GENIUS FORUMS

.


Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama: You Were Not Born Here!

-snip-

Hospital after Hospital - all Have No Record of Obama being born or Mom Ever being There.

http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135


.

.


Supreme Court will hear Obama Citizenship Case

-snip-

The United States Supreme Court has scheduled for full conference, Leo Donofrio's NJ Citizen Suit challenging the eligibility of multiple 2008 Presidential election candidates.

The conference is a completely private affair and the public may not attend. If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

-Click URL for complete article-

http://community.marketwatch.com/groups ... hear-obama


.

Alex,

"The place where Jehovah identifies himself as Satan is in the Old Testament. But I can't find it."

Keep looking, it'll show up one of these days. The reason I ignore a good portion of what you wrote is that, in my understanding, it is pretty obviously deluded. I suggest that you demonstrate more or less exactly why a style of 'thinking', which is intimately tied to certain mythical symbols and, apparently, potencies, directs your understanding. Again, from my perspective only, it is pretty much the same order of stuff that we were talking about even back in the last quarter of 2007.

There are a couple of scriptures re Jehovah and Satan that are quite odd, but the one I rememer was in a book, and I thumbed through the book but couldn't find the reference. Oh well.

Deluded. Middle ages psychic holdover.

Well, this is just - maddening, and a ridiculous form of denial.

It has nothing to do with the middle ages, whose church believed in the Old Testament, and used it, as does the church today, albeit less so.

I differ from the church and from the middle ages, in that I do not accept the authenticity of the personage known as Jehovah, sometimes called the Lord. And I analyze the teachings of Jesus, and came to some conclusions, quite on my own, that what Jesus taught is the opposite of what the church teaches, and I find the probable reason for this in the attitude of Jehovah. And when I have made a few stabs at discussing this with Christians I am sadly disgusted with their lame attempts to justify actions which would never, ever be justified in anyone other than God, who does not have to be consistent, does not have to live up to his own teachings or the teachings of his son, or the commands he gives us, but can violate them with impunity and still be called good, because, well, he can do whatever the hell he wants, being the boss and all.

And these are the people who wallow in the middle ages, not me. I want to break away from it.

I'm not trying to talk really about Jews, I'm trying to talk about whether the Bible can be taken as a decent source of religious teachings, whether it could possibly be inspired by God, and why or why not.

But you are completely incapable of engaging in such a discussion. You are a broken record, saying the same thing over and over again, impervious to any and all responses.

It is downright amazing. I have hardly ever run into it to this degree, and only in people much, much less intelligent than you, and, of course, with the mentally ill, with whom I have some experience.

Alex,

One behavioural trait that deeply offends me of the typical politician is deliberate evasiveness. The typical politician not only has a message to impart, but also a perspective to deny. For example, here in Australia a little while ago some people were wondering whether our budget would need to go into deficit. The Treasurer appeared on a current affairs program, and did all that he could to completely avoid, ignore and evade the word "deficit". To exaggerate (minimally) for rhetorical effect, you could have asked him "Is it possible that our budget will need to go into deficit?" and he might have responded "Look, we're not currently in a recession, and any talk of recession has the potential to erode business confidence." Hello? He wasn't asked about a recession, he was asked about a deficit.

Now I'm not saying that you take things to that extreme. You are, however, highly selective in what you choose to respond to. I have asked you three questions which you have either answered evasively or completely ignored. Those questions are the ones that I have numbered 4 (is God capable of communicating directly in language with human beings?), 5b (is God omniscient?) and 5c (is God omnibenevolent?). Now, the way I see it is that you have things to teach me and that I have things to teach you, but if you restrict our interactions solely to that which interests you, and fail to engage wholly and sincerely with me, then the amount that each of us can teach and learn is very restricted. Do you, like the politician, simply want to impart your message and deny my perspective? Are you an honest man or a politician?

Furthermore, you not only ignored my attempt to start a discussion on the nature and roles of men and women, but you completely ignored my request for you to reconsider that neglect. Now, I don't begrudge you your right to choose what you engage with, but I do expect at least the courtesy of a comment something along the lines of "Yes, I know that you want to have that conversation, but for reasons best known to myself I'm not inclined to indulge you" - or however you prefer to word it. I put a lot of thought into that post, and you seem to have strong ideas on the issue, so - at the risk of sounding less than a "real" man - it disappoints me to find that you not only completely ignore it, but also completely ignore my attempt to revitalise the topic. Are you an honest man or a politician?

OK, now that I've gotten all of that how-we-relate-to-one-another stuff off of my chest, let me respond to the substance of what you actually have written.

I see a substantial problem with (what you've shared of) your perspective. Let me summarise what I know of it:

You hold that God is the creator of reality: not omnipotent, but surely pretty darn powerful. You also hold Him to be personal and conscious. Now, you haven't answered whether He is capable of expressing Himself to us in language, but I can't see why - based on what you have said about Him - He wouldn't be able to. You also hold that the Bible is not perfect - that it reflects the state of consciousness of an evolving people at particular times in their evolution.

The substantial problem that I see, then, is why this hugely powerful God has not ensured that the book which His people have decided to base their world-view on, is not, if not "perfect", then at least perfectly reflective of an unchanging world-view and morality. It seems that, according to you, He interacts with us far less than He could (symptomatic of a lack of care?), and furthermore, that even those pure interactions that He has, He allows to be diluted through the evolutionary circumstances of the recipient of His communication.

.


-tomas muses-
Poor Alex, you can't win for losing...


-Iolaus-
"The place where Jehovah identifies himself as Satan is in the Old Testament. But I can't find it."

-tomas-
Yeah keep searching here, there, and every-where, the woman looking for her lost lover...


-Alex-
Keep looking, it'll show up one of these days. The reason I ignore a good portion of what you wrote is that, in my understanding, it is pretty obviously deluded. I suggest that you demonstrate more or less exactly why a style of 'thinking', which is intimately tied to certain mythical symbols and, apparently, potencies, directs your understanding. Again, from my perspective only, it is pretty much the same order of stuff that we were talking about even back in the last quarter of 2007.

-tomas-
Keep driving around the same block... something or someone new might show up.


-Iolaus-
There are a couple of scriptures re Jehovah and Satan that are quite odd, but the one I rememer was in a book, and I thumbed through the book but couldn't find the reference. Oh well.

-tomas-
Book smart, street stupid..


