November 02, 2008
The Jesus Dilemma: Election of a President
If Jesus appeared in human form, who would know him as Jesus, as opposed to another homeless schizophrenic on the streets? If this would be the case for Jesus, how would Americans know they were presented with the right presidential candidate at the right time for their history? What could such a candidate say or do, that would prove to the majority of American voters that he/she alone, was the best candidate in the field for the challenges and trials facing the nation?
There is an answer to this question, and we are witnessing it in the polls. American voters don't know what policies will save our economy, keep us at peace, and afford our children a future equal to or better than that which we experienced. So, why are a majority of voters polling for Obama instead of McCain?
The answer is in the total presentation of the candidate. Are they consistent and anchored to a solid platform message? Is their understanding of our challenges realistic and pragmatic, and are their policy objectives equal to that understanding? Is the candidate cool, calm, and collected even in the face of attack and ridicule? This last question is particularly important as Americans know that our president will face very skilled adversaries, and Americans expect their president to respond with the calculations of a chess player, not the fits and passions of a street fighter.
This is how the voters polled distinguish between the candidates of John McCain and Barack Obama. Not that they believe Obama will be perfect, absent mistakes and errors in judgment. But, their confidence in the absence of major mistakes and errors in judgment conducting his campaign, speaks promisingly of his performance in the Oval Office. Compare Obama's campaign to McCain's, and the difference is obvious.
The voter's judgment of course, is relative. Had Obama been running against a current version of Ronald Reagan, the outcome might be very different. Which raises the issue of political party vetting and choice. Democrats managed to select a candidate whose self-management and campaign management was innovative, consistent, objective oriented and unswayed by temporal events. The Republicans selected a candidate whose campaign was reactionary, constantly shifting strategy and tactics in response to polling and funding realities, and who ultimately anchored their campaign in ideology rather than realities.
Obama entered his campaign with the reality firmly accepted that the Middle Class was hurting, and that was long before the mortgage and credit crisis became headline news. McCain entered his campaign with the idea that the economy was strong, Americans were prosperous, and had every right to expect to increase that prosperity through reductions in taxes. McCain insisted that this race must be fought on foreign policy ground. These were fundamental differences in their campaigns and ultimately in how the American voter's would perceive these candidates.
This was not a coincidence, or luck of the economic draw. This was intellectual objectivity by one candidate pitted against ideology that transcended real data and economic trends in motion by the other candidate. Had Obama run against Mitt Romney, whose ability to appreciate real economic data and trends was vastly superior to that of McCain and Palin, it would have been an entirely different kind of race and the electoral college map would not have been as lopsided, despite the economic downturn.
Obama is no Jesus. He cannot work miracles. The American people are able to distinguish the more objective and intellectually capable candidate, however, having failed that test in 2000. The American people have learned a valuable lesson. Folks you would like to have a beer with, should be your friends, not your president. Our president should be someone whose knowledge, intellect, and learning capacity invokes respect and awe, not a slap on the back and a guffaw.
Which of course, holds out hope, that if Jesus were to return, the people would in time be capable of distinguishing him from the sea of homeless unfortunates suffering delusions of grandeur. Choosing Obama in no way insures the future will become what the people hope for. It does increase the odds however, that the future they hope for will have an advocate who will ask them to do their part as he works to do his.
Our president is a powerful figure, however, only one person. For a nation to change its future requires the active participation of a majority of those within it, acting in concert toward a commonly held picture of the future. That vision of a United States of Americans, was a fundamental and crucial difference between Obama and McCain. A difference the polls reflected as the debates and conventions took place. If Obama can continue to reflect our common vision of the future keeping our focus on the prize, and if our collective steps move in that direction, that future has a far greater chance of becoming a reality for our nation's children.
But, let's be absolutely clear about one thing. The next president will be young David against the Goliaths in the U.S. Congress in the struggle for our nation's future. Our next president is going to have to do battle with the Congress over political, lobbyist, and special interest influence reforms, if our nation is to have any chance of dealing with the greatest challenge going forward, our exploding national debt. Obama has positioned himself as the candidate to represent the majority of Americans regardless of party. That leaves open the door for him to take on the Goliaths in his own Party, which will become necessary if we are to meet the challenge of the growing national debt.
We can vote and encourage our next president to step through that door. And we can hold our next president accountable in 2012 for their decision to step through, nor not step through, that door to wage battle with their own party in Congress over the growth of the national debt which threatens our future even more than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists do.
Posted by David R. Remer at November 2, 2008 02:25 PMDavid,
When Jesus was here the first time people saw him for what they wanted, not for what he was.
When he turned out not to be what they wanted they turned on him and traded him in for a criminal.
Within two decades Jerusalem was being devastated, literally no stone left on another in the Jew’s most revered place.
I’m hoping, either that neither one of these guys is Jesus, or that we have better messiah-detecting skills.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 2, 2008 07:39 PMLee, the point was that we don’t need nor want a Messiah, but one who can pull our nation together to collectively overcome the challenges we as a nation of people face.
Of the candidates that ran, I think the people have selected the best among them for that task.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2008 07:44 PMMy take on this is — i do not want this nation to swing either left or right — which is the reason I am glad Obama will most likely win.
My main fear of mccain getting in was the supreme court appointments that will be coming up. We do not need the court to be extreme to either side, because then it will not repersent the people.
And that’s why the founding fathers created it the way they did — to protect the people from bad unconstitutional laws.[IMHO]
The people are best severed when a case comes before them — and the ideological split is so even — we do not know which way they will rule.
I am hoping that the democrats do not get lock step follow the leader like the right was during bushes administration— If they do — its time to vote them out also.
But not a whole lot of fear of that with blue dogs/ far left liberals all under the same umbrella.
Pardon — I meant to add — great post Mr. Remer
—Respectfully —Savage
Being an atheist, I’m put off on the deification of Jesus or Obama.
Jesus survived as a myth. He led a small rabble of rebels and failed miserably.
Martyrs make handy deities because they can no longer screw up their own image.
Your corollary does not explain Obama’s success against Hillary.
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 2, 2008 08:48 PMgoogl
Jesus led rebels? You seem not to have read the part where Jesus tells Peter NOT to fight.
