www.onesalt.com

Some comments on the wierd world of February 1998


[Previous Page] [Next Page] [Up] [Home Page] [Search] [Contents]


"In those days [February 1998] there was no king in Israel [the world]; everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 21:25)

1. I hope to have an article completed on how Jesus Christ viewed the book of Samuel I (as possibly Samuel II) by the end of March. In the mean time, this past month has been so extraordinarily weird, when viewed from the point of view of God's two most fundamental commandments (as summarized by Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40), that I believe it would be appropriate to address these issues at this time.

THE WAR THAT FIZZELED

2. As February began, the United States appeared to be heading toward a "Gulf War II" battle with Iraq with the momentum of a steamroller travelling at 60 mph. Ostensibly, the issue was Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow UN arms inspectors to investigate whether or not chemical or biological weapons were being manufactured at one or more of Saddam's 8 to 80 alleged "palaces." In general, our nation's leading news editors seemed to be in favor of the Clinton Administration's efforts in this regard. Our leading Republican politicians were supporting the effort, as were some of our leading Democrats. But none of them could provide any credible explanation of what the US would accomplish by starting such a war-other than killing a lot of Iraquis. It was SURREAL!

2a. Around this time, the Roman Catholic Bishops in the United States began publicizing the fact that the US-led UN economic embargo of Iraq had led to the killing of over a million Iraqis (mostly children) since 1990 due to the lack of adequate food and medical supplies in that country. If President Bush had said, "Let's impose an embargo on Iraq which will kill over a million Iraqis in seven years", do you think that US voters would have supported that? Probably not. But that's what's been happening. By bringing the problem to the attention of the American people, those Roman Catholic Bishops were doing what Christians are SUPPOSED to do (i.e. following God's two most fundamental Commandments).

2b. So, with that new perspective added to the political stew in Washington, a Congressional committee that was appointed to draft a resolution to support "Gulf War II" found that it was unable to reach an agreement on how such a resolution should be worded. My Jan 98 article which caught America's "Christian Right" religious leaders "standing naked" (in the Biblical sense) was being circulated to news agencies, religious groups, and political activist groups throughout America (and elsewhere). America's anti-war activists, who had been caught off-guard by the rapidity of this brand-new war movement, finally began planning and executing anti-war demonstrations, rallies, and letter writing campaigns. Op-ed articles began appearing which questioned the wisdom of the planned "Gulf War II." Some editors and news commentators began voicing outright opposition to such a war. When Secretary of State Madeline Albright and other members of the Clinton Administration appeared in an Ohio "town meeting", they not only received serious heckling from some anti-war activists, they also discovered that even the "average Americans" who were there had serious misgivings about the planned war. It was becoming increasingly clear that this planned "Gulf War II" did NOT have the support of the American people. In the week that followed, the Clinton Administration also found that their planned war didn't have the support of any other country in the world, except for Great Britain.

2c. President Clinton was "between a rock and a hard place", allegorically speaking. So into the action springs the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who flies to Baghdad (perhaps at Clinton's request) to try and work out a negotiated deal that would in effect "let everybody off the hook." He succeeded, thereby saving the American taxpayers tens of billions (perhaps even hundreds of billions) of dollars and who knows how many Iraqi and American (and Israeli) lives. Anyone who was watching C-Span when Madeline Albright appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee shortly thereafter could see that Senator Jesse Helms was visibly upset over the fact the President Clinton had cancelled the war! I'm hoping that our news agencies will take the time to investigate and inform the American people as to who it was that was really "fueling" that war-making effort in the first place. Was it defense contractors hoping to make huge profits by selling replacements for the armaments that would have been expended in such a war? Was it Republican politicians hoping that President Clinton would "screw things up royally" like he did in Somalia? Or was it simply a "logical outgrowth" of the Satanically inspired assumptions that they all were operating on?

2d. Regarding that last point, I think it's interesting to note that as far as I can tell, throughout the above sequence of events, NOT ONE American news agency even mentioned the possibility that the threat which Saddam Hussein allegedly poses can be logically and easily eliminated by establishing a true world government. Keep in mind that Saddam's threat was considered to be so serious that we almost started a war to "reduce" it!

2e. Chemical and biological weapons (a.k.a. "the poor man's weapon of mass destruction") can be produced using facilities that are comparable in size and nature to the equipment used to produce beer in America's "micro-breweries." Under the present national sovereignty system, it will just be a matter of time before such facilities and/or the weapons they produce will be easily within reach of disgruntled factions nearly everywhere. To make matters worse, the Satanic nature of national sovereignty worship virtually GUARANTEES that there will continue to be disgruntled factions nearly everywhere. Saddam Hussein himself is a "creature of national sovereignty." Our beloved "national sovereignty system" not only shelters those who would like to make and use weapons of mass desctruction, it also ENCOURAGES them to do so.