-Iolaus-
Deluded. Middle ages psychic holdover.

Well, this is just - maddening, and a ridiculous form of denial.

-tomas-
Life goes on..


-Iolaus-
It has nothing to do with the middle ages, whose church believed in the Old Testament, and used it, as does the church today, albeit less so.

-tomas-
"Church" is another word for "circe" - the women's circle..


-Iolaus-
I differ from the church and from the middle ages, in that I do not accept the authenticity of the personage known as Jehovah, sometimes called the Lord. And I analyze the teachings of Jesus, and came to some conclusions, quite on my own, that what Jesus taught is the opposite of what the church teaches, and I find the probable reason for this in the attitude of Jehovah. And when I have made a few stabs at discussing this with Christians I am sadly disgusted with their lame attempts to justify actions which would never, ever be justified in anyone other than God, who does not have to be consistent, does not have to live up to his own teachings or the teachings of his son, or the commands he gives us, but can violate them with impunity and still be called good, because, well, he can do whatever the hell he wants, being the boss and all.

-tomas-
Do you actually believe the stuff you wrote in that paragraph?


-Iolaus-
And these are the people who wallow in the middle ages, not me. I want to break away from it.

-tomas-
"I want to"? You knowingly placed yourself there (with your parents acquiescence when you were a child) - the superstition of your blind guides is holding you back! What cult (sect) are you attending?


-Iolaus-
I'm not trying to talk really about Jews, I'm trying to talk about whether the Bible can be taken as a decent source of religious teachings, whether it could possibly be inspired by God, and why or why not.

-tomas-
Jewish Sages with their mysticism is the same as any other religious inclusiveness, to keep the women in line..


-Iolaus-
But you are completely incapable of engaging in such a discussion. You are a broken record, saying the same thing over and over again, impervious to any and all responses.

-tomas-
Sure, blame someone else for their understanding of enlightenment about things (events) not in his control.

Comment: Alex has been as open as he sees it. He's a mere human who as far as I know, bleeds red blood and doesn't shape-shift except for the occasional macaw-manifestation .. but are his wings clipped to keep his thoughts down-to-earth, au natural?


-Iolaus-
It is downright amazing. I have hardly ever run into it to this degree, and only in people much, much less intelligent than you, and, of course, with the mentally ill, with whom I have some experience.

-tomas-
Goodness Iolaus, he's been ever-more open about what he realizes from growing up 'jewish' than most anyone i've come across in internet-land .. his was/is from a jewish perspective (pounded into his brain as a male child), it's not like he had a choice in the matter!

Commentary: Iolaus, were you as a child, circumcised into your religion? This is a different matter if the male child was cut as in a "christian" (one size fits all) church (circe-circle).

I was raised as a Lutheran, it ain't like I had a choice when I was little .. though my dad wasn't circumcised nor any of my brothers or I were either.

Just because something is in a "bible" doesn't necessarily make any of it true.

Alex has a rare ability to read between the lines in all this - that's what I've seen since he arrived here. Like he said, there's only so much brevity allowed in a forum such as this.

Other than a (caste-system) cast of characters from Australia who may know each other in person, the rest of us (other than Elizabeth, DHodges etc) actually seeing Kevin Solway in the flesh .. but then, it's only heresay that they actually witnessed his doings in the United States.

Good luck, Alex, you're gonna need it with this bunch of doubting Thomas's .. throw em a soup bone now and then .. better that than the macaw better known as weisenheimer.



PS - Pixels on a sceen - what a beautiful choice.



Proverbs 6:6-8

.

Tomas,

Your post doesn't make too much sense. I'm not too sure you understood what I wrote...

I may find that reference yet, but there's also this one where the nations get divided up by the Most High, and Jehovah gets his portion...which is Jacob (Israel). So Jehovah isn't the Most High.

"Church" is another word for "circe" - the women's circle..

Which must be why the men who preside over it are wearing dresses...

Do you actually believe the stuff you wrote in that paragraph?

Of course - did you understand it? What would seem odd to you? I said that I have tried to engage Christians with some of the stuff in the OT which is attributed to Jehovah, and which is pretty hard to reconcile with Jesus, or with goodness.

"I want to"? You knowingly placed yourself there (with your parents acquiescence when you were a child) - the superstition of your blind guides is holding you back! What cult (sect) are you attending?

What???

Sure, blame someone else for their understanding of enlightenment about things (events) not in his control.

Yeah, I expect rational discussion. Nothing about enlightenment.

Goodness Iolaus, he's been ever-more open about what he realizes from growing up 'jewish' than most anyone i've come across in internet-land .. his was/is from a jewish perspective (pounded into his brain as a male child), it's not like he had a choice in the matter!

Well, well, he's open to a point, but closed to a point as well.

Commentary: Iolaus, were you as a child, circumcised into your religion? This is a different matter if the male child was cut as in a "christian" (one size fits all) church (circe-circle).

Please don't get me started. If you're going to circumcise, better get a mohel. I've seen it done in the hospital, and it makes me cry to talk about it.
So you're saying Alex should be excused from rational examination because of the trauma he underwent unwillingly? Does that not emphasize my point, or what?

Just because something is in a "bible" doesn't necessarily make any of it true.

Uhh...yeah. So did you read much of what I wrote? Did you have some idea that I was defending the Bible?

Alex has a rare ability to read between the lines in all this - that's what I've seen since he arrived here.

Oh, yes, except not on this topic. But definitely on others.

Guest,

Avoiding the subject, in truth, is actually a valuable skill and one everybody should learn. It's like when the girl is looking at you with doe-eyes---a house of cards ready to fall---and asks you 'Do you love me?'

The art of prevarication begins right there...

Myself, I am the most forthright fellow you'd ever meet, but I am more or less enslaved to the demon-bird Weisenheimer and, as you may have guessed by now, basically do what he tells me to do. But seeing as though (*shhhhh!*) my Multi-Colored Satan is quite asleep, I have a few minutes free to Speak the Truth, my favorite activity in fact.

"...the ones that I have numbered 4 (is God capable of communicating directly in language with human beings?), 5b (is God omniscient?) and 5c (is God omnibenevolent?)."

The bottom line is: I don't fucking know. The reason for that is because, like so many of us (my theory) we do not really grasp 'where we are'. We don't really understand this created world. We can know many things about mechanics and structures and we have all these marvellous (new) ways to organize our thinking, but I just don't think that we are necessarily any closer to really understanding much of anything. And because of that, there are a number of different stances, or prepositions, I might take and within that 'structure of thought' and answer your questions.

