Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Has morality been scraped away from our Legislative, Executive, and Judicial system?

Recommended Posts

This President's Day I plan to review and reflect upon the immortal words of reconciliation and healing that are carved in the walls of the Lincoln Memorial in the nation’s capital.


With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.




Although there is no bloodshed, our country is divided once again. What is morally just is believed to be in the minds and hearts of both sides. I begin my Lent in prayer that that our flag continues to wave strongly in the air of the land of the truly free. It is my hope that both sides take a step towards the center and reconcile in humility that we must put politics aside and do what is best for America.


Science and Religion have to meet in the middle as well. It is possible to be both human and moral.



Never let go of hope. One day you will see that it all has finally come together. What you have always wished for has finally come to be. You will look back and laugh at what has passed and you will ask yourself... 'How did I get through all of that?” - André Gide

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

To better understand morality one must understand its opposite.


The Satanic Bible contains the core principles of the religion of LaVeyan Satanism, and is considered the foundation of its philosophy and dogma.


To the Satanist "God" - by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all - is seen as the balancing factor in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering. This powerful force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about the

happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures on this ball of dirt upon which we live.


This passage has similarity to the nature of Dhṛtarāṣṭra (God) written in the Hindu Biva Gita.


Chapter 4


Bg 4.14 — There is no work that affects Me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of action. One who understands this truth about Me also does not become entangled in the fruitive reactions of work.


the Torah reveals the name of God and His divine relationship with the People of Israel.


Exodus 3


3:14 God said to Moses, “I am that I am.” And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”


3:15 God also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The Lord – the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob – has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation.’


The New Testament goes further in revealing how God does love humanity.


John 3


3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.


3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.


3:18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.


3:19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.


3:20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 3:21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.


The Book of Satan I


I request reason for your golden rule and ask the why and wherefore of your ten commandments.


The Book of Satan III


1. "Love one another" it has been said is the supreme law, but what power made it so?

Upon what rational authority does the gospel of love rest? Why should I not hate mine

enemies - if I "love" them does that not place me at their mercy?


2. Is it natural for enemies to do good unto each other - and WHAT IS GOOD?


3. Can the torn and bloody victim "love" the blood-splashed jaws that rend him limb

from limb?


4. Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying

upon each other, could they continue to exist?


5. Is not "lust and carnal desire" a more truthful term to describe "love" when applied to

the continuance of the race? Is not the "love" of the fawning scriptures simply a

euphemism for sexual activity, or was the "great teacher" a glorifier of eunuchs?


6. Love your enemies and do good to them that hate and use you - is this not the

despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back when kicked?


7. Hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law!


8. He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog!


9. Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom - with compound interest

liberally added thereunto! Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye four-fold, a hundred-fold!

Make yourself a Terror to your adversary, and when he goeth his way, he will possess

much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in

all the walks of life, and your spirit - your immortal spirit - shall live, not in an

intangible paradise, but in the brains and sinews of those whose respect you have





The Book of Satan V


Lucifer's Beatitudes


1. Blessed are the strong, for they shall possess the earth - Cursed are the weak, for they

shall inherit the yoke!


2. Blessed are the powerful, for they shall be reverenced among men - Cursed are the

feeble, for they shall be blotted out!


3. Blessed are the bold, for they shall be masters of the world - Cursed are the

righteously humble, for they shall be trodden under cloven hoofs!


4. Blessed are the victorious, for victory is the basis of right - Cursed are the vanquished,

for they shall be vassals forever!


5. Blessed are the iron-handed, for the unfit shall flee before them - Cursed are the poor

in spirit, for they shall be spat upon!


6. Blessed are the death-defiant, for their days shall be long in the land - Cursed are the

gazers toward a richer life beyond the grave, for they shall perish amidst plenty!


7. Blessed are the destroyers of false hope, for they are the true Messiahs - Cursed are the

god-adorers, for they shall be shorn sheep!


8. Blessed are the valiant, for they shall obtain great treasure - Cursed are the believers in

good and evil, for they are frightened by shadows!


9. Blessed are those that believe in what is best for them, for never shall their minds be

terrorized - Cursed are the "lambs of God", for they shall be bled whiter than snow!


10. Blessed is the man who has a sprinkling of enemies, for they shall make him a hero -

Cursed is he who doeth good unto others who sneer upon him in return, for he shall be



11. Blessed are the mighty-minded, for they shall ride the whirlwinds - Cursed are they

who teach lies for truth and truth for lies, for they are an abomination!