2f. So why haven't our news agencies been pointing out the world-government alternative to war for dealing with problems like Saddam Hussein's alleged chemical and biological weapons making? It's because the Satanically inspired teachings of fear and hatred toward anything that resembles a "world government" or a "new world order" which have been preached by America's "Christian Right" religious leaders over the past 30 years have in effect "brainwashed" America's news agencies into regarding world-government proposals as being "unthinkable." And THAT could never have happened were it not for the fact that the rest of America's denominations of Christianity have likewise been failing to take God's two most fundamental commandments SERIOUSLY!

2g. Until our religious leaders finally decide to commit themselves to taking God's two most fundamental commandments SERIOUSLY, we are left with basically two choices: 1) We can live the best we can under a growing threat of chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (triggered by a disgruntled whomever), or 2) We can repeatedly threaten to start wars and at times go to war in order to "reduce" such threats, each time risking a retaliation of some kind and possibly triggering the very use of weapons of mass destruction on us that we were supposedly trying to prevent. Remember how the builders of the Tower of Babel ended up producing the very outcome that they were supposedly attempting to prevent?



MAINE'S "PEOPLE'S VETO" REFERENDUM

3. Earlier this year, a coalition of "Christian Right" organizations gathered 56,000 signatures to hold a state-wide referendum designed to overturn an amendment to the State's anti-discrimination legislation that simply included "sexual orientation" in its list of categories of people who shouldn't be discriminated against (for rentals, services, etc.). On Tuesday, 10 February, their referendum passed by a margin of only 6,868 votes (out of 282,088) in a relatively low turnout vote (29.6%), thereby overturning the efforts of Maine's elected representatives (and Governor) to ensure equal protection for gays and lesbians in Maine. This happened in spite of the fact that a statewide opinion poll taken around the time showed that 60% of Maine's voters supported equal protections for gays and lesbians. So how did the will of 15% of Maine's voters prevail over the will of 60% of Maine's voters?

3a. One reason was that some "BIG LIE" propaganda tactics used by "Christian right" went largely unchallenged by Maine's news agencies and even by most of the opponents of the "Christian right" initiative. Most notable of those BIG LIES was their false claim that the proposed amendment to the anti-discrimination law granted "special rights" to gays and lesbians. Anyone who read the proposed amendment could see such a claim was untrue. The proponents of that BIG LIE attempted to justify it by pointing out that whereas people cannot choose what race they are or what gender they are, the can freely choose whether or not to engage in homosexual acts. But that same argument could be used to justify deleting the prohibitions against discrimination based on RELIGION that are presently in that law, because people are also free to choose their own religious beliefs. Naturally, most people would agree that gays and lesbians should not be granted "special rights", but unless one took the time to actually read the wording of the proposed amendment (or unless the press and political opponents took the time to clearly expose the fact that the "Christian Right" was lying about that), it is no surprise that those "Christian Right" groups were able to win such a referendum by using lies like that. To add to the shame of this situation, in their coverage of this news story, various NATIONAL news agencies quoted the Christian Right's "special privilege" lies as if they were actually true statements! Our national news agencies SHOULD be more seriously concerned about this, because it appears now that these "Christian Right" organizations are planning to do this in other states as well, so that they can continue to preach fear, hatred, and discrimination against gays and lesbians without fear of being held legally responsible for the ungodly consequences of their Satanically inspired actions.

3b. It can be safely said (in hindsight), that the opponents of the Christian Right's referendum grossly underestimated the ideological power of the Christian Right's arguments. They thought that by simply spending money to repeatedly air an innocuous TV ad (featuring the Governor of Maine) and by calling their known friends and supporters, they could win this thing easily. Very few of them had the guts to challenge the theological foundations of the "Christian Right's" Satanically inspired teachings regarding gays and lesbians. As a result, local pastors like The Rev. Kenneth Macdonald of the Lisbon Free Church were able to get away with preaching such Satanically inspired doctrines UNSCATHED thereby inspiring votes in favor the Christian Right's initiative by a margin of over 2 to 1.

3c. In my May/Jun 97 article on this web site "Weeding Satanically inspired doctrines out of the teachings of the churches", I pointed out that the Sodom and Gomorrah story was written to serve as a parable to illustrate how different points of view can create differing perceptions among people regarding what is "wicked" (Was Lot being "righteous" when he offered his two virgin daughters to those men?). The originally intended moral of that story was that God punishes perpetrators of wicked conduct (as viewed relative to God's two most fundamental commandments) regardless of whether or not they are homosexual. And as anyone who reads the first seven books of the Old Testament can see, it WASN'T the homosexuals who were killing large numbers of people themselves and inspiring others to do likewise,--it was the Levites--the apparent "role models" for people like The Rev. Kenneth MacDonald and the "Christian Right."