David
It will be interesting to see how Obama acts. During the campaign he has been remarkably centrist, but what happens when he has power and has to deal with Pelosi and Reid is another matter. The next few years will be interesting times. Six years of total power ruined the republicans. I wonder if Democrats can resist.
On a side note, I don’t think many people would recognize Jesus as the messiah now. He’s far too radical.
Posted by: Calvin at November 2, 2008 10:52 PMCalvin,
You really should read a history book besides the bible.
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 2, 2008 11:33 PMgoogl
critique the message, not the messenger…
Also, I’m a history minor. So I do know a bit of history. Who, exactly, thinks Jesus led a violent revolution? The Romans didn’t crush the Jews for another 40 years or so after the crucifixion. And those were Jews, not Christians. Incidentally, I don’t believe the Bible is an infallible historical record. (creation stories, for instance)
Calvin,
Jesus was the biological king of the Jews and was expected to lead the people into revolution against their oppressors at the time.
You don’t think what he did at the moneychangers was rebellious? He wanted to rebel with more peaceful means, perhaps, but to rebel against their oppressors he wanted.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 3, 2008 12:28 AMYes, he was expected to lead a revolution. But only expected too. He did not. I don’t think he wanted people to rebel, either. Remember “give unto Caesar…?”
A truly Christ-like lifestyle is, perhaps, revolutionary, but not in the distinctively political sense. (particularly with the violence political revolution usually entails.)
Posted by: Calvin at November 3, 2008 01:34 AMI’m sorry Calvin, but he did attempt to lead a revolution. Not all revolutions are military, think Ghandi. Jesus was trying to unite his people so that they would throw off the yokes of oppression, a little study into what he was preaching, where he learned it and a little about the Essenes might help give you some insight.
Oh, and not taking the bible literally helps too, if you are wanting to discuss actual history. If you want to discuss theology, well I can help you there too being a former preacher and still ordained, but I don’t think that this is the proper place for such a discussion.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 3, 2008 01:45 AMThank you David for the thoughtful assessment of this presidential race. For a short time in my life, I sided with Republicans because I thought they were more principled and adhered to higher standards and morals. My personal political ideology lies somewhere in the middle or left center.
Obama may be left but his campaign has been high, dignified and proper. It has shaken up a sleepy, complacent nation. I like McCain has a person, but his campaign has seemed more neurotic and hard to follow. Hateful at times. McCain’s campaign rallies (more so Palin’s) leaves supportors with an unhealthy competitive spirit that winning is the only thing that matters. Remember Tonya Harding, the olympic skater?
Obama’s rallies seem to be consistent with “how you win is just as important”. Obama campaign inspires people to be part of the greater whole; and promotes unification while respecting differences. Obama acknowledges differences but emphasizes commonality.
Here’s the radical, extreme streak in my personal and politcal ideology. I support a revolution, a paradigm shift in American culture that we are unified and every legal citizen is 100% United States American. What kind of national affect would that have? What kind of a world impact would that have? How high would our value be on the world market then?
Obama is not Jesus but the vision he projects, in my opinion, favors unification over division; love over hate. To me, this is at least a step along the right road.
Calvin,
Where exactly did I use the word violent? Although, as Rhinehold pointed out, the moneychangers event wasn’t exactly peaceful, and the Bible was heavily edited for political intent.
Some people think Malcom X was all about peace and love.
As to attacking the messenger, perhaps asking you to read and understand history as a response to a misstatement of history is hardly an attack of the messenger. It’s an attack of your dumb premise, but thanks for the smear.
Skip, thank you for the positive comment. I see many signs in Obama’s speeches that the far Left is going to be very disappointed by Obama, and the Right as well. I see this as a very positive turning point, and the more Democrats in the Congress fight Obama on ideological grounds against his pragmatism, the more Democrats will become Independent voters, as so many Republicans have over the last 5 years. That will be a very positive event amidst years of very negative conditions and challenges.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2008 11:25 AMThank you A Savage for the positive feedback.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2008 11:26 AMRegarding Jesus, Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino discovered (based on very convincing scientific research and DNA testing) what may be the tomb of Jesus and his family.
The tomb was discovered by accident when uncovered by dynamite and a bulldozer.
The entrance of the tomb had a chevron (an upside-down V) with a circle below it.
In 1941, an ossuary was discovered with that same symbol on it, that was supposedly the ossuary of Simon of Cyrene who helped carry Jesus’ cross.
Ten ossuaries (limestone coffins) were found in the 1st century tomb in Talpiot, Jerusalem in year 1980.
Seven of the ten ossuaries had external inscriptions:
- (1) “Taw Yeshua - Yehosef” (from right to left in Aramaic) translated as: “X Jesus son of Joseph” where Taw appears as an X
- (2) “Maria” (Jesus’ mother; a rare name)
- (3) “Mariamne” (which is the name by which Mary Magdelene was known)
- (4) “Yehuda - Yeshua” translated as: “Judah son of Jesus” (this ossuary contained the bones of a young child)
- (5) “Yose” , a very rare nickname, translated as a version of “Joseph” (one of Jesus’ 4 brothers)
- (6) “Matya” translated as: “Matthew” (a name very common in Maria’s family)
- (7) “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” (stoned to death)
Of course, as can well be expected, many (if not most) people reject all of the evidence, which resides in the IAA (Israel Antiquities Authority’s) warehouse, not to mention the extremely unlikelihood that those names are a mere coincidence.
In the 1st century, Jesus is a fairly common name (4%).
Maria is a common name too (25% of the population).
Joseph is not a rare name.
However, not only does one ossuary bear the name of Jesus, but the “son of Joseph”.
Not only does one ossuary bear the name of Juda, but the son of Jesus.
Not only do these ossuaries bear the names of members of Jesus’ family, but they were all found in the same tomb.
What are the odds of a coincidence of so many names and matching “son of” inscriptions in unison?
And then consider the location between Bethleham and Jerusalem.
Had Mariamne’s ossuary also had “Magdelene” on it somewhere, it would have almost certainly eliminated many doubts of a rare coincidence.
However, the spelling of Mariamne is very unusual, and Mariamne’s ossuary also contained a title of “Mara”, which means “Master” in Aramaic.