12. Thrice cursed are the weak whose insecurity makes them vile, for they shall serve and



13. The angel of self-deceit is camped in the souls of the "righteous" - The eternal flame

of power through joy dwelleth within the flesh of the Satanist!






There is clear distinction between what is moral and what is not.


If there be one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire better than another, it is a brave man — it is a man who dares to look the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil. - James Abram Garfield - The 20th President of the United States




President Garfield was later assassinated by Charles Guiteau, a preacher justified his action as necessary means to heal dissension between factions of the Republican Party. Psychiatrist Dr. Edward Charles Spitzka, testified as an expert witness that it was clear "Guiteau is not only now insane, but that he was never anything else." While on the stand, Spitzka testified that he had "no doubt" that Guiteau was both insane and a congenital malformation of the brain.


Guiteau's trial was one of the first high profile cases in the United States where the insanity defense was considered.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Elior

The Holocaust was the work of a modern neopagan secularized State that promoted the lack of faith in God and the contempt for man created in his image. At its deepest level, the Holocaust was a tragic rejection of loving one another.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read some Ronald Dworkins thoughts on marriage being a unique cultural institution that has developed meaning though its traditional history of a woman marrying a man. In light of the new legal view that each person has their own definition of God, we can no longer rely on the State to judge according to community ethics. Therefore, we must face the truth that the State is wants no part in defining God and morality in law. By this reason I would argue that just like trademark, patent, and copyright law who has the idea and name first should have the right to the name defined. If the State does not accept this argument, then it should change the legal name "Marriage" to "Civil Union" and not violate the Separation of Church and State by using a name of a religious sacrament. The traditional name of "Marriage" to be used exclusively to churches and ministers.


As we know there are plenty of Heterosexual and Gay religious institutions to administer the sacrament. The State should never control the values of Love and Marriage. Just like they should not control Health and Death. Look at what happened when the State played God in Nazi Germany.


The very first line of the first amendment to the Constitution reads:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


Religious Freedom first in our Bill of Rights by our Founding Fathers, because it was and still is the most important freedom we have. This does not mean that forces are working hard to erode its meaning and our ability to exercise this "God-given right" to pursuit happiness.





Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Angry Elephant

Read this:




The supposed breakdown of trust, as the philosopher Onora O’Neill once pointed out, is a cliché of our times. But scandals over horsemeat and some National Health Service trusts, on top of the banking crisis, are testing people’s faith in one another.


In a practical sense, we place our trust every day in others – to drive buses and trains safely, look after children, prepare food or handle savings. Unless we want to live like American backwoods survivalists, we must continue to do this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Angry Elephant

Here is another.




Living by the Golden Rule is a guideline that unites many religions, participates of the 10th Annual Celebration of Abraham were told Sunday in Davis.


Michael Hirsch, a member of Congregation Bet Haverim in Davis, introduced the program being held at the Davis Community Church, noted the theme of the 10th anniversary event was "Interfaith Models of Community," where people looked at the effects of living in an interfaith community - specifically the Multifaith Living Community at CA House on UC Davis campus, which encompasses 38 young people from various religions, including Jewish, Sikh, Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist, along with some who belong to no particular religion but are spiritually oriented.


Hirsch, along with members of local clergy members, focused their message on the fundamentals of "living in peace and mutual support in a community."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider Humanism a greater threat than Satanism in the aspect that that it removes the supernatural archetypes (God and Satan) and their distinction of values between selfless and selfish, self-control and impatience, humility and pride. The new archetype is man himself and his rational observations of the world. Enlightenment comes through scientific achievements and morality comes from a deeper understanding of cultural brotherhood. This new enlightened morality insists on a creating new a socialized order that distributes wealth evenly and the formation of a new religion based upon the scientific method and probability.




Humanist Manifesto I - 1933


The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.


There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.


Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:


FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.


SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.


THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.


FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.


FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.


SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".


SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.


EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.


NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.


TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.


ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.


TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.


THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.


FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.


FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: ( a ) affirm life rather than deny it; ( b ) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.


"God Bless America" will be replaced with "May The Odds Be Ever In America's Favor"


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest trace

Sigmund Freud came from a Hassidic Jewish family who embraced his cultural identity, but lost his faith in God. His work led him to believe that he completely understood human nature.