3d. As illustrated in the Book of Genesis, a family's "wealth" was often viewed in terms of the size if it's herd of sheep or cattle. Since Levi and his descendants were cursed by Jacob (a.k.a. Israel), they started out with no "inheritance" (sheep or cattle) of their own. So by default, since they had nothing else to do, they became a family of priests to the "Children of Israel" and lived scattered among Israels' twelve tribes. Over time, they devised a series of laws, some of which were designed to help guide the Israelites to live together in a healthy and orderly environment and others which were designed to provide a "steady income" in the form of animal and grain sacrifices [so that the Levites and their families would have enough to eat (after burning God's share)]. The Levites tended to view the people in the tribe which they were living with as their "flock." How did the Levites ensure that there would continue to be "steady income" for themselves and their ever-growing families? By encouraging their "flock" to physically reproduce as rapidly as possible, thereby increasing the number of their future "financial supporters" at an exponential rate. It was merely an adaptation of the way in which shepherds increased their "wealth" over time. Judging from the Religious Right's electoral successes in the rural areas of Maine and its corresponding electoral failures in the urban areas of Maine, it appears that in many rural communities throughout Maine (and perhaps even throughout America), this dynamic is still being viewed by rural religious leaders as a "necessary" and currently working doctrine for insuring their future incomes.

3d1. When the Levites encountered homosexual activities going on among some of the members of the tribe they were living with, they viewed such activities as being a threat to the expected growth rate of their financially supporting "flock". So they devised laws to FORCE homosexuals to marry with at least one of the opposite sex and to bear children (or else be stoned to death). For the same reason, they also devised laws to "stamp out prostitution" (by killing the women, not the men involved in such affairs), and they even devised laws to discourage masturbation and "nocturnal emissions" as much as they could. It's important to note that for the reasons shown above, those "religious laws" were motivated by greed, not by God. They were Satanically inspired doctrines from the very beginning.

3d2. In a Boston Globe Op Ed articled entitled "Catholic Church invites homosexuals to choose life", John M. Haas argues that it is "God's plan" (and "nature's plan") for sexual activities to be for the purpose of producing children (ONLY). He says he was "baffled" to find that some disagree with him because, "To us the church's position seems merely to correspond to reality, to express the way things are, not the way some people wish they might be." Regardless of whether or not that is the church's position, that "position" which he espouses is simply not true. The REALITY is that God CREATES homosexuals (as well as heterosexuals) every day, and has been creating them since recorded history began. If people with a homosexual orientation were inherently "evil", they why is God continuing to create them? John Haas's articles tells us that a number of years ago, the Vatican issued a Declaration of Certain Questions concerning Sexual Ethics which stated, "According to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential in indispensable finality." Huh? Essential and indispensable for whom? The Church? And where did that criterion called "objective moral order" come from? It's not even mentioned in the Bible.

4. As I am in the process of showing in my articles on this web site, the REAL authors and compilers of the Bible (from Genesis through Revelation) engaged in extraordinary efforts to bypass contemporary censorship practices in order to teach others and all future generations that the ONLY TWO criteria or "credentials" recognized by God are 1) Is it the truth? and 2) Does it conform with His commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves (without placing any restrictions on either criteria).

4a. So let's see what happens when we actually apply these criteria. Did God create homosexuals in such a way that they can genuinely fall in love with another of the same sex? YES! If two men decide that the want to spend the rest of their lives together, regardless of what they do in bed, are they violating the commandment to love their neighbors as themselves? NO! If two women decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, regardless of what they do in bed, are they violating the commandment to love their neighbors as themselves? NO! So there you have it folks--God's answer to this apparent "dilemma".

4b. For a REAL dilemma, let's reconsider the present situation in Iraq. Is it true that Saddam Hussein is an "evil man"? YES! Are the children of Iraq inherently "evil". NO! Dose an economic embargo that kills millions of innocent children in order to "punish" Saddam Hussein conform with the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. NO! When confronted with dilemmas like these that fail to meet BOTH of God's criteria of truth and love, it's a sure sign that it's time to look for a better solution by reformulating the problem. But how can the America people effectively reformulate the problem when our news agencies continue to practice censorship against all serious proposals for a world-government solution to problems like these? And how can the people of the world ever agree to entrust their lives to a world government in order to solve such problems as long as our world's religious leaders continue to demonstrate that they cannot be relied upon to take God's two most fundamental commandments SERIOUSLY? Our prayers for peace have been answered, but is anybody listening?