Mary Magdelene was considered by many to be a high respected missionary (the equal of a preacher, teacher, and apostle).
This is corroborated in a 700 year old manuscript from Greece titled “Acts of Philip” which also contains the same spelling of “Mariamne” (Mar-ree-em-nah).
Also, some accounts say that Mariamne went to France, and never returned to Jeruselum.
However the “Acts of Philip” states that Mariamne returned to Jeruselum, where she died.
Also, mitochondrial DNA tests show that Mariamne is not related to Yeshua (Jesus) as mother or sister on the maternal side.
Based on mitochondrial DNA evidence, it is quite likely that Yehuda (Judah of Jesus) is the son of Mariamne.
No DNA could be obtained from the bones in the Yeshua (Jesus) ossuary.
What are the odds of all those things (a pre-70 C.E. family tomb; inscriptions on 7 ossuaries all from the correct time period (corroborated by analysis of petina samples from the ossuaries); DNA evidence, the unusual spelling, the “Mara”, etc.) being a mere coincidence?
What are the odds that there was another person around pre-70 C.E., named Yeshua (Jesus), who has a tomb containing ossuaries indicating the father’s name, Yehosef (Joseph), a mother named “Maria”, brothers named “Yose” and “James”, and an ossuary with “Mariamne” inscribed upon it?
The odds of that combination of names, and factors, and coinciding dates, and mitochondrial DNA tests, including the “son of” inscriptions, is huge (about 1 in 97.3 Million).
If it is a coincidence, it is a truly amazing coincidence.
Still, as can well be expected, many will feel that their faith is threatened by such a discovery.
- - - - - - -
At any rate, “If Jesus appeared in human form, who would know him as Jesus” ?
Probably not.
And “If Satin appeared in human form, who would know him as Satin” ?
Humans are not perfect.
Some are less perfect than others.
We can never know someone else completely.
We can only get to know them a little better as time goes by, based on their deeds.
When it comes to politicians, there is a huge difference between their deeds and what they say (or promise).
That is why voting records, deeds, and associations are important; because we can not merely go by what politicians say.
That is why we should try to be guided by PRINCIPLES instead of PEOPLE or PARTIES.
People are imperfect.
PRINCIPLES are timeless.
But too often, none of the facts are important.
Too often, partisan loyalties are more important.
We see it all the time.
Too many voters ignore certain things about THEIR candidates and incumbent politicians.
Too often, people choosed to believe only what they want to believe, just as many will reject the possibility and ramifications of the tomb of Jesus and his family described above.
Blind loyalties and self delusion are not only rooted ignorance alone, but also in laziness and selfishness.
Blind loyalties are an invitation for abuse, and there are always some who are all too ready and willing to use and abuse others for their own self gain.
As a result, corruption grows, and grows, and the nation’s problems continue to grow in number and severity.
We have witnessed it over and over.
We have witnessed greed and corruption of the past decades, and we are only now starting to see the painful consequences; only the tip of the iceberg; only the beginnings of the consequences of the past few decades of the many manifestations of unchecked greed.
Only then, when it is too late to avoid the painful consequences, perhaps, will enough voters love their country, virtue, and freedom more than THEIR party.
- Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability
Posted by: d.a.n at November 3, 2008 01:40 PM
CORRECTION:
Rhinehold -
At no time did Jesus advocate breaking the law or otherwise engaging in revolutionary activities. If He had wanted to challenge the political structure in any way, He would NOT have said to pay taxes (“Render unto Caesar…”).
Furthermore, Jesus proclaimed a centurion had the greatest faith He had yet found. Did he try to discourage military service or the Roman law that the centurion would have had to uphold? No.
Can you show anything that proves Jesus cared about changing the political structure of the time? If not, then you cannot say that Jesus supported changing the POLITICAL scene in any way. His revolution, if you must call it that, had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with our immortal souls.
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 3, 2008 02:13 PMThere have also been debates going on whether Jesus was a democrat or republican. There is even a song by this band, Everclear, called “Jesus was a Democrat” that pretty much bashes republicans. Frankly, i think the song is misguided and misleading. This is only to insult the republican party and i personally dont agree with it.
Posted by: Jack at November 3, 2008 05:14 PMThere have also been debates going on whether Jesus was a democrat or republican. There is even a song by this band, Everclear, called “Jesus was a Democrat” that pretty much bashes republicans. Frankly, i think the song is misguided and misleading. This is only to insult the republican party and i personally dont agree with it. this is just another example of the jesus debates that I have been noticing!
Posted by: Jack at November 3, 2008 05:15 PMRemer writes; “That leaves open the door for him to take on the Goliaths in his own Party, which will become necessary if we are to meet the challenge of the growing national debt.”
I find that sentence very interesting and am wondering from where Remer would find evidence that Obama is willing to take on the Goliaths in his own party. Could Remer point us to one or two Obama positions that don’t align with those of Pelosi or Reid?
As for Obama challenging our growing national debt it would seem to be just the opposite from what I have read and heard from his own lips. Raising income, dividend and payroll taxes on the few to supposedly provide relief for the many is a break-even maneuver…at best.
Installing carbon taxes or some other form of reducing MMGW will increase our debt. The bail-out will continue on an even grander scale. Even his supposed savings from winding down in Iraq while ramping up in Afganistan is magical at best.
He proposals to reduce our military costs by 25% are not realistic either.
Remer…from where will all those savings, and political will come, to reduce our national debt?
Posted by: Jim M at November 3, 2008 05:31 PM… where will all those savings, and political will come, to reduce our national debt?HAHaha!
There will be no reductions in the $10.6 Trillion National Debt, until the debt pyramid collapses, and essentially results in a massive reset.
Why?
Because no one can answer this one simple question …
QUESTION # 1: Where will the money come from to merely pay the INTEREST on $53 Trillion -to- $66 Trillion of nation-wide debt , much less the money to reduce the current PRINCIPAL debt of $53 Trillion to- $66 Trillion , when that money does not already exist? Especially when now, 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% (or less) of all wealth, and 1% owns 40% of all wealth (up by 20% from 20% in year 1976); a wealth disparity gap that has never been worse since the Great Depression.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Please. If anyone disagrees, please explain to us where the money will come from.