"In his seminal book, " Civilizations and Its Discontents" Sigmund Freud enumerates the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction stems from the individual's quest for instinctual freedom and civilization's contrary demand for conformity and instinctual repression. Many of humankind's primitive instincts (for example, the desire to kill and the insatiable craving for sexual gratification) are clearly harmful to the well-being of a human community. As a result, civilization creates laws that prohibit killing, rape, and adultery, and it implements severe punishments if such rules are broken. This process, argues Freud, is an inherent quality of civilization that instills perpetual feelings of discontent in its citizens.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW

Carl Jung charged Freud with dogmatism in reducing all mental problems to sexual issues; Freud accused Jung of succumbing to the “black tide” of occultism, or mysticism. After his split with Freud, Jung continued to develop his own distinctive system of analytical psychology, the theories of which he elaborated through the experimental experiences he describes in the Red Book.


Dear Professor Freud,


May I say a few words to you in earnest? I admit the ambivalence of my feelings towards you, but am inclined to take an honest and absolutely straightforward view of the situation. If you doubt my word, so much the worse for you. I would, however, point out that your technique of treating your pupils like patients is a blunder. In that way you produce either slavish sons or impudent puppies (Adler-Stekel and the whole insolent gang now throwing their weight about in Vienna). I am objective enough to see through your little trick. You go around sniffing out all the symptomatic actions in your vicinity, thus reducing everyone to the level of sons and daughters who blushingly admit the existence of their faults. Meanwhile you remain on top as the father, sitting pretty. For sheer obsequiousness nobody dares to pluck the prophet by the beard and inquire for once what you would say to a patient with a tendency to analyse the analyst instead of himself. You would certainly ask him: Who's got the neurosis?


You see, my dear Professor, so long as you hand out this stuff I dont give a damn for my symptomatic actions; they shrink to nothing in comparison with the formidable beam in my brother Freuds eye. I am not in the least neurotictouch wood! I have submitted lege artis et tout humblement [according to the law of the profession, with complete humility] to analysis and am much the better for it. You know, of course, how far a patient gets with self-analysis: not out of his neurosisjust like you. If ever you should rid yourself entirely of your complexes and stop playing the father to your sons and instead of aiming continually at their weak spots took a good look at your own for a change, then I will mend my ways and at one stroke uproot the vice of being in two minds about you. Do you love neurotics enough to be always at one with yourself? But perhaps you hate neurotics. In that case how can you expect your efforts to treat your patients leniently and lovingly not to be accompanied by somewhat mixed feelings? Adler and Stekel were taken in by your little tricks and reacted with childish insolence. I shall continue to stand by you publicly while maintaining my own views, but privately shall start telling you in my letters what I really think of you. I consider this procedure only decent.


No doubt you will be outraged by this peculiar token of friendship, but it may do you good all the same.


With best regards,

Most sincerely yours, JUNG


Read more about Carl G. Jung at the Library of Congress





Freud's response:


I can answer only one point in your previous letter in any detail. Your allegation that I treat my followers like patients is demonstrably untrue. In Vienna I am reproached for the exact opposite. I am held responsible for the misconduct of Stekel and Adler; in reality I have not said one word to Stekel about his analysis since it was concluded some ten years ago, nor have I made any use of analysis with Adlder, who was never my patient. Any analytical remarks I have made about them were addressed to others and for the most part at a time when we ceased to associate with one another. In building your construction on this foundation you have made matters as easy for yourself as with your famous 'Kreuzlingen gesture'.


Otherwise your letter cannot be answered. It creates a situation that would be difficult to with in personal talk and totally impossible in correspondence. It is a convention among us analysts that none of us need feel ashamed of his own bit of neurosis. But on who while behaving abnormally keeps shouting that his is normal gives ground for the suspicion that lacks insight into his illness. Accordingly I propose that we abandon our personal relations entirely. I shall lose nothing by it, for my only emotional tie to you has been a thin thread - the lingering effects of past disappointments - and you have everything to gain, in view of the remark that you recently made in Munich, to the effect that an intimate relationship with a man inhibited your scientific freedom. I therefore say, take your full freedom, and spare me your supposed 'tokens of friendship'. We are agreed that a man should subordinate his personal feelings to the general interests of his branch of endeavor. You will never have any reason to complain of any lack of correctness on my part where our common undertaking and the pursuit of scientific aims are concerned; I may say, no more reason in the future than in the past. On the other hand I am entitled to expect the same from you.



Your sincerely, FREUD



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshiped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind. - Sigmund Freud


Sigmund Freud was right about God being a Father figure to us all. What Freud did not understand was God's nature.


Psalms 37


37:12 Evil men plot against the godly

and viciously attack them.


37:13 The Lord laughs in disgust at them,

for he knows that their day is coming.