Everyone's life, at least I suppose so, tends to deal on a few basic themes. I mean that each of us is born to deal or to grapple with a group of certain issues or problems, which can usually be identified pretty early. You can look at a kid or a teenager and in some sense 'see' a general outline of what sort of things they are going to deal with. Most (from what I've seen) will have their eyes focused on mundane themes and issues and will never really get involved in the 'grand existential questions'. Many people who write here seem to be those who have entered into these big questions, and each of them is 'grappling' with those questions---wrestling with God if you want---but each in their own way, according to their basic disposition which was established long ago.

My personal relationship to these questions, to the fact of existence, is essentially visionary and experiential. I never started approaching these questions mentally or philosophically, but on the basis of things felt, on dreams, on altered states, and too as a result of the psychedelic experience and other modalities like pranayama. For good or for evil if I feel (or think) that I 'know' something it is because I have 'seen' something, just like in a vision, and then I try to work out a way to explain this, or not, depending if it is not too outlandish. So, that is one side. The other side is the practical side of day-to-day life, and I am not removed from it, I have interests, investments and involvement in the world, complicity if you wish. I have learned that there are certain modalities that are useful to moving through the world, and the operative word is 'magic' as far as I am concerned. That could be prayer, it could be visualization, it could be dreaming, it could be 'setting up' circumstances psychically and then seeing 'the world' render these things to you. But this 'magic' is very practical and doesn't necessarily deal on the grand questions.

So, for me, the basic 'truth' is that no matter what I might know about my immediate world, or some theoretical ideas about the structure of the universe, or my own ability to navigate life in order to get what I need and take care of myself, or my love and appreciation for literature or philosophy, there is no part of myself that I know of that can ever answer, and perhaps even begin to approach a way to answer, why all this is here, how it got to be here, and what it means that I am here in it with some small amount of awareness. That is the 'half-remarkable question' of the song, and according to me (for good or for evil) the answer to that question is lyrical, not factual. If someone thinks that can factually answer that question, I just laugh, because their answer is never really an answer. It is true that pure, fanciful lyricism is not either an answer, but when you combine visionary awareness, with intuitive depth, I think that may be the only place from whence an 'answer' comes.

And it will likely become obvious that, from my perspective---this perspective---the ultimate skill, the principal requirement, is not factual, mathematical reasoning, but faith. Existence is simply beyond my ability to comprehend, and from what I come from and into what I will return, is unknown and perhaps unknowable, and so our relationship to the ultimate mystery, it seems to me, is as powerless beings. We don't dictate the terms.

So, with that said, how could I answer your questions? From the most exalted, visionary and lyrical position, in answer to "is God capable of communicating directly in language with human beings?", the answer is 'yes'. On some level, I say, each person is derived from the Totality and so, through their own selves, 'God' is communicating with them, directly and personally. Ultimately, all you really have is your personal radar equipment, even if it is flawed. Right Reverend David once said that to be 'enlightened' means to 'automatically do the will of God'. I would say it is something like that, perhaps.

Also from the visionary and lyrical perspective, God is certainly omniscient, and there are different (visionary and lyrical) representations or 'stories' as to how that 'omniscience' could function, but, you know, for all cocktail purposes, for gibber-jabber on the street, etc., you have to sort of tone it down. God may be omniscient but WE live in a conditioned reality. And finally, from the ultimate, visionary and lyrical position, God is utterly omnibenevolent insofar as all that we know that is playing out as existence is occurring in an eternal stuff, an eternal flow, and (if you would take into consideration some of the visionary and lyrical Hindu conceptions as 'possible') there is no deviation in 'God'. God exists as pure Sat-Chit-Ananda---existence, awareness, bliss. Alright, I'll state it 'factually': God is involved in an eternal activity of 'self-pleasuring'.

But as you may have guessed, none of this will pay the rent. (*Oh shit, gotta go! The demon Katzellenbogen awakes!*)

...and so like I was saying, Weisenheimer teaches that if we want to get anywhere in life, the quickest route is bowing down to His majesty, and of course bringing appropriate offerings, like nuts, fruits, a little water in a dish, and of course the willingness to just sit there, mute, for hours & hours and days & days as you absorb the Sacred Wisdom from the Eternal Fount.

(Okay---*shhhhhhh*---got to go, I must perform Puja to the Great One! I hope I have answered your questions at least partially satisfactorily).

"---Yes, Weisenheimer! Yes, Master, I hear and I obey!"

Try to figure this shit out...

Alex Jacob wrote:Avoiding the subject, in truth, is actually a valuable skill and one everybody should learn. It's like when the girl is looking at you with doe-eyes---a house of cards ready to fall---and asks you 'Do you love me?'

I would rather give her doe-eyedness the frank truth...

Alex Jacob wrote:The bottom line is: I don't fucking know.

Thank you for your directness.

Alex Jacob wrote:My personal relationship to these questions, to the fact of existence, is essentially visionary and experiential. I never started approaching these questions mentally or philosophically, but on the basis of things felt, on dreams, on altered states, and too as a result of the psychedelic experience and other modalities like pranayama. For good or for evil if I feel (or think) that I 'know' something it is because I have 'seen' something, just like in a vision, and then I try to work out a way to explain this, or not, depending if it is not too outlandish.

The most significant part to me of what you wrote above, given the context of our exchange, is "and then I try to work out a way to explain this". I want to contrast that with what you write below:

Alex Jacob wrote:So, for me, the basic 'truth' is that no matter what I might know about my immediate world, or some theoretical ideas about the structure of the universe, or my own ability to navigate life in order to get what I need and take care of myself, or my love and appreciation for literature or philosophy, there is no part of myself that I know of that can ever answer, and perhaps even begin to approach a way to answer, why all this is here, how it got to be here, and what it means that I am here in it with some small amount of awareness.

So on the one hand (according to the second quote) you believe that we are unlikely to ever learn or know the ultimate explanation (or at least not so that we can be "absolutely" certain of it) but on the other hand (the first quote) you do believe in seeking explanations. I can relate to that.

Alex Jacob wrote:If someone thinks that can factually answer that question, I just laugh, because their answer is never really an answer.

I have never seen a complete answer either, but I have encountered partial answers.