I’ll tell ya where it’s gonna come from.
It will come from where much of it has been comin’ from for decades. From massive borrowing and creating money out of thin air.
The massive $10.6 Trillion National Debt, and $67 Trillion nation-wide debt creates massive pressure to create more money out of thin air.
Already, over $429 Billion per year is created out of thin air to merely pay the INTEREST on the $10.6 Trillion National Debt.
And that is why a 1950 Dollar is worth only 10 cents. We have had positive inflation ever consecutive year for the past 52 years (since year 1956).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at November 3, 2008 07:30 PMIf Jesus or the Devil walked again would they be recognized? Probably not…Jesus was only recognized after he walked the first time (he was not the Messiah until the resurrection, and recognized then only by a handful), and while the Devil has long been blamed for everything from birth to death, he’s never been seen.
There really is nothing new on the face of the earth…
Nope Barack does not pretend to be the new Messiah…
Posted by: Marysdude at November 3, 2008 07:32 PMGlenn,
Proving Jesus existed at all is rather difficult. Presuming to know his motives is a stretch.
I read this earlier today:
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/RaskinCrucified.pdf
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 3, 2008 10:11 PMJack and others, this article was not about Jesus. Jesus was used allegorically to open the article to discuss THIS ELECTION, and the challenges to come afterward, for the very real currently living human being who will occupy the White House.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2008 11:57 PMProving Jesus existed at all is rather difficult.Not really. Few people, scholars, and archeologists (even atheists) doubt the fact that a man named Jesus existed. Especially based on the findings from this tomb in Jeruselum, discovered in year 1980. There are numerous writings (other than gospel writings) that help to corroborate that fact.
Jack and others, this article was not about Jesus. Jesus was used allegorically to open the article to discuss THIS ELECTION, and the challenges to come afterward, for the very real currently living human being who will occupy the White House.Whoever the next president is (probably Obama), the next 4 years will probably be very disappointing, because:
- (01) the bail-outs did not eliminate the massive debt; it simply bought a little time, but made the debt much bigger; the debt problem still exists;
- (02) more inflation will make things worse, and more inflation is very likely since the federal government and Federal Reserve are borrowing and creating money out of thin air to merely pay the interest on the debt, while the principal debt and the interest increases every day. It’s out of control, and mathematically doomed as are all pyramid schemes, as evidenced by the fact that no one can answer one simple question:
- Where will the money come from to merely pay the INTEREST on $54-to-$67 Trillion of (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#NationWideDebt) nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the current PRINCIPAL debt of $54-to-$67 Trillion , when that money does not already exist? Especially now, when 80% (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#WealthDistribution) of the U.S. population owns only 17% (or less) of all wealth, and 1% owns 40% of all wealth (up by 20% from 20% in year 1976); a wealth disparity gap that has never been worse since the Great Depression?
- (03) Our monetary system is a dishonest, usurious, predatory, inflationy pyramid-scheme that has a mathematical flaw:
- LOAN = PRINCIPAL + INTEREST
- 90% of the PRINCIPAL is new money created out of thin air, and 10% in reserves (supposedly) already exists.
- But the bank only creates PRINCIPAL.
- So, where does the INTEREST come from?
- (04) All pyramid schemes are doomed to collapse. New money is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve for every new principal loan at a ratio of 9-to-1. But where does the interest come from? When money is created as debt at a 9-to-1 ratio, the money for the interest can never already exist. Thus, people must borrow more money, and more, and more, and more … until we have what we have today. The U.S. nation-wide debt is now $54-to-$67 Trillion (depending on whether you include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security). M3 Money Supply grew from 135 Billion in year 1950 to $10.15 Trillion (75.2 times larger) by year 2005. We did not become 75.2 times wealthier since year 1950. Especially not with the U.S. population doubling since year 1950. No, what is happening is dishonest, usurious, inflationary money-printing and borrowing money from other nations all over the planet. It’s amazing that other nations continue to loan us money, but it is a double edged sword. If they stop loaning us money, it may collapse our economy and they will never be repaid. If the keep loaning us money, we may conitnue growing the debt ever larger until it collapses our economy, and they will still never be repaid. So either way, they are increasingly likely to get screwed.
- (06) Congress is not doing anything to stop the 10 worst abuses hammering most Americans.
- (07) Too many voters still believe that repeatedly rewarding THEIR incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election is the solution. Congress will most likely still enjoy 80%-to-90% re-election rates.
- (08) Too many people think bailing out banks and corporations will save us, but it won’t. More of the same things (debt, borrowing, spending, pork-barrel, bail-outs, welfare for the wealthy, money-printing, etc.) that created the problem will only make the problem bigger. The massive infusion of more new money can only delay things a while, but the principles of debt, math, and economics have not changed. The debt is still growing ever larger to nightmare proportions, and trying to solve massive debt, borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, and spending with more of the same will only make the debt bigger and more dangerous, and more painful later. Some say tax payers will make a profit from all of the toxic debt. Right. And I have some beach-front property for sale in Arizona.
- (09) Inflation is actually much worse than the 4.94% (SEP-2008) reported (14.4% by pre-1983 measurement method, and 9.0% by pre-1998 measurement method). Inflation has been positive every consecutive year since year 1956 (i.e. for 52 years: One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Inflation).
- (10) The federal government has been running deficits every year for the last 51 years (since 1957).
- (11) Despite massive debt, massive new plans for more spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s lunacy, with $10.6 Trillion National Debt. Many of these huge systems are simply clever mechanisms to extract more wealth from the middle-class (whose incomes have been falling behind for years; actually decreasing when considering more workers per household, more regressive taxation, the huge costs of illegal immigration, inflationary practices, usury, etc., etc., etc.)
- (12) Government won’t become more responsible until enough voters do first. In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount, and it appears that most voters have chosen to get their education in one of the most painful ways possible.
- (13) And if the federal government and Federal Reserve continue rampant borrowing, money-printing, pork-barrel, and spending, it will crash the U.S. Dollar, and turn a bad situation into a MUCH worse situation.
d.a.n,
Yes, and I’m sure Joe the plumber exists, too, but exactly who he is, and what it is he did, is a bit more difficult to ascertain. Certainly you’re not saying there is proof positive of an individual cited in the Bible that did all the things that the Bible said he did.
