Monday, February 01, 2016

Allegations

The allegations against Bill Cosby have caused me some serious skepticism as well as motivated me to a bit of soul searching.  I've been a Bill Cosby fan since I can remember.   Although I didn't really get into "I Spy" as a kid, I did enjoy it later in syndication. He and Robert Culp were great!  As a kid in the 60s, I remember sitting in my Aunt and Uncle's bedroom listening to Bill Cosby comedy records, he and the Smother's Brothers.  While the grown ups were out in the living room discussing religion and politics, or playing cards, I was laughing at Bill Cosby talking about Noah's ark.  Then there were the HBO days, and Dr. Huxtable; which was still in syndication until these ancient allegations became current mainstream news.

Here are my thoughts on the matter, and no one has to agree.  There is a serious difference between forced against one's will, and; later regrets.  I know, I've had both . . . and I do not believe in blaming the victim.  There are many men who buy a drink or dinner for a lady with hopes of ending the date the next morning.  If they succeed in that plan, although; it isn't morally right, it isn't rape.  The morality of our society has caused many to take a very casual approach to sex, but casual sex does not constitute rape.  Casual sex is fornication according to Scriptural morality, but casual sex is also consensual.   I was not a Covenant believer until I was 36 years old, so my morals were not based upon Scripture.  I had my own definition of morality and I didn't sleep around casually, per se, but I wasn't always living a chaste life, either.

As I've read the stories about Bill Cosby, I've noticed a couple of things, one about myself, and the other about his accusers.  First and foremost, I was a Bill Cosby fan, and if I were a young woman aspiring fame and fortune in Hollywood, he'd be a very good connection . . . Bottom line, women will use sex for professional advancement, heck, women use sex for a profession!  If I were hoping to become famous with my own standard of morality; and Mr. Cosby showed the least bit of interest in me, no drugs would be necessary and the sex would be completely consensual.  I'm not saying I should be proud of that, but if I were in that world, it is a very honest assessment.  I was not a believer in my 20s, nor was I a virgin, and I'd be lying if I said I would decline an opportunity to be with a famous man for whom I was a fan.  The simple fact is, I've had consensual sex for much lower aspirations!

The accusers seem to have a common theme as well, except in the case of Kurt Cameron, and he was promoting a movie at the time he jumped on the accusation bandwagon . . . The common theme in the women, is a lack of fame.  I've never heard of any of those women, who are now claiming rape.  Obviously to be in Mr. Cosby's company at one time, they had to be in the social circle of Hollywood, or trying to access acceptance.  I can't help but wonder if things just didn't turn out as they'd hoped, or even as Mr. Cosby may have claimed.   Mr. Cosby had no business having sex with these women, but that doesn't mean it was rape.  Later regret, still doesn't remove the possibility that it was consensual at the time.  Women have been having sex for centuries to secure a future or a career, not to mention just the opportunity to be with a star.  So many allegations, really sound more like bitter middle aged women with regrets.

 Thou shalt not commit adultery.  Torah of Holy Scripture



Sunday, January 24, 2016

Timing is Everything

The current president of the United States has gotten where he is, leaving the last office before his term expired, and the one before that.  I was keeping an eye on the position of Secretary General of the UN last time around, but we ended up with a second term of both the Secretary General in the UN and the same US administration.  Now, it's come back around again.  I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory, nor am I offering skepticism.  This is not a prophetic claim either, but rather just raising a question about an upcoming time frame.

We know President Obama cannot run again, and it's already clear he isn't.  Many are concerned, however; that some sort of emergency situation could suspend the 2016 presidential election, which would keep him in office beyond his term limit.  I've not dismissed that thought at all, but I've also toyed with a different perspective.  I'm really not sure that it would necessarily involve a conspiracy, but rather simply a "coincidence" of timing and happenstance.  Whether that "coincidence" is contrived or coordinated, I cannot say, but we do know a One World Government is prophesied.

Most Americans already believe the President, any President; is a mere puppet of those who place him in office.  Some call it a conspiracy, some call it capitalism run amok, and some call it communism creeping in.  Perhaps if we all just stood together and quit fighting the red and blue, we'd realize our "so called" republic or democracy is really an aristocracy or oligarchy.  The reality is really pretty clear.  The US is not so free or independent.  I'm not saying I don't love America, I'm just saying the image is different than the reality.  Now, back to a thought I've had, and perhaps it's really more of a question.