Alex Jacob wrote:It is true that pure, fanciful lyricism is not either an answer, but when you combine visionary awareness, with intuitive depth, I think that may be the only place from whence an 'answer' comes.

In the end, though, isn't it the case that if it is to be a meaningful answer, then that meaning will be expressible in non-lyrical (i.e. plain/rational) terms?

Alex Jacob wrote:From the most exalted, visionary and lyrical position, in answer to "is God capable of communicating directly in language with human beings?", the answer is 'yes'.

Which brings up the question: "Why doesn't He then - regularly and constantly?"

Alex Jacob wrote:On some level, I say, each person is derived from the Totality and so, through their own selves, 'God' is communicating with them, directly and personally. Ultimately, all you really have is your personal radar equipment, even if it is flawed.

But why would this hugely powerful (but not omnipotent) God give us flawed equipment, and why would He even bother to communicate through that flawed equipment rather than to communicate directly into our ears/minds verbally, in language?

Alex Jacob wrote:Right Reverend David once said that to be 'enlightened' means to 'automatically do the will of God'. I would say it is something like that, perhaps.

I would say that it is exactly like that, but for David to say that is meaningless: given David's conception of God (as the Totality), one is "automatically" doing its will no matter what - whether one is enlightened or not.

Alex Jacob wrote:Also from the visionary and lyrical perspective, God is certainly omniscient, and there are different (visionary and lyrical) representations or 'stories' as to how that 'omniscience' could function, but, you know, for all cocktail purposes, for gibber-jabber on the street, etc., you have to sort of tone it down.

You have to "tone down" the truth? How is that different from lying?

Alex Jacob wrote:God may be omniscient but WE live in a conditioned reality.

I'm not sure what our living in a conditioned reality has to do with the subject at issue: God's omniscience.

Alex Jacob wrote:And finally, from the ultimate, visionary and lyrical position, God is utterly omnibenevolent insofar as all that we know that is playing out as existence is occurring in an eternal stuff, an eternal flow, and (if you would take into consideration some of the visionary and lyrical Hindu conceptions as 'possible') there is no deviation in 'God'. God exists as pure Sat-Chit-Ananda---existence, awareness, bliss. Alright, I'll state it 'factually': God is involved in an eternal activity of 'self-pleasuring'.

So what do you make of the problem of evil then? As far as I'm concerned, this philosophical argument is irrefutable. The way that I think that it is best expressed is this:
1. An omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate all evil and suffering.
2. An omnipotent God would have the power to eliminate all evil and suffering.
3. An omniscient God would know about all of the evil and suffering that exists.
4. Therefore, given a tri-omni God, evil and suffering would not exist.
5. Evil and suffering exist.
6. Therefore, God is not tri-omni.

You already have a bit of an escape hatch in that you don't believe that God is omnipotent, but you do believe that He created everything, so there's still no excuse for all of that evil and suffering. Or perhaps you can think of one.

Alex Jacob wrote:Try to figure this shit out...

Here's my interpretation:

The woman is a recasting of Eve; Eve not as innocent, gullible, corruptible and fundamentally human, but rather as an incorruptible expression and agent of feminine divinity. Her femininity is expressed through her beauty, which is linked to the beauty of birds. The other reason for linking her to birds is because of a skill that birds possess: that of flight. Flight represents freedom and potential, both of which are attributes of divinity. Furthermore, the woman is given wings, linking her to divinity through angelic connotations, however she is freed from the mundane associations that angels usually have (a plain white appearance), again highlighting that creativity is an expression of divinity.

The snakes are included as an allusion to the corruptibility of the original Eve through evil. This Eve holds her eyes to the evil, but unlike the original Eve, she recognises the evil and its necessary existence, whilst exhibiting perfect resistance and opposition to it by drawing on the strength of divine love and understanding as represented by her holding her hands above her heart.

To a man, this image speaks to his deep hope of salvation through a woman: that she will lead him out of sin, evil and hell through her incorruptible feminine connection with the divine.

Oh, and by the way Tomas, you can forget your agitation over Obama being born in Kenya (what happened to the American black father from Hawaii?) because if he was born in Kenya, then I think we would need to change the law to accommodate the situation. I do believe there should be a law for only natural citizens to be president, so guys like Kissinger who spent their formative years in another country and whose parents were citizens of that other country, who indeed speak English with a strong accent can't become president. But if someone was born of an American parent(s) and happened to be born while temporarily living in another country, that should not disqualify them.

If they try to take Obama away for that reason, we will have some serious rioting on our hands, and I'll be right out there with them. Whisking away the black president at this point would be, I don't know, like pulling a piece of meat out of the jaws of a hungry lion. Not wise.

Can't happen, ain't gonna happen.

Guest writes:

"So on the one hand (according to the second quote) you believe that we are unlikely to ever learn or know the ultimate explanation (or at least not so that we can be "absolutely" certain of it) but on the other hand (the first quote) you do believe in seeking explanations. I can relate to that."

I admit this is all a very weird territory. If there were one 'ultimate truth', or one ultimate end or activity for those who knew ultimate truth, there would be one more or less recognizable human product or outcome of this category. No matter what one's realization is, one still has to live out one's life, and for that one needs a 'story', a narrative, an outline, something that one lives in accord with. But it isn't like all of a sudden, like Mother Maria or Mohammad, you are pulled out of the Earth and up to Heaven and everyone says, "Ah, okay, yes, he made the grade". If everyone got to some special level of realization and just went *poof*, up in smoke, vaporized, or got turned into a ball of light and disappeared, it would make sense in a way. But as it is, no matter what, you have to go on, you have to decide to do something or perhaps nothing, and there is so much variation in what people do.

I think that the 'explanations' one seeks, as a result of one's experience, one's intuitive apprehension, can only take shape within terrestrial forms, and the explanation is only as relevant as the path that it give one. But it is always one path or another, and each path comes with its own colors, flavors, moods, activities. Even if there is some 'ultimate story'. the story that you and I are going to realize is the one that we live in accord with, or that moulds our life.

I admit to being somewhat moved or impressed, maybe 'awed' is more the word, by something that Ramakrishna's 'spiritual consort' Sri Sarada Devi said: "From desire comes this body into being. When there is no desire at all, the body falls away. With complete cessation of desire there comes the final end". Life or death just doesn't matter, you have no more stake in anything in the 'here-below' and so you cease to live here. If this is a distinct place, and if consciousness moves between different levels, doesn't it make sense that to go beyond 'this', one has to die to it?