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 4, 2008 02:46 PMDavid,
Yes we got it, or at least I did. But my point remains Jesus was a myth created after his death, which is a bad corollary to a living senator about to embark on the presidency.
It plays upon the accusation of the Republicans that Obama has been deified. I’m not really sure what you were exactly driving at, but I and many others have never seen Obama as a man with all the answers, he’s just perhaps not the same brand of idiot that has been in office. He’s the lessor of two evils, not a choice between heaven and hell.
Unfortunately you set off a Jesus debate, I suppose an unforseen consequence. Perhaps T. Jefferson et. al. had a good idea separating the two.;)
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 4, 2008 02:57 PMgooglumpugus wrote: d.a.n, Yes, and I’m sure Joe the plumber exists, too, but exactly who he is, and what it is he did, is a bit more difficult to ascertain. Certainly you’re not saying there is proof positive of an individual cited in the Bible that did all the things that the Bible said he did.I am only saying there is significant evidence that a man named Jesus actually existed.
I’m agnostic, and am in no way at all …
googlumpugus wrote: … saying there is proof positive of an individual cited in the Bible that did all the things that the Bible said he did.
I was merely addressing the likely inaccuracy in the literal meaning of your comment …
googlumpugus wrote: Proving Jesus existed at all is rather difficult.
… and that it is fairly well accepted that a man named Jesus did indeed exist. There is actually physical evidence found in the tomb found in Jerusalem in year 1980 that makes that highly likely. In fact, the odds of a mere coincidence of 7 ossuaries with the inscriptions, names, “son of” inscriptions, dated to that period, and the mitochondrial DNA evidence, is like 1 in 97.3 million.
Also, there are some portions of the Bible that are also corroborated by other writings (e.g. “Acts of Philip”), and some of those other writings were not subject to the revisions that occurred to the various versions of the Bible.
I’m not trying to attach any supernatural significance to any of this, and am speaking only of credible evidence that appears to show that is it very highly likely that there was indeed a man named Jesus during a period about 2000 years ago, and am not trying to say he was (or was not) anything else but that. I’ll leave other conclusions to others, who have varying beliefs, which is of no consequence to me whatsoever, since others’ religious beliefs are none of my concern, and should be respected regardless of what I think.
That’s all.
Posted by: d.a.n at November 4, 2008 04:01 PMWell, there’s literal and there’s literal. Jesus usually refer’s to the biblical figure. I know a Jesus who works in the produce department at my local grocer, but I wasn’t refering to him, nor is the Bible.
There was likely more than one Jesus. There likely was a Rabbi who was an Essene. That isn’t proof of Jesus as we know him today. In the piece I linked, it discusses the various Simons, Peters and Johns. We know something happened that likely got a few of the so called disciples killed and perhaps someone crucified. We know that the Essene sect, and the Jews rose up against Roman rule. We know a new religious following formed around a martyr named Jesus. That sect grew into a powerful political body.
Yes, a Rabbi (maybe) named Jesus probably had a following. Herrod crucified him. We know a great mythology grew up over the centuries surrounding this supposed figure. Did he ever say or preach he was the son of God? Did he use a common Essene expression that spoke of the son of man, instead?
Haven’t got a clue. He may have been some poor shmuck that got used for the political aims of others. Kind of like Joe the plumber.
d.a.n.
I really don’t want to get into a discussion of the CPI, but in my opinion, you are overstating and misrepresenting the size and reason for the changes in the way the CPI is reported. It’s a popular conspiracy theory, but not very factual. For a taste of the technical issues:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-inflation-from-old-vs-new-cpi.html
Posted by: googlumpugus at November 4, 2008 08:34 PMgooglumpugus wrote: d.a.n. I really don’t want to get into a discussion of the CPI, but in my opinion, …Perhaps you should, since your opinion is flawed.
googlumpugus wrote: … but in my opinion, you are overstating and misrepresenting the size and reason for the changes in the way the CPI is reported.You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is completely wrong; which it is, and which isn’t that difficult to prove.
Are you even aware of the changes made to the inflation calculations?
Perhaps if you were, you would understand why your statement is flawed.
As for the size of CPI, I’ve never reported any CPI numbers in this thread except those from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Inflation Rate numbers are calculated from CPI numbers (see formula below).
As for the reasons for the changes to CPI calculations, are you aware that it was modified so that a lower weighting was applied to CPI components that were rising in price, but a higher weighting to those items dropping in price. That smoke and mirrors to resulted in a reduction of the reported CPI on an annual, and year-over-year basis (by about 2.7% per year) from what it would have been based on the traditional weighting methodology. As a result, the compounding effect since the early-1990s has reduced annual cost of living adjustments in Social Security by more than a third. And as time goes on, the error is compounded and grows larger. Do you really believe the inflation reports?
The talking heads and idiots on Wall Street like to play games with the CPI, too. Their concept of looking at the “core” rate of inflation (for food and energy) was developed as a way of removing short-term (i.e. a month or two) volatility from inflation when energy and/or food prices are volatile. Since food and energy account for about 23% of consumer spending (as weighted in the CPI calculations), that game can’t last very long. Still, it is common to hear financial pundits report “core” inflation in a way to make listeners believe that inflation is under control and less serious than it really is. Likewise with the idiots claiming the U.S. Dollar is getting stronger, when it is actually still falling in value, even based on the reported levels of inflation. That is, the U.S. Dollar can not be getting stronger when there is positive inflation (which it has been for over 52 years). When the idiots say the Dollar is getting stonger, what they should be saying is that the value of the U.S. Dollar is not eroding as fast as it previously was. That is, if inflation falls from 5% to 3%, the U.S. Dollar is simply not eroding as fast as before.
And another source of confusion is the U.S. Dollar relative to other currencies. Just because another currencie has more inflation than the U.S. Dollar does not mean the U.S. Dollar is getting stronger.
