME during July 20, 1992 bashes national sovereignity and wants a global governmental system. Rhodes Scholar Richard Gardner wrote similarly in 1974. In the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs (April 1974), Gardner opined: “An end run around national sovereignty eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” What more proof do these skeptics need pertaining to the fact that some elitists want to eliminate national sovereignity in order to form a world government system.




By Timothy