In 1907 Sigmund Freud wrote 'Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices' his earliest essay on his belief against religion, Freud considered devotional individuals to be suffering from obsessional neurosis, but considered their anxieties to be within socially acceptable norms. Twenty years later Freud wrote 'In The Future of an Illusion' where he refers to religion as an illusion which is "perhaps the most important item in the psychical inventory of a civilization". In his estimation, those educated in behavior science with secular (worldly) motives for morality need to replace religious ones. Freud sees the existence of God for only "the great mass of the uneducated and oppressed" people who may commit murder if not told that God forbids it.


Sigmund Freud is a patriarch for the Humanist movement that is completely accepted in all branches of government today. Humanist see the nature of God as actually the nature of man. People of faith see the opposite or unknowable. In today's law a psychologist or a psychiatrist accepted as an impartial witness, but you will not see a rabbi, priest, or minister used as one.



Somtimes illogic makes a better commercial.




When Sigmund Freud turned 35, his father Jacob sent him the copy of the Hebrew Family Bible he had given to him when he was a boy. Enclosed in that worn copy of the Scriptures was a note from the elder Freud reminding his son that "the Spirit of the Lord began to move you and spoke within you: 'Go read in My Book that I’ve written and there will burst open for you the wellsprings of understanding, knowledge, and wisdom.'" Jacob hoped that the bible would rekindle his sons faith building a greater understanding the true wisdom of knowing God. Instead honoring his father's wishes, Sigmund deconstructed his family belief like he had done with his patients.


Freud theorized that Moses was am Egyptian Levite noble who worshiped the God of the Sun that was ridiculed in his home country and merged the belief with neighboring violent volcano demon that was worshiped to create the Almighty Father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Here are excerpts from his book Moses and Monotheism.


To accept Moses the Jews created a story that he was adopted.




the man Moses, the liberator and law-giver of the Jewish people, was not a Jew, but an Egyptian. That his name derived from the Egyptian vocabulary had long been observed, though not duly appreciated. I added to this consideration the further one that the interpretation of the exposure myth attaching to Moses necessitated the conclusion that he was an Egyptian whom a people needed to make into a Jew.


Egyptian Aton and Adonai are the same God.




The Jewish creed, as is well known, says: " Schema Jisroel Adonai Elohenu Adonai Echod." If the similarity of the name of the Egyptian Aton (or Atum) to the Hebrew word Adonai and the Syrian divine name Adonis is not a mere accident, but is the result of a primaeval unity in language and meaning, then one could translate the Jewish formula: Hear, oh Israel, our god Aton (Adonai) is the only God.


It was the the Egyptians who originated circumcision.




the question concerning the origin of circumcision has only one answer: it comes from Egypt. Herodotus, " the Father of History, tells us that the custom of circumcision had long been practiced in Egypt, and his statement has been confirmed by the examination of mummies and even by drawings on the walls of graves. No other people of the Eastern Mediterranean has as far as we know followed this custom; we can assume with certainty that the Semites, Babylonians and Sumerians were not circumcised.


When Pharaoh Ikhnaton passed the one God religion crumbled and Moses transferred the beliefs to the Habiru (Hebrews)




Let us assume that Moses was a noble and distinguished man: perhaps indeed a member of the

royal house, as the myth has it. He must have been conscious of his great abilities, ambitious and energetic; perhaps he saw himself in a dim future as the leader of his people, the governor of the Empire. In close contact with Pharaoh he was a convinced adherent of the new religion, whose basic principles he fully understood and had made his own. With the king's death and the subsequent reaction he saw all his hopes and prospects destroyed. If he was not to recant the convictions so dear to him then Egypt had no more to give him; he had lost his native country. In this hour of need he found an unusual solution. The dreamer Ikhnaton had estranged himself from his people, had let his world empire crumble. Moses active nature conceived the plan of founding a new empire, of finding a new people, to whom he could give the religion that Egypt disdained.


Moses may have learned the religion of Aton from the Priests of On (Heliopolis).




It is not to be supposed that the over- throw of the official Aton religion completely put an end to the monotheistic trend in Egypt. The School of Priests at On, from which it emanated, survived the catastrophe and might have drawn whole generations after Ikhnaton into the orbit of their religious thought. That Moses performed the deed is quite thinkable, therefore, even if he did not live in Ikhnaton's time and had not come under his personal influence, even if he were simply an adherent or merely a member of the school of On. This conjecture would postpone the date of the Exodus and bring it nearer to the time usually assumed, the thirteenth century.


The God of the Sun was merged with a blood thirsty volcano fire demon.