"Which brings up the question: "Why doesn't He then - regularly and constantly?" [Communicate regularly and constantly with us].

Because we're too busy with other things? The yogis always say that we don't have God-realization because we don't seek it. Ramakrishna said if we were to direct just a portion of the energy we direct to mundane thing, to 'divine' things, we would have all sorts of realizations. That is pretty much my view: this whole 'sphere' is much more flexible than we realize. The more that we operate in 'faith'. the more that strange, unseen doors open before us. But when 'faith' vanishes, when our vision fails, it disappears as if it was never there, and indeed it is as if it is not there. Imprisonment is lack of options, isn't it?

"But why would this hugely powerful (but not omnipotent) God give us flawed equipment, and why would He even bother to communicate through that flawed equipment rather than to communicate directly into our ears/minds verbally, in language?"

Well, life is obviously striving toward an end, at least on our planet, and it is the higher forms of life that gain the realization of the higher aims of life, don't you think? By your reckoning a dog on the street is a flawed being, but the dog, in its way, is certainly trying just because it lives, it strives, it goes through what it has to go through.

Well, that does it! Enough fooling around! I am going to renounce everything, go on government welfare, and dedicate myself to the ultimate realization.

Iolaus wrote:Oh, and by the way Tomas, you can forget your agitation over Obama being born in Kenya (what happened to the American black father from Hawaii?) because if he was born in Kenya, then I think we would need to change the law to accommodate the situation.

Since it never has been sufficiently legally challenged that the term "naturally born citizen" would mean anything other than "citizen of the United States at birth", the US Code 1401, section g is really enough to cover an eventual birth at Kenia, or section c in McCain's case of Panama.

That's there's still a serious discussion on the Net of this rather hypothetical issue possible, is beyond me.

Alex Jacob wrote: I admit to being somewhat moved or impressed, maybe 'awed' is more the word, by something that Ramakrishna's 'spiritual consort' Sri Sarada Devi said: "From desire comes this body into being. When there is no desire at all, the body falls away. With complete cessation of desire there comes the final end". Life or death just doesn't matter, you have no more stake in anything in the 'here-below' and so you cease to live here. If this is a distinct place, and if consciousness moves between different levels, doesn't it make sense that to go beyond 'this', one has to die to it?

It should be clear that any "falling away" of the body cannot mean physical death. Because the term "cessation of desire" is only meaningful if everything else does not stop as well, like in death. Otherwise why bothering mentioning this at all?

This is of course about transcendence of the body: one ceases distinguishing it in the same manner as one used to do. This is more about image and how it's created than it's about material issues of filling up quantities of 'space'.

The more that we operate in 'faith'. the more that strange, unseen doors open before us. But when 'faith' vanishes, when our vision fails, it disappears as if it was never there, and indeed it is as if it is not there. Imprisonment is lack of options, isn't it?

This statement is virtually indistinguishable with a case of operating through hallucinations or psychosis. Lots of possibilities open up and when the meds are taken the vision suddenly fails. Imprisonment becomes a lack of dopamine.

Imprisonment constitutes desire to flee...

Well, that does it! Enough fooling around! I am going to renounce everything, go on government welfare, and dedicate myself to the ultimate realization.

Be Passersby...

And you start indeed with quoting Quinn's quintessential Q :)

I wrote: 'The more that we operate in 'faith'. the more that strange, unseen doors open before us. But when 'faith' vanishes, when our vision fails, they disappear as if they were never there, and indeed it is as if they are not there. Imprisonment is lack of options, isn't it?'

Deibert commented: 'This statement is virtually indistinguishable with a case of operating through hallucinations or psychosis. Lots of possibilities open up and when the meds are taken the vision suddenly fails. Imprisonment becomes a lack of dopamine.'

(I didn't write the sentence correctly the first time---I often use a plural form in one part and then a singular in the next, it is a bad habit I picked up from someone I spent a lot of time with who hadn't dominated English.)

Except that the 'unseen doors' that are there for a psychotic or one who hallucinates do not conduce to the same 'places'. Almost all of the modalities of the yogis and that whole school of perception, and the metaphysical underpinnings of it, would have to be seen from the scientific perspective, the materialist perspective, and to some degree from the QRS perspective (though it varies and is filled with contradictions), would have to be seen as schizophrenic or borderline psychotic.

(There is a beautiful story by Hermann Hesse called 'Iris'---I am sure no one among the pure reasoning mathematicians has ever read it or will ever read it---which so nicely deals on this theme, not of hallucination and psychosis, but of interior spiritual 'doors' that conduce into different vistas of the world).

I don't at all think that 'imprisonment' means 'desire to flee', not from the perspective I am talking about, and what I mean is that imprisonment is having options reduced so that one has limited movement, limited possibilities, on all different levels. Generally speaking, strict materialism can function like this, because 'conceptual pathways' to other possibilities ('unseen doors') are eliminated. At the same time, and I think most can confirm this, to really get into certain kinds of ruts is almost parallel with our thoughts being focused on limited possibilities, and when we sometimes encounter other people who operate with more open ideas, who are free within their possibilities, we see very clearly the ways we are limited, or have limited ourselves, or are functioning with a script designed and managed by others that reduces the full possibilities of our 'true' selves.

But on some level your analogy is correct, though I suspect that your cynicism toward this idea comes from some stricter interpretation of Buddhism or some branch of non-dualism---God only knows what---since what is being talked about is 'energetic', something very very hard to define. A friend of mine told me this story of when he lived in India, going from sanga to sanga visiting sages and yogis. There was this one guy who was said to be 'enlightened' or 'God-realized' and yet who, generally speaking, acted a little crazy. They went and sat with him for awhile, and when they left he gave my friend a 'Dum-Dum', a lollipop, and my friend said that after eating it he was in an altered state for three days, bubbly, breezy, light as a feather. Energy, it is a peculiar thing. Was the lollipop filled with 'dopamine'? (I feel that, like an evil scribe in an inverted version of the Gospels, I am asking an anti-Christ a trick question. But what say you, Master?)

"It should be clear that any "falling away" of the body cannot mean psychical death. Because the term "cessation of desire" is only meaningful if everything else does not stop as well, like in death. Otherwise why bothering mentioning this at all?"