The US election is November of 2016.  Even Wikipedia uses the term "is scheduled for" November 8, 2016.  The UN will be selecting a new Secretary General this year, also; as the present term will end December 31, 2016.  Wikipedia states that candidates from the Permanent Five Members are not usually considered for the position of Secretary General to avoid a concentration of power, but there is a rumor that President Obama is interested in the position.  So, who knows?  Barack Obama is such a "trail blazer" it's not difficult to imagine him to be the first Secretary General from one of the Permanent Five Members.  Maybe he'll be nominated by another country, entirely.   Perhaps this is how the whole "birth certificate" situation will be resolved.  In a quick Google search, it is confirmed that Kenya is a member of the UN,  yet I digress . . .

In the time frame following the presidential election, however; any number of things could happen.  There is a span of about 2 1/2 months from the election to the inauguration.  What if Hillary is elected, then charged regarding her emails or Benghazi?  I'm certainly not wishing ill upon any candidate, but Bernie Sanders is no spring chicken . . .  He'll be 75 before the election even takes place.  That is 6 years older than Reagan was when he was elected, and democrats across the country thought he was entirely too old for the job.  Donald Trump will turn 70 this summer.

With the large number of republican nominees, they will likely do so much in-party fighting that none of their candidates will remain truly viable.  The debates seem to be most successful in convincing the American public to not even consider voting republican.  So far they seem to be accomplishing that as well as propelling Trump forward as a "non" republican whom they will not support if he does win the nomination.  With a fractured republican party, one of the senior citizen mentioned in the previous paragraph could, in all reality, be our next elected president.

Then there is also the chance that Obama could already win the appointment of UN Secretary General, before the American election has "resulted" in a winner, or even taken place.  Say for whatever the reason, President Obama is nominated and appointed to serve as the Secretary General of the UN for the next term, beginning January 1, 2017.  If Obama is appointed to the UN and there is some sort of calamity preventing the US presidential election, what happens?   If the election does take place as planned, regardless of the candidate elected for President, they will not be inaugurated until January 20, 2017.  If President Obama leaves his post for the UN position, that will leave America with President Joe Biden and no VP for 20 days.

Again, not wishing any harm on our elderly candidates, but life past 70 is uncertain anyway, much less in high stress situations.  As we already know, a great deal can happen in less time than 20 days! I'm not one to borrow trouble, but in times of such global uncertainty, introducing a situation of national historical precedence does elicit some concern or at least curiosity!    

Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.  Prophecy of Daniel

Sunday, January 03, 2016

#Sick Lives Matter

Before there was national Obamacare, there were individual states determining end of life standards and insurance companies screening pre-admission coverage over 20 years ago.  In determining those standards, it was also determined just who would define those standards . . . Nameless, faceless boards and committees, from health care professionals to insurance statisticians.  While the GOP was fear-mongering about death panels with Obamacare, the Grand Old Party was only about 15 years behind.  Death panels have been in existence long before any of us ever heard of Barrack Obama.

This past week, a heart wrenching story came to a conclusion.  I'd been following the reports of Christopher Dunn since late November.  The details of this report are troubling and the source seems to be without political agenda.  According to findlaw, Texas legislated death panels into place in 1999, meaning the Governor of Texas at that time would have signed this bill into law.  The Governor of Texas in 1999 was George W. Bush.  I'm not for a moment, suggesting the G W Bush had nefarious intent in signing this piece of legislation.  I really don't think elected politicians give much consideration to what they are signing.  At any rate, there is documented proof that death panels were in place in at least one state long before we ever heard of Obama.

Back in the early 90s, my husband, at that time, was transferred.  It was a great deal all the way around, same good company, great pay, same great health care benefits; except leaving the large city, there was this new thing called "network."  This was when I was still in mainstream medicine, and finding a primary care physician "in network," who was taking new patients proved to be quite a taxing task.  I couldn't find a GP who was taking new patients.  The kids were too old for a pediatrician, but the girls were too young to have an ob/gyn as their primary care physician.  Our son needed a primary care physician because he was in sports, so . . . we finally found a doctor, taking new patients, but all appointments would need to be pre-approved by insurance, and seemed to require being made about a month in advance, so "urgent" care became the primary care.