THE MONICA LEWINSKY SCANDAL

5. American news agencies really jumped "over the edge" on this one. While they were busily regurgitating all of the lurid gossip that they could find which might have anything remotely to do with Ms. Lewinsky's alleged sexual encounters with President Clinton, millions of American "couch potatoes" began to cringe when they saw the kinds of tactics which Kenneth Starr was able to get away with in his efforts to "get the goods" on the President (.e.g. throwing a witness in jail for 18 months for refusing the lie for him under oath, engaging in taping activities which appear to have been illegal, threatening potential witnesses and their relatives with jail sentences if they refused to tell him under oath what he wanted to hear, etc.) If Kenneth Starr can use such tactics against our elected President, then what's to stop some other prosecutor from using those same kind of tactics against any one of us? To make matters worse, our Senate Republican leaders, who in the past had portrayed themselves as "champions of American rights and freedoms", were now praising Kenneth Starr's efforts, referring to him an "honorable man" with a "distinguished career". Even some "right wing" publications have remained conspicuously silent about Kenneth Starr's tactics. Is Kenneth Starr an example of the kind of government we can expect to see if the Republicans ever take over the Presidency as well as both houses of Congress?

5a. But what seemed to keep our nations' news pundits and Republican politicians scratching their heads the most was the fact that throughout all this, the President's approval ratings in the public opinion poles remained 68 to 70% favorable, at least with regards to his official job performance. This would not come as a surprise to anyone who has read my 12 Nov 96 article, "We should be PROUD of our Electoral College System." I personally sent earlier versions of that article to nearly every major news agency in American in 1970 and every four years since then. But America's news agencies repeatedly ignored it, preferring instead to publish articles and editorials proposing that we replace our Electoral College System with a direct popular vote electoral system. In nearly all of these articles, they showed mathematically how in a very close election our Electoral College System could make a candidate president even though he received a somewhat lower popular vote nation-wide. [Gee whiz, so they demonstrated that they knew how to add numbers]. What each of those articles ignored was the repeatedly proven "moderating" effect which our Electoral College System rules have on the nature and tactics which a candidate must exhibit in order to actually win under those rules. In 1992 and again in 1996, the Democratic Presidential campaigns acted as if they were using my Elector College System article as a "road map" for their campaign strategy; the Republican Presidential campaigns did not. President Clinton's resounding electoral victories in 1992 and 1996 proved my point again and again. Now, his "unexpectedly" favorable job approval ratings in spite of the Monica Lewinsky scandal is continuing to prove my point. Our Elector College System gave us a President who REALLY DOES represent a vast majority of the American People. That is why he cancelled Gulf War II!

THE PENTAGON WARS

6. In February 1998, HBO began showing a movie called "The Pentagon Wars" which illustrates the extraordinary incompetence and dishonesty of the high-ranking Army officers who were responsible for managing the development of the "Bradley Fighting Vehicle" during the Reagan Administrations. According to this movie, those officers blatantly lied during various Congressional hearings. Not only did those high-ranking officials get away with such conduct, they ended up getting promoted as well (even AFTER the fact they had lied was exposed)! I'm pointing this out as a way of illustrating that in spite of the continuing efforts by news agencies, governmental agencies and religious organizations to practice censorship against the Word of God, God's TRUTH is in fact "breaking out all over"!

7. So, is there any organization in existence today that is comprised of people who can be relied up to tell the truth relative to God's commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves (without placing any restrictions on their definition of neighbor or on the applicability of the truths which they learn)?

7a. America's government and its military establishment? Forget it. They tend to follow "the Almighty dollar" until strong public opinion or voter reactions force them to make a "course correction." That's not likely to change, even in a world government.

7b. Americas "Free Press" Establishment? Not really. Occasionally, some of them will "stick their necks out" to propose solutions to problems that may not be well received at the time, but they cannot be RELIED upon to do so. Like the "scribes" in the Old Testament times, they have demonstrated a willingness to help out from time to time, but when push comes to shove, they are strongly inclined to serve the interests of the "current establishment." I know for a fact that they have been practicing censorship against all serious proposals for establishing a (political) world government for the past 30 years at least.

7c. Our Churches? Talk about "God's Plan", it's been God's plan all along for our Churches to fulfill this critically essential role throughout the development of human civilization. But for the most part, the leaders of our churches have refused to assume such a role. Why? I'll leave that to the historians. Apparently at this point, it is because in order to effectively perform such a role, they would have to publicly sacrifice their own past and present Satanically inspired doctrines. Only then could the people of the world RELY on them to take God's two most fundamental commandments SERIOUSLY!

So February 1998 really WAS a weird month, but perhaps it was also a "pivotal" month in the course of human civilization...

www.onesalt.com
(one grain of salt)



[Previous] Who REALLY Represents God?
[Next] Theocracy vs Monarchy
[Up] Home Page
[Home] Home Page
[Search] Search www.onesalt.com
[Contents] www.onesalt.com Contents

Last modified on Friday, May 03, 2002