I don't know, it is not my level of 'realization'. But in Ramakrishna's case his realization produced an ambivalence to staying alive or literally dying. He stopped eating, he didn't care if he died. What I was trying to get at is that, really, that while one is alive and while one wants to live, one will have stories, a script, plans, desired activities. And when one comes to the end of all those roads, one ceases to incarnate here, which means in fact one dies for the last time.

If there is continued psychical existence, where does it take place?

I always thought that this was what Nietzsche essentially rebelled against. The sense, the knowledge, that this Eastern and also Christian 'realization' was on a par with desire to cease living, and so he furiously stated that to live and do anything on the Earth, to achieve and create anything, and all the things we value, is to resist this tendency to disappear from the stage. And what resurrects you from that death-wish? A very well-articulated script, a story. (Zarathustra).

Alex Jacob wrote:Except that the 'unseen doors' that are there for a psychotic or one who hallucinates do not conduce to the same 'places'. Almost all of the modalities of the yogis and that whole school of perception, and the metaphysical underpinnings of it, would have to be seen from the scientific perspective, the materialist perspective, and to some degree from the QRS perspective (though it varies and is filled with contradictions), would have to be seen as schizophrenic or borderline psychotic.

Not the same place, according to which tourist guide? What matters here I think is that there's on one side a sea of perceptions, some more wilder and less controlled than orders, and some of them make indeed more sense to the environment [in terms of relating to it] than others.

At the other side it could be said to be reason, a way of ordering that 'makes sense', using some form of language or symbol that abides by rules of coherency and identity. This ability to distinguish, to apply logic is different from just another perception, it's a "super-perception" perhaps. This is why it can have as subject observations, any observation or theory or imaginative concept. Health and disease have no particular meaning in this realm, only the abiding by the auto-implied and self-imposed rules of reason itself.

Of course the majority of the schizophrenic and borderliners are deemed irrational because of the lack of internal consistency when broken down. I think with the yogis another issue is at stake.

In this model, which I don't know 'whose perspective' it is, as I think it's the perspective one cannot avoid arriving at, there's initially no difference between a modality of a yogi, the normality as defined by a mass of people or the lunatics in the hall.

I don't at all think that 'imprisonment' means 'desire to flee', not from the perspective I am talking about, and what I mean is that imprisonment is having options reduced so that one has limited movement, limited possibilities, on all different levels. Generally speaking, strict materialism can function like this, because 'conceptual pathways' to other possibilities ('unseen doors') are eliminated.

You mean you're deciding what is imprisonment for someone else, what their 'possibilities' would be? Camp guard mentality that is, and you're making sure the inmates are reminded every day that they're prisoners, by any means necessary!

Imprisonment only has meaning in a context of desire or disgust, wanting to be somewhere or anywhere but here right now. For an intellectual for example freedom lies in access to sources of intellect. For a conceptualist, his freedom seems to lie in conceptual pathways that the mind somehow has to follow to 'taste' this freedom.

since what is being talked about is 'energetic', something very very hard to define.

Sure, pure energy is chaotic, fluid, hardly unstructured, ... essentially henid. The moment you'd start defining, pressuring here or there, the energy gets converted, condenses in form.

What I was trying to get at is that, really, that while one is alive and while one wants to live, one will have stories, a script, plans, desired activities. And when one comes to the end of all those roads, one ceases to incarnate here, which means in fact one dies for the last time.

This only makes sense if you stretch the term desire to include everything we gravitate toward doing for whatever reason.

I always thought that this was what Nietzsche essentially rebelled against. The sense, the knowledge, that this Eastern and also Christian 'realization' was on a par with desire to cease living, and so he furiously stated that to live and do anything on the Earth, to achieve and create anything, and all the things we value, is to resist this tendency to disappear from the stage.

Essentially yes, this is about decadence and all late religious feeling. It's way beyond Eastern and Christian realization, this is part of parcel of nihilism and the entertainment that has to cover up the real sentiments, of un-will or ill-will basically.

The thing with Nietzsche is not that he rebelled, not that he had any clear vision of well defined hope of a future, or any of the colorful dreams which rebels always have. The person Nietzsche denied much of his body too, and dragged his mind into a level of stress, of disposition that he could hardly bare.
The only thing he kept geared towards was post-humanity, glimpses of what lied beyond the sea. He believed in what humans could bring forward eventually but was himself a great despiser of humanity all the same.

Two things:

One, I apologize for using the word 'beautiful' in my last post to describe a story by Hermann Hesse. I don't know what happened, I fucked up I guess. I'm sorry!

Two, the reason I selected 'be passersby' is really only because, in English, there are only so many phrases that can fit into the 30 characters that one is allowed here. However, Diebert, I did not get mine from 'Q' or the Gosepl of Thomas but from (you guessed it) Weisenheimer. He always quotes it when anyone comes anywhere near his perch, but it is more like a command, an imperative, not a request, like 'be a passerby, don't get too close, keep 'passing by', asshole, or I will lascerate one of your appendages'.

There is really a whole other meaning...

Alex Jacob wrote: There is really a whole other meaning...

Perhaps just: "be a Hebrew".

Like Nietzsche said: man is a bridge between two eternities. But also Jesus, according to Muslims who inscribed these attributed words on an Indian mosque, said: "The world is a bridge; pass over it but build no house upon it."

.


PRUDEN: Imposter in the White House?

-snip-

President-elect Barack Obama was born under the jurisdiction of a foreign power, Britain, and is therefore ineligible to ...

The particulars are complicated, as the particulars always are when the lawyers throw law books at each other. (see comments)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... hite-house

.

.


Designated Driver Susan E. Rice [hidden hand of zbigniew brzezinski]

-snips-

Susan Rice is the lynch pin in all of this the Brzezinski globalists about to take a major bite in recolonizing Africa with a shade of black of their choice.

They deserve better, but as I told a friend today, "Those people over there have been fed rice and millet without meat for a long time and you get sheep for people on that vegetarian diet." So these people will be plundered and take it with the weeping tears of Africa and the suicides of India.

But the band plays on no different when Chaldeans marched into Egypt, Chin made China their own, Romans were raping Icinni and brave new world revisits colonialism with a different flavor of not bringing Christian virtues to the savages, but instead now will bring savagery to pacify the native flocks.