Also, GDP reporting is also skewed the the dishonest ways inflation is reported. Although the CPI is not used in the GDP calculation, there are conditions that can not be seen until GDP is measured in almost any previous U.S. Dollar adjusted for inflation. For example, when graphing GDP in 2005 and 1950 inflation-adjusted U.S. Dollars, GDP has been falling since year 2006. That condition is hard to see with high inflation. And the more inflation is understated, the higher the inflation-adjusted rate of GDP growth that gets reported. However, that dishonesty can not be concealed forever, as demonstrated in the graph below, in which GDP is actually falling, regardless of which previously inflation adjusted U.S. Dollar is used (i.e. whether it be 1950 or 2005 dollars):
That dip (shown above) has never happened before since year 1900 (if not ever).
That is strange indeed, since we’ve been told GDP has been growing.
But was it really?
No. Not really.
And that becomes all too clear when viewing GDP in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The facts clearly prove that each change (in 1983 and 1998) of the way inflation is calculated resulted in about a 4.7% reduction in the reported inflation (see pre-1983 and pre-1998 measurements below).
CPI numbers are not the same as Inflation Rates numbers.
The link you provided (to the table below) is also displaying percent of average change in CPI.
- Professor Mark J. Perry’s Blog for Economics and Finance (mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-inflation-from-old-vs-new-cpi.html)
- Does Inflation from the Old vs. New CPI Matter? NO.
- TABLE: Estimated effect on annual inflation rate of specific methodological changes for selected periods:
- Index or type of effect __ Average Annual Rate
- _______________________ __1978 ___ 1983-86 ___1987-97 ___ 1998
- CPI-U: ________________ __+9.46% ___+3.15% ___+3.50% ____+1.61%
- ERE-78-82: ____________ __-0.86% ___ ——- ___ ——- ____ ——-
- ECCPIF: _______________ __-0.28% ___-0.26% ___-0.41% ____-0.23%
- EOAOC: ________________ __+0.14% ___+0.13% ___+0.06% ____+0.00%
- CPI-U-RS: _____________ __+8.46% ___+3.02% ___+3.15%_____+1.38%
- CPI-U: Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (old method)
- ERE-78-82: Effect of incorporating an estimate of rental equivalence from 1878 to 1982
- ECCPIF: Effect of incorporating changes made to CPI formulas
- CPI-U-RS: Consumer Price Index Research Series (new method)
Where:
Also, that table you linked to incorrectly labels several portions of the table.
It implies it is listing average annual inflation rates, when it is listing the changes of CPI and the percent change in the change of average CPI numbers.
Still, the CPI-U-RS obviously reduced the change in the change of average CPI.
Still, CPI-U of +1.61% and +1.38% (in 1998) is a significant decrease of the change of the change of CPI of about 16.7% and year-over-year, it compounds the error.
Still, CPI-U of +3.50% and +3.15% (for 1987 to 1997) is a significant decrease of the change of the change of CPI of about 10.0% and year-over-year, it compounds the error.
What is sneaky about this presentation of the change of average percent change of CPI is how it translates to actual Inflation Rates, which is what is much easier to understand.
That is, inflation of 10% means $1.00 erodes to only $0.90 in one year.
Also, the small change (e.g. 1%) in the change of average percent change of CPI can translate into many more percentage points of the Inflation Rate, which is demonstrated in the chart below of pre-1983 and pre-1998 Inflation Rates.
Also, what that table above does not account for a real increase of inflation based on the previous measurement methods.
That is, real inflation increased while the reported inflation seemed about the same.
Therefore, displaying the change in the change of average percent of change of CPI wouldn’t show much change if real inflation increased a fixed percentage (which appears to be about 4.7% each time the calculation method changed in 1983 and 1998).
Also, there are some fishy things about the changes made to the inflation calculations. After Clinton was elected, the federal government tried to approximate the effect by changing the weighting of goods in the CPI fixed basket. Over a period of several years, straight arithmetic weighting of the CPI components was shifted so that a lower weighting was applied to CPI components that were rising in price, but a higher weighting to those items dropping in price. That smoke and mirrors to shift the weighting had a dramatic net effect of reducing the reported CPI on an annual, or year-over-year basis (by about 2.7% per year) from what it would have been based on the traditional weighting methodology. The compounding effect since the early-1990s has reduced annual cost of living adjustments in Social Security by more than a third.
The table in the article you linked to is displaying the change in percent of the average change in CPI, which is the same sort of sneaky, clever, smoke and mirrors to imply that there was little impact from the changes in inflation calculation methods, but I’m not falling for it, because as you can see in the chart below, the changes in the inflation calculation methods has indeed resulted in Inflation Rates that are vastly different (i.e. 14.4%(pre-1983 method) versus 9.0%(pre-1998 method) versus 4.94% (current inflation measurement method).
Inflation Rate numbers are derived from CPI numbers between two different dates.
That statement above that says the difference between the “old” and “new” doesn’t matter is flat out wrong.
It most certainly does matter, and I strongly disagree with the assertion that it doesn’t matter, because as you can see below, the difference in Inflation Rate numbers (not merely the CPI numbers) varies greatly.
You can not merely look at CPI numbers alone.
You must also look at the inflation rates which are derived from the CPI numbers.
It most certainly does matter, because each new inflation measurement method changed the
CPI has most certainly increased drastically, so I have not overstated anything.
How does anyone overstate persistent, incessant inflation every consecutive year for the last 52 years?
In addition to that, the way inflation is measured was changed in order to make inflation look much smaller.