We didn't go to the ER every time we turned around, as there was a sort of "prehistoric" urgent care office that served the town for all problems too severe to wait a month and not severe enough for the ER.  They had the insurance situation down pat.  Pre-approval was not needed, but primary care doctor's name was, and . . . the doctors there did not make hospital rounds.  I don't know if they didn't have hospital privilege then or what, but the cracks in health care were apparent in 1992, even with what was considered very "good" insurance coverage.

I completely abandoned faith in mainstream health care about 15 years ago.  I'm so thankful I got out when I did, because sadly, health care has deteriorated even further.  Not only is insurance more expensive and fewer jobs offer benefits, but health care has become a strong arm of a very controlling government with little compassion for "we the people."

Just this past Monday, a Florida woman died as she was being escorted out of the hospital in handcuffs.  Her crime?  She didn't want to be released as she felt she still needed treatment for a breathing issue . . . The immediate evidence seems to indicate she knew what she was talking about.  The hospital administrator sounded very dismissive in her comment.  As I read the article, crossing my mind was the old saying "I wouldn't go there if my life depended upon it . . ." But then, the realization overwhelmed me.  Barbara Dawson's life did depend upon it and she might still be alive if someone had had the compassion to listen to the patient . . . She died Monday night, December 21, 2015.


Now, back to the heart wrenching story I've been following since November.  Christopher Dunn died, Wednesday, December 23, 2015.  He had worked in law enforcement and as an EMT, but was uninsured at the time his illness caused him to be hospitalized.  Of course, I don't have all the details, but we do know it was determined by a medical team and a hospital that his treatment should be suspended.  With HIPAA, we can rest assured, none of us will ever have all the details.  Maybe they couldn't help him, but he was conscious last week and responding to questions.  Even though he was able to respond to questions, and his mother was present,  Methodist Hospital filed for guardianship and Mr. Dunn passed before his attorneys could get a court date for the petition on his behalf.

 The man, his mother, and his lawyers, filed a lawsuit in an attempt to save the man’s life. His attorney, Joe Nixon, told Breitbart Texas at the time, “A criminal on death row in Texas has more rights than a patient in a Texas hospital.” He says a Texas statute denies a patient all due process rights and is unconstitutional.


  Expensive health care, lacking compassion has been going on for a very long time . . .  "Death panels" have been in place for years, and HIPAA laws really don't protect our privacy, HIPAA provides a shield of no accountability for health care.

And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,  And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse . . . the Gospel according to Mark
The woman in this account has a better ending, however; than Mrs. Dawson or Mr. Dunn

When she had heard of Y'hshuwah, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.  For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.  And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Immigration . . . A Means to an End?

With the recent stir regarding refugees into America, I can't help but wonder just how intently the citizens are being manipulated.  Without a doubt, mainstream media is an arm of power and control that is used to define and redefine "reality."  I'm truly shocked at the extremism of the political divisiveness on seemingly the same issue, and that is immigration.  Like most Americans, I have an opinion on the subject.  I'm not really weighing in on what we should do here, but rather sharing a perspective of what has occurred in this nation through "immigration."

The first immigrants were not called immigrants, they were called pilgrims, puritans, and pioneers.  Those "immigrants" drastically changed this country.  Is there any American alive today that cannot see how the culture changed through history?  I was going to be a bit brandishing in my next statement, but there's no need.  Most Americans at this point, truly do have their minds made up along party lines.  I find it fascinating as the "conservatives" post their anti-immigration comments, blogs, and memes, in regard to the current immigration situation; while apparently truly believing the European settlers had every right to come and take this land from the Native Americans.  Some even proudly proclaim it was the will of our Creator . . .

For those who are using the adjective "illegal," that is not necessarily the case with many.  Although for many, the move to the US isn't via Ellis Island, money exchanges hands paperwork is completed, and it somehow takes place.  There is entirely too much monitoring and tracking of the legal citizens, as well as reported numbers in this country, for anyone to believe our government does not have an accurate headcount.

The Obama loyalists, on the other hand apparently do not believe history can repeat itself.  Many refer to the pilgrims, puritans, and pioneers, now as invaders.  Liberal blogs, articles, and memes address the genocide of the Native Americans at the hands of what they call "invaders," yet they applaud the current influx of immigrants, and judge those who are vocal in their objections.