The 66 million Obama voters bought this as much as the patricians hiding in the right. This is now their chapter in their book recorded in God's judgment as the final chapter is written. (see photo)

-Click URL for complete article-

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2008/12/ ... -rice.html

.

.

DISCLAIMER: Missed this post earlier, musta been in a hurry that day.


-Iolaus-
Oh, and by the way Tomas, you can forget your agitation over Obama being born in Kenya (what happened to the American black father from Hawaii?) because if he was born in Kenya, then I think we would need to change the law to accommodate the situation.

-tomas-
Brother Barack appears to be a nice guy ... all he need do is release his vault copy of birth certificate!

As far as Frank Marshall Davis vs. Barack Obama Sr. - all you need do is compare photos of these two deceased fellows. It becomes obvious who is. Or, DNA testing of each father's other offspring isn't too much to ask... Davis had 5-6 children, Obama Sr. had a few also. Would any of them care to have their mouth swabbed? I'm sure one of Brother Barack's discarded cigarette butts would have some DNA on it if he wouldn't submit to a swab. Maybe there are some on Ebay?


-Iolaus-
I do believe there should be a law for only natural citizens to be president, so guys like Kissinger who spent their formative years in another country and whose parents were citizens of that other country, who indeed speak English with a strong accent can't become president.

-tomas-
Kissinger cannot become president, neither can Schwarzeneggar.

Strong accent?, if an illegal alien-mother from Saskatchewan, Canada, squats just inside the border in North Dakota, drops a baby girl/boy (how about twins) and it can be certified, I'm all for that child running for Congress, Senate, House, the presidency...



-Iolaus-
But if someone was born of an American parent(s) and happened to be born while temporarily living in another country, that should not disqualify them.

Singular parent -or- plural parent(s) must be on some-sort of U.S. "property" consulate, embassy, military post/base etc. Otherwise, a fair hearing in court will decide...



-Iolaus-
If they try to take Obama away for that reason, we will have some serious rioting on our hands, and I'll be right out there with them.

-tomas-
Yo mama!



-Iolaus-
Whisking away the black president at this point would be, I don't know, like pulling a piece of meat out of the jaws of a hungry lion. Not wise.

-tomas-
Look, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was boinking the boys while underage. You wanna see some nude photos of her on the internet? They are out there. They were taken at Frank Marshall Davis' apartment in Hawaii.


-Iolaus-
Can't happen, ain't gonna happen.

-tomas-
Well, Bill Clinton was a (disbarred) lawyer too. He got his good name back. Did you protest his impeachment also? Arkansas got his law license removed for a few years.

If Brother Barack takes the Oath to "defend the Constitution" based on a lie, what then? It's better to find out now than it would be to re-write a constitutional amendment after-the-fact.

My thinking is that he was lied-to by his mother on who his "real" father was. The Indonesian Soetoro, Hawaiian Davis, or Kenyan Obama.

Take your pick, whatever the case may be - it sure turns a kid's head inside out when a mother has no truth in her, the hell with her degree in anthropology.

Kinda makes one wonder why he'd refuse to release his medical records, college transcripts etc, yet you are ready to protest for a person you know nothing of his character/background about.

If you want to see what someone is about just look at the friends he chooses...

And, look who he is appointing on second-tier appointments... beyond the window dressing.

PS - It sent Jack Nicholson over the Cuckoo's Nest when he found out that his "aunt" who raised him was (in real-life) his natural-born mother... mother teresa's are a rare breed.


.

Tomas,

As far as Frank Marshall Davis vs. Barack Obama Sr. - all you need do is compare photos of these two deceased fellows. It becomes obvious who is.

You musta found a lot better photos than I could. I just spent a while online looking for photos. One of them shows Barack in between the two men, and tries to make a case that he looks more like Davis. I don't see it at all, and the pic of Obama Sr. is so dark and lousy, with big black glasses. I think Barack looks like Ann's dad.

Kissinger cannot become president, neither can Schwarzeneggar.

But you see the difference, that both of them were born of German parents in Germany and grew up in Germany?

Strong accent?, if an illegal alien-mother from Saskatchewan, Canada, squats just inside the border in North Dakota, drops a baby girl/boy (how about twins) and it can be certified, I'm all for that child running for Congress, Senate, House, the presidency...

But if she did that and the kid grew up here he wouldn't have an accent, no matter what the parents spoke.

Look, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was boinking the boys while underage. You wanna see some nude photos of her on the internet? They are out there. They were taken at Frank Marshall Davis' apartment in Hawaii.

So were you and your baby mama. Didn't you have your first kid at 16?

Well, Bill Clinton was a (disbarred) lawyer too. He got his good name back. Did you protest his impeachment also? Arkansas got his law license removed for a few years.

Look, I wanted to have the press tried for treason, you understand? They made a laughing stock out of America. If a head of state can't get a blow job, who can? It's not their business to go broadcasting that slimy shit, and I for the life of me can't understand why he didn't have the balls to just refuse to testify. His testimony was ...so undignified... well I never liked the guy and never voted for him.

Why was he disbarred?

Yeah...don't know about those appointments...dont know if he's as good as his smile...don't know if he knows what he's up against, don't know if he'll make it if/when he finds out.

If Americans think the triviality of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya is more important than the leadership they need, they deserve to die as a nation.

End of story.

.


Tomas,


-Iolaus-
You musta found a lot better photos than I could. I just spent a while online looking for photos. One of them shows Barack in between the two men, and tries to make a case that he looks more like Davis. I don't see it at all, and the pic of Obama Sr. is so dark and lousy, with big black glasses. I think Barack looks like Ann's dad.

-tomas-
Let's have a DNA sample..


-Iolaus-
But you see the difference, that both of them were born of German parents in Germany and grew up in Germany?

-tomas-
Schwarzeneggar is Austrian. Unknown about Kissinger heritage...



-Iolaus-
So were you and your baby mama. Didn't you have your first kid at 16?

-tomas-
We had parental consent on both sides... besides, she seduced me! And, she's a couple months older than me :-) (Older women make beautiful lovers)



-Iolaus-
Look, I wanted to have the press tried for treason, you understand? They made a laughing stock out of America.

-tomas-
The press is nothing more than mouthpieces for corporations ... Laughing stock? It's because they've never done their job since movable type should up a few centuries ago.



-Iolaus-
If a head of state can't get a blow job, who can?

-tomas-
I dunno about your relationship with your hubby .. mine? She blew some other dude or chick, I'm outta there with everything the courts offer me. That includes our under-age daughter.