Also, inflation is rising faster now and has been rising since year 2006:
- _____________ INFLATION RATES (as of SEP-2008)___________
- 16.0% |———————————————————-
- 15.5% |——————————————————-3-
- 15.0% |——————————————————-33
- 14.5% |——————————————————-33 (14.4%)
- 14.0% |——————————————————-3-
- 13.5% |——————————————————3—
- 13.0% |——————————————————3—
- 12.5% |——————————————————3—
- 12.0% |——————————————————3—
- 11.5% |——————————-3——————-3—-
- 11.0% |——————————3-333—————3—-
- 10.5% |—————————-3——-3————-3—-
- 10.0% |3————-3———33———3——-33-3——
- 09.5% |-3———-3 3——3————-3—33—3—-8-
- 09.0% |—3——-3—-3333—————-3-3———-88 (9.0%)
- 08.5% |—-3—-3——————————3————8-
- 08.0% |——333——————————————-8—
- 07.5% |——————————-8——————-8—-
- 07.0% |——————————8-888—————8—-
- 06.5% |—————————-8——-8————-8—-
- 06.0% |8————-8———88———8——-88-8——
- 05.5% |-8———-8 8——8————-8—88—8—-c-
- 05.0% |—8——-8—-8888—————-8-8———-cc (4.94% current method)
- 04.5% |—-8—-8——————-c———8————c-
- 04.0% |c—-888——————-c-ccc—————-c—
- 03.5% |-c————————-c——-c—————c—
- 03.0% |—c———-c———cc———c————-c—-
- 02.5% |—c———c-c——c————-c——cc-c——
- 02.0% |—-c——c—-cccc—————-c-cc—c——-
- 01.5% |——c—c——————————c—————
- 01.0% |——-cc————————————————
- 00.5% |———————————————————-
- 00.0% |———————————————————-
- _______2——2——2——2——2——2——2——2—S
- _______0——0——0——0——0——0——0——0—E
- _______0——0——0——0——0——0——0——0—P
- _______1——2——3——4——5——6——7——8—T
- WHERE:
- 3=Pre-1983 Inflation measurement method
- 9=Pre-1998 Inflation measurement method
- c=Current Inflation measurement method
Inflation today is 14.4% based on the pre-1983 inflation measurement method (instead of the 4.94% based on the current measurement method).
Inflation today is 9.0% based on the pre-1998 inflation measurement method.
The point is, look at actual CPI numbers from year to year.
Not merely the change in average change in CPI.
CPI in AUG-1960 was 29.6
CPI in AUG-1961 was 29.9
CPI in AUG-1962 was 30.3
CPI in AUG-1963 was 30.7
CPI in AUG-1964 was 31.0
CPI in AUG-1965 was 31.6
CPI in AUG-1966 was 32.7
CPI in AUG-1967 was 33.5
CPI in AUG-1968 was 35.0
CPI in AUG-1969 was 37.0
CPI in AUG-1970 was 39.0
CPI in AUG-1971 was 40.8
CPI in AUG-1972 was 42.0
CPI in AUG-1973 was 45.1
CPI in AUG-1974 was 50.0
CPI in AUG-1975 was 54.3
CPI in AUG-1976 was 57.4
CPI in AUG-1977 was 61.2
CPI in AUG-1978 was 66.0
CPI in AUG-1979 was 73.8
CPI in AUG-1980 was 83.3
CPI in AUG-1981 was 92.3
CPI in AUG-1982 was 97.7
CPI in AUG-1983 was 100.2 (calculation method changed; inflation was)
CPI in AUG-1984 was 104.5
CPI in AUG-1985 was 108.0
CPI in AUG-1986 was 109.7
CPI in AUG-1987 was 114.4
CPI in AUG-1988 was 119.0
CPI in AUG-1989 was 124.6
CPI in AUG-1990 was 131.6
CPI in AUG-1991 was 136.6
CPI in AUG-1992 was 140.9
CPI in AUG-1993 was 144.8
CPI in AUG-1994 was 149.0
CPI in AUG-1995 was 152.9
CPI in AUG-1996 was 157.3
CPI in AUG-1997 was 160.8
CPI in AUG-1998 was 163.4 (calculation method changed)
CPI in AUG-1999 was 167.1
CPI in AUG-2000 was 172.8
CPI in AUG-2001 was 177.5
CPI in AUG-2002 was 180.7
CPI in AUG-2003 was 184.6
CPI in AUG-2004 was 189.5
CPI in AUG-2005 was 196.4
CPI in AUG-2006 was 203.9
CPI in AUG-2007 was 207.9
CPI in AUG-2008 was 219.1
- ______________________ CPI _____________________________
- 230 |————————————————————————-
- 220 |————————————————————————x
- 210 |———————————————————————-x-
- 200 |——————————————————————-x—-
- 190 |—————————————————————-x——-
- 180 |————————————————————-x———-
- 170 |———————————————————-x————-
- 160 |——————————————————x-:—————
- 150 |————————————————-x——:—————
- 140 |———————————————-x———:—————
- 130 |——————————————-x————:—————
- 120 |—————————————-x—————:—————
- 110 |————————————x——————-:—————
- 100 |———————————x:———————:—————
- 090 |——————————-x-:———————:—————
- 080 |——————————x—:———————:—————
- 070 |—————————x——:———————:—————
- 060 |————————x———:———————:—————
- 050 |——————x—————:———————:—————
- 040 |———-xxx——————-:———————:—————
- 030 |xxx——————————:———————:—————
- 020 |———————————-:———————:—————
- 010 |———————————-:———————:—————
- 000 |———————————-+———————+—————
- ____1——1——1——1——1—1-1——1——1—1-2——2—2
- ____9——9——9——9——9—9-9——9——9—9-0——0—0
- ____6——6——7——7——8—8-8——9——9—9-0——0—0
- ____0——5——0——5——0—3-5——0——5—8-0——5—8
- ____________ INFLATION RATE ____________________________
- 15% |————————————————————————-
- 14% |——————————x——————————————
- 13% |——————————x——————————————
- 12% |——————————x——————————————
- 11% |———————x——x-x—————————————-
- 10% |———————x——x-x—————————————-
- 09% |———————xx—-x—x—————————————
- 08% |———————x—-x—-x—————————————
- 07% |———————x—x——x—————————————
- 06% |—————x—x—x——-x——x——————————-
- 05% |————-x-x-x————-x—-x-xx————————-x
- 04% |————x—x-x————-xxx-xx—x————————x
- 03% |———xx——x—————x—x——-xxxxx—-xx—x-xx-
- 02% |——-x————————-:—x—————xx-x-xx-x—-
- 01% |xxxxx—————————:———————:x————-
- 00% |———————————-+———————+—————
- _____1——1——1——1——1—1-1——1——1—1-2——2—2
- _____9——9——9——9——9—9-9——9——9—9-0——0—0
- _____6——6——7——7——8—8-8——9——9—9-0——0—0
- _____0——5——0——5——0—3-5——0——5—8-0——5—8
- ____________ NATIONAL DEBT ____________________________
- $11.0T |————————————————————————-
- $10.5T |———————————————————————-x- ($10.6 Trillion)
- $10.0T |———————————————————————-x-
- $09.5T |———————————————————————-x-
- $09.0T |———————————————————————x—
- $08.5T |——————————————————————-x—-
- $08.0T |——————————————————————x——
- $07.5T |—————————————————————-x——-
- $07.0T |—————————————————————x———
- $06.5T |————————————————————-x———-
- $06.0T |————————————————————x————
- $05.5T |———————————————————x—————
- $05.0T |—————————————————-x-:—————-
- $04.5T |————————————————-x—-:—————-
- $04.0T |————————————————x——:—————-
- $03.5T |———————————————-x——-:—————-
- $03.0T |——————————————-x———-:—————-
- $02.5T |—————————————-xx————:—————-
- $02.0T |———————————-xx——————:—————-
- $01.5T |——————————-xx———————:—————-
- $01.0T |————————xxxxx-:———————:—————-
- $00.5T |xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx———:———————:—————-
- $00.0T |———————————+———————+—————-
- ______1——1——1——1——1—1-1——1——1—1-2——2—2
- ______9——9——9——9——9—9-9——9——9—9-0——0—0
- ______6——6——7——7——8—8-8——9——9—9-0——0—0
- ______0——5——0——5——0—3-5——0——5—8-0——5—8
googlumpugus wrote: It’s a popular conspiracy theory, but not very factual. For a taste of the technical issues: mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-inflation-from-old-vs-new-cpi.htmlTo call it a conspiracy theory is nonsense.