Folks, the division has been created . . . and both sides actually share a great deal of similarity, except they are so politically divided by label, they don't realize it.  The conservatives know the culture will be changed to accommodate the current wave of immigrants.  Actually the conservatives know the original immigrants brought change, as well, but they believe that change was good.  Many conservatives believe the Native Americans actually needed the European ways . . .  The same situation that we are facing now, did come about through the 1600s.  Folks were leaving Europe for new and better opportunities, but wanted to bring their old ways with them.  Sound familiar?

The Obama loyalists and liberal leaning folks also must know the culture will be changed, but they seem to believe at this time, they won't personally be affected.  The liberal stand seems almost vindictive toward our culture.  They can see what happened with the Native Americans and appear to be welcoming that, again.  They know immigrants change the culture and the sovereignty of the social standard.  American history definitely proves, the immigrants changed the culture and the language.  I don't understand why this would be so welcomed, especially since most of the immigrants are a lot more zealous in their religious beliefs than any Christian denomination.  These immigrants are as zealous in their beliefs as atheists are in theirs.

For some time now, I've understood that the Roman Empire was never disestablished, but rather mixed, mingled, and spread around the globe.  It's been obvious, since the 80s, the powers in Washington were not really so divided by party lines, but have managed to divide the people through party lines.  

The quote "Divide and Conquer" is attributed to Roman Emperor, Julius Caesar.  It is impossible of course to say for certain, but Julius Caesar has been attributed the quote "Divide et impera" which is latin for "Divide and Conquer".

We are on the precipice of a political chasm that will not be spanned, and immigration is the manufactured divisive issue. This could ultimately lead to each state taking their "impotent stand" against the federal government regarding the immigration of Syrian "refugees."  Of course, the federal government can override the states.  Look what the Supreme Court did to redefine marriage IN EVERY STATE, and Congress never did pass a law . . . but somehow "same sex marriage" has become the law of the land.  Yet, I digress . . .

If each state takes it's stand and calls in it's Guard Unit, we have Martial Law . . . Then for each state to protect it's state rights, we'll end up with check points at the state line.  I have a feeling, I'm watching a few go into place now . . .  What troubles this citizen the most, is the idea that the people are being manipulated to actually ask for and implement Martial Law to protect their state from forced immigration of questionable refugees.  

Basically, whether it is immigrants who refuse to assimilate or state guard to prevent their entry, the culture will be forever changed.  We might also keep in mind, since we are still dealing with a Romanesque government, Paul met death in Rome by the same method that is used by Islamic jihadists today. 

For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.  I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:  
           Paul's words to Timothy in his final letter



Sunday, November 22, 2015

The Quest for Truth

Who killed JFK?  Fifty-two years later, I must still admit, I couldn't prove my suspicions beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, but I have discovered and can prove dishonest governing is nothing new, and media cover-up, is far from recent history.

According to wikipedia.  The first radio news program was broadcast August 31, 1920 by station 8MK in DetroitMichigan, which survives today as all-news format station WWJ under ownership of the CBS network. The first college radio station began broadcasting on October 14, 1920 from Union College, Schenectady, New York under the personal call letters of Wendell King, an African-American student at the school.[39]

By 1932 the evidence of media influence in the American politics was already obvious.  With the backdrop of the Great Depression, FDR became the President of the United States on the promise of economic recovery with his New Deal.  The New Deal ultimately proved to discard the gold standard and implement social security.  Also through this time, the condition of President Roosevelt's health was closely guarded.  That is not to say he kept his paralysis a secret, but the secret service men were known to grab cameras and rip out film, press passes not withstanding.  The images of FDR definitely downplayed his disability, and now as digital history is being explained, the press simply had more important things to cover than the health of the US President . . .

I guess my point for including the leadership and press from the 30's, it appears, historically speaking, once news went beyond the written word, appearance and influence became entwined with journalism.  Whether FDR's handicap was hidden or downplayed, it was not considered to be information for the general population.  Whether the media was kept from covering or covering up . . . again, we now have digital history to tell us what we are to believe.  The 1970 World Book entry of Franklin Delano Roosevelt dedicated all of about 4 paragraphs to the polio, in the lengthy entry covering a number of pages.  In his campaigning, he used braces and a cane.  There's no indication that he hid the fact he'd had polio, but he did attempt to walk or stand in most of his public appearances.  The wheelchair was relegated to the private background, behind the scenes of speeches and photo ops.