-Iolaus-
It's not their business to go broadcasting that slimy shit, and I for the life of me can't understand why he didn't have the balls to just refuse to testify.

-tomas-
He's a husband first, as Hillary is a wife first. He lied to her (even thought they had an open-marriage swinger-style) and when you hear the whispers around DC, the last thing one does is lie to a legal-partner because of "the marriage contract" backed up by the power of the state. Hillary knew all about his dalliances all the way back to their Yale days. It hit the fan when the rumors about his raping that woman (at Oxford, England) came out that was the beginning of the end.



-Iolaus-
His testimony was ...so undignified... well I never liked the guy and never voted for him.

-tomas-
I don't know if it was ordered to videotape/audio or he agreed to it. He exposed himself to be the charlatan he was.

In crowds, he's a different alter-ego than in one-on-one conversations. I've met him a few/several times and he's a really cool guy in public, with an "audience). But guy-to-guy he's an absolute boor and his "real IQ" is telling... he's a hollow shell. Perhaps it's because he grew up "fatherless" with an alcoholic step-dad. Childhood trauma has many a different manifestation that vary from person-to-person in same families.

Clinton and Obama have that same deal in their past, not connecting with their "real" dad.. the mothers lied who their real dad was.

The storyline on (William Jefferson Blythe IV) Clinton was/is that it was either former Arkansas Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller OR get this, Billy Graham! I kid you not! Bill's mom was a "loose" woman in her own heyday. What she did and with whom I could care less, but it's there for all to see.

Understand that Billy Graham's real name is Willem Franks, German in origin. His gramps changed it when arriving in America, their old Free Masons obviously but became Scottish Rite Free Mason. No need to get into the Rockefeller issues because the Rockefeller's and Franks are from same bloodline back in Austria/Germany proper.



-Iolaus-
Why was he disbarred?

-tomas-
He lied (as a lawyer in good-standing) during a court proceeding. Rule of law.



-Iolaus-
Yeah...don't know about those appointments...dont know if he's as good as his smile...don't know if he knows what he's up against, don't know if he'll make it if/when he finds out.

-tomas-
You can tell a person by the friends he chooses (hangs out with). Ditto for his appointments, it's who he appoints for the second-tier that are the movers and shakers, out of the limelight peoples we never see on the sunday morning talk shows.

Obama is a Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin in the making. All bleeding-mad but the intelligent among us are swayed by their smooth-talk. These crazies have a silver tongue.

Collectively speaking .. we are the enablers for these psychos.

It's much like John McCain, his handler was Joe Lieberman.

Obama's "handler", take a guess :-)


PS - Happy - what a beautiful choice!


Disclaimer:
Pardon the grammatical errors - D- student (and mildly dyslexic)

.

Dan Rowden wrote:If Americans think the triviality of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya is more important than the leadership they need, they deserve to die as a nation.

End of story.

My take is that the US is still a British colony. Ben Franklin pulled some fast ones in his day regarding "independence", it was written in such a way to mask the founding fathers true intentions.

The founding fathers were British Subjects, no argument there. But if they (leaders) cannot be trusted with power of life vs. death (peace vs. war) who can?

If Ambassador Ben Franklin made deals with France and Britain to carve up the new world (away from the natives already here) why wouldn't Brother Barack do the same regarding the black part of Africa. I say he will do just that as leader of the free world - what ever free is supposed to be translated as.

The American way of life as a nation was/is/will always be a myth. Something that never was is not now.

PS - Prime Minister Harper dissolved Canada's Parliament, with the blessing of the Queen's representative as acting-head of state. It will happen to the US as 2010 nears, and the unification of the three countries takes hold.


.

Tomas,

You had parental consent to have sex? Or to have the baby?

The press is nothing more than mouthpieces for corporations ... Laughing stock? It's because they've never done their job since movable type showed up a few centuries ago.

That's true. The difference between us and the Soviet Union is that those citizens knew their press wasn't free. Yes, there was a corporate decision made, and it may be that there are warring factions within the corporates, but nonetheless it was decided to unleash it on the rather petty and unimportant little affair with Lewinsky.

Speaking of DNA, I'd like to find out who is the mother of Trig Palin. Just curious.

I dunno about your relationship with your hubby .. mine? She blew some other dude or chick, I'm outta there with everything the courts offer me. That includes our under-age daughter.

Well loss of affection would be a problem, and also, if my own did something like that, it would be an evil portend because of how he himself feels about these things. But I have never made the sort of unequivocal statement that you have. I just can't quite get behind that level of jealous passion. I'm not sure I really believe in monogamy anyway. It doesn't seem to work for most people or most societies. I feel that way more as I get older, but even when I was younger, I would always have preferred to forgive, if the circumstances warranted it.

He's a husband first, as Hillary is a wife first.

So what, that's their private affair. I'm talking about, why was the press unleashed or encouraged to delve farther than dignity or common sense dictates? Of course, if Americans weren't so unbelievably juvenile, the story would never have taken hold.

Why can't everyone just be more like me?

He lied to her (even thought they had an open-marriage swinger-style)

They DID???!!! WTF?

It hit the fan when the rumors about his raping that woman (at Oxford, England) came out that was the beginning of the end.

So Hillary unleashed the press? I don't think so. And what end? They're still married.

It's true we don't really know who Clinton's father was...

So who does Obama hang out with/appoint?

Obama is a Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin in the making. All bleeding-mad but the intelligent among us are swayed by their smooth-talk. These crazies have a silver tongue.

I certainly hope not, and don't really see why you think so. The Hillary appointment, maybe? I don't know a thing about Mussolini, but Hitler and Stalin were both brutally beaten by their fathers. Both of them were at least somewhat abusive toward the mothers. Both were drinkers and boors. The mothers were adored by their sons, they doted on them and comforted them, but could not really protect them. Now, the reason my mother hated both her parents, is that her father was too cowardly to try to protect her from her mother.

I don't know that Stalin was a smooth talker, he was more of a cunning thug. Hitler had some backing, he practiced oration, but charming he was not. Neither man has a nice face.
If Obama is hiding an evil nature, then he is at the pinnacle of cunning.

You think that Obama's handler is Brziezesssissinski, right?

.


Another Obama Citizenship Case Scheduled for Conference Before the SCTUS on Dec 12


Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant

v.

Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

.