It is truly naive to deny the government’s motivation to understate inflation.
Especially since the M3 Money Supply increased from $135 Billion in year 1950 to $10.15 Trillion in year 2005.
The M3 Money supply increased by 7520% !
It is truly naive to defend the changes in the inflation calculations when there has been an obvious motivation to make inflation look smaller for many decades.
Another obvious reason is because Social Security is linked to CPI.
Thus, changing the inflation calculation method to make inflation look smaller reduces the cost-of-living increases for Social Security.
Another obvious reason is so that the federal government and Federal Reserve can create more money out of thin air to spend, spend, spend (as evidenced by the massive national debt).
The federal government is creating many hundreds of billions of new money each year out of thin air, and this year will reach record levels.
The federal government and Federal Reserve are borrowing and creating the money to merely pay the $1.2 Billion per day ($429 Billion per year) of interest on the $10.6 Trillion National debt.
Each time the inflation measurement method was changed, it lowered inflation about 4.7%.
Do you really believe that a year 2000 Dollar is still worth $0.79 today?
Because if you do, I’ve got some beach-front property for sale in Arizona.
Therefore, your comment …
googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n. I really don’t want to get into a discussion of the CPI, but in my opinion, you are overstating and misrepresenting the size and reason for the changes in the way the CPI is reported.
… is completely false.
Again, the link you provided does not prove that the “old” and “new” inflation calculations methods don’t matter.
What is truly dishonest is the attempt in the article you linked to that attempted to portray the change in the change in percent in average CPI numbers.
CPI numbers are not the same as Inflation Rate numbers.
CPI numbers are indexed to a specific year (typically 1984).
Here are CPI numbers, indexed such that CPI=100 for year 1984.
Here’s a graph of CPI, indexed for CPI=100 for year 1967.
- Inflation: Consumer Price Index (CPI=100 for year 1967)
- 700 |———————————-X (=665: JAN-2008)
- 650 |———————————X
- 600 |———————————X
- 550 |———————————X
- 500 |——————————-X
- 450 |——————————-X
- 400 |——————————-X
- 350 |——————————X
- 300 |—————————-X
- 250 |—————————-X
- 200 |—————————X
- 150 |—————————X
- 100 |————————X
- 050 |XXXXXXXXX
- 000 +(1800)—————(2008)YEAR
The index year means that prices are relative to ZERO inflation for the index year.
Since inflation rates has been positive every year for 52 years, CPI values are less than 100 before year 1967, and greater than 100 after year 1967.
For an index year of 1984, CPI values are less than 100 before year 1984, and greater than 100 after year 1984.
Inflation Rate numbers are derived from the CPI numbers.
For example, the Inflation Rate for AUG-2008 is 5.37% .
It is calculated from CPI for AUG-2008 (219.086) and CPI from 12 months prior to AUG-2007 (207.917).
Inflation Rate for AUG-2007 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 207.917) / 207.917 = 5.37% (an AUG-2007 $1 Dollar is now worth only $0.95 in AUG-2008).
Inflation Rate for AUG-2000 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 172.8) / 172.8 = 26.79% (an AUG-2000 $1 Dollar is now worth only $0.79 in AUG-2008).
Inflation Rate for AUG-1990 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 131.6) / 131.6 = 66.48% (an AUG-1990 $1 Dollar is now worth only $0.60 in AUG-2008).
Inflation Rate for AUG-1978 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 66.0) / 66.0 = 231.95% (an AUG-1978 $1 Dollar is now worth only $0.30 in AUG-2008).
Inflation Rate for AUG-1950 to AUG-2008 = 100 x (219.086 - 24.3) / 24.3 = 801.59% (an AUG-1950 $1 Dollar is now worth only about $0.11 in AUG-2008).
If you want to know more about it, see these links:
- www.shadowstats.com/article/56
- www.shadowstats.com/
- www.shadowstats.com/article/57
- www.shadowstats.com/inflation_calculator?amount1=100&y1=2008&m1=8&y2=2000&m2=8&calc=Find+Out
- www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Posted by: d.a.n at November 7, 2008 03:52 PM
lol history is very miscontrued, and it depends on the person or people’s subjective view when writing it down.
but, i would have to say that this article had nothing to do with the fact that jesus is real or not lol, it just has to do with the kind of representation that jesus is associated with in the western world(a peaceful messiah). Jesus does have a following and no one can deny the implications of the christian church on american culture today.
i read channellings and i read that obama is a lighted being, that means he is high in his vibrational field and has much less negativity carried with him than the other candidates.
:/ i could care less really, i voted for him because if he doesn’t go through with everything after all this hype there WILL BE a revolution.
mwahahahaha!
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