Radio and newspapers were the only source of news, and radio was relatively new.  The media, even back then established what would be the political information for the general population.  The press secretaries and the secret service determined the photos that would appear.  My point is certainly not to disrespect President Roosevelt nor even infer that a disability should be held against him or anyone, but rather to demonstrate the power of the government and the media to contain and filter what the people can know.  FDR was elected 21 years before the assassination of JFK.  This control of the media, or media control has been going on a very long time!


I just can't help but wondering.  Are we free, because "they" tell us we're free?  Are we only kidding ourselves to think we are informed?  Will the Warren Commission Report stand throughout time, as a tribute to our gullibility?  How many lies have "they" told us?  How many lies have we chosen to believe?

 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth . . . that they should believe a lie:  From a New Testament letter to an early democracy.



Monday, November 16, 2015

Just a Strange "What if? . . ."

This is not claiming any insight or inside information, nor is it accusing our president of any of the things that have been questioned and gone strangely unanswered or at least unsatisfactorily.  I'm only posing the possibility . . .

What if, at the end of his second term, or just after next year's election, if some emergency doesn't disrupt the 2016 election . . . Wow, if some emergency disrupts the election, we could be living in Obamaville indefinitely . . . In which case probably even the staunchest of conservatives will want pot legalized and the teetotalers may take up drinking, as Obamacare won't offer enough painkillers by prescription.
Yet I digress . . . back to my "What if?"

Let's imagine the elections go without a hitch and the Obamas will be moving out in January.  I'll choose an arbitrary day, say the day after Congress is sworn in with their new raise.  Picture, later that evening, President Obama comes on national television with a special address, since he won't be giving the State of the Union Address . . .

First, he addresses America without using "my fellow Americans" and immediately directs his comments to the birthers and the loyal followers against the birthers.  Everybody is right!  >My mother was only 18 years old and by Constitutional law, since she had not been out of Kansas for 5 years, I am an American citizen, regardless of my actual birth country.  Now, with that being said, the birthers got it, too.  The hospital on my Hawaiian birth certificate didn't exist in 1961.  BUSTED . . .  You know, rather than divide over my birth certificate, someone could have simply asked for the Passport records for my years in Indonesia.  That would have made my country of citizenship quite clear, or my lawyer much wealthier.

Although I spoke of my beliefs and claimed to be Christian, many Americans are just sure I'm a secret Muslim.  The fact of the matter is, the Muslim world bases one's religion upon the religion of the father, and my father was Muslim.  That fact, however; doesn't mean the son has the same beliefs.<

It is the personal opinion of this reporter that Mr. Obama serves himself.  He seems, in my humble opinion, very content with his god complex.  Perhaps he has claimed the religion of his father, perhaps he's claimed Jeremiah Wright's version of Christianity, or perhaps, like many Americans he'd simply state he believes in doing what is right in his own eyes and what serves his own best interest.

Next, he mentions the girls.  Imagine him openly stating, with the territorial aggression of a protective father, "they are our daughters, but not biologically."  There are no baby photos because we hadn't yet adopted them.  There are no photos of Michelle pregnant, because that simply did not happen.  I'm all about a transparent reality . . . In a country that is so abhorrent toward abortion, you should celebrate the adoption of our two daughters.

Finally, he then mentions Michelle, whom may have been referenced Michael.  Joan Rivers died just a week after saying Michelle was a "tranny."  I can hear him now, saying, when he came into office he was quite nervous about his stand on traditional marriage knowing he and "Michelle" had a very unique situation.  He wasn't sure the Supreme Court would open the door for him to be able to be "transparent in his evolving views, but felt they would.  Before the Supreme Court decision, he did have some concerns about his relationship, but clearly he and Michelle/Michael are now the all American image of "marriage equality."
http://www.out.com/out100-2015/2015/11/10/out100-2015-cover-revealed-president-barack-obama

I believe it's just a strange feeling or even just a whim of imagination in political satire.  Can you imagine, either way, Mr. Obama's body language and tone if he were to state the following?   >Everything I've stated tonight was already a fact eight years ago and four years ago, now what are you going to do about it?  I was elected, and there is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that state I couldn't have been.  My mother's citizenship and age makes me a natural born citizen.  Religion and sexual identity are not factors in holding the office, and as for adopted children . . . Ronald Reagan was not only divorced but also a father by adoption.

Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens.  a Lament of the Prophet

Blog Archive