Jahve was certainly a volcano god. As we know, however, Egypt has no volcanoes and the mountains of the Sinai peninsula have never been volcanic; on the other hand, volcanoes which may have been active up to a late period are found along the western border of Arabia. One of these mountains must have been the Sinai -Horeb which was believed to be Jahve J s abode. In spite of all the transformations the Biblical text has suffered, we are able to reconstruct according to E. Meyer the original character of the god: he is an uncanny, bloodthirsty demon who walks by night and shuns the light of day.


Moses was killed by the Jews. When they are exiled they hope that Moses will rise from the dead and save them once again.




E. Sellin made a discovery of decisive importance. He found in the book of the prophet Hosea second half of the eighth century unmistakable traces of a tradition to the effect that the founder of their religion (Moses) met a violent end in a rebellion of his stubborn and refractory people. The religion he had instituted was at the same time abandoned. This tradition is not restricted to Hosea : it recurs in the writings of most of the later prophets; indeed, according to Sellin, it was the basis of all the later expectations of the Messiah. Towards the end of the Babylonian exile the hope arose among the Jewish people that the man they had so callously murdered would return from the realm of the dead and lead his contrite people and perhaps not only his people into the land of eternal bliss.


Moses entourage, the Levites, were considered the elite tribe.




It is not credible that a great gentleman like the Egyptian Moses approached a people strange to him without an escort. He must have brought his retinue with him, his nearest adherents, his scribes, his servants. These were the original Levites. Tradition maintains that Moses was a Levite. This seems a transparent distortion of the actual state of affairs: the Levites were Moses people.




As I grow this topic I hope to share the wisdom of the Golden Rule through the understanding the creative expression of the Golden Ratio. I believe those that are devoted to our Creator and practice self-control are able to achieve a full understanding of the meaning of God's love and Liberty. I will go into Jahve and Elohist at a later time.


Through this discourse I have gain an even greater admiration for the endurance of Jewish culture. I now understand how to properly use the racial term. "Hebrew" (Descendants of Abraham, from whose name is the root of the word Hebrew) . Israelite is the nationalistic term. Jew is the cultural term.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



It is well known that Sigmund Freud was under the protection of his Jewish Masonic brothers.


B'nai B'rith became an international organization in 1882 with the establishment of the first overseas lodge in Berlin, Germany, called the Deutsche Reichsloge No. 332. (Grusd, at 91.) Lodges followed in Palestine, other Near Eastern lands, and the Balkans. (Grusd, at 91.) The District No. 9 was instituted in Romania in 1889. (Grusd, at 102.) In 1889 a Lodge was charted in Austria, leading to the formation of an Austrian District Grand Lodge (Id.): In 1897, famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud joined the Vienna B'nai B'rith Lodge, and in subsequent years documented how important his Lodge membership was to him during years his then radical theory of dream interpretation left him a virtual outcast. (Grusd, at 210-211.) In 1925, the Lodges of Great Britain and Ireland became District No. 15. (Grusd, at 186.)




B'nai B'rith International, the Global Voice of the Jewish Community, is the oldest and most widely known Jewish humanitarian, human rights, and advocacy organization.


Membership in B'nai B'rith is similar to the Catholic Knights of Columbus in that they only allow individuals of their faith to become full members. That is why I find it interesting that they would protect a man that made public his disbelief in the Jewish faith. Christians with faith in God are closer to those born into the Jewish faith an refute it.


B'nai B'rith allows people of all beliefs to join their friends organization for $35 per year. A major benefit to joining is the organization's quality insurance policies. As an aside, I wonder how long the Catholic only policy will stand when Human Rights groups get court orders forcing the Knights of Columbus to provide insurance to nonmembers.




I am glad to read a friendly dialogue between religions can happen in today's world. What we need is more social interaction between faiths to understand the greater threat of a Godless world with no morality.


B’nai B’rith International offers its best wishes to Pope Benedict XVI as he plans to step down as the leader of the Catholic Church on Feb. 28.


Benedict held the papacy for eight years and will be the first pope to resign in 600 years, a decision he has made in light of his increasing frailty.


“We wish Pope Benedict only good health as he steps down from his position,” B’nai B’rith International President Allan J. Jacobs said. “He consistently expressed his commitment to Catholic-Jewish relations, and his accessibility to Jewish leaders was significant. We are very grateful for the opportunities we had to meet with him to further the Catholic-Jewish friendship.”


B’nai B’rith leaders met with Pope Benedict, as with a line of his predecessors, on multiple occasions. In 2011, Jacobs and B’nai B’rith International Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin led a B’nai B’rith delegation to the Vatican to meet with Benedict. Jacobs and Mariaschin spoke with him about the Middle East and the challenges facing Jews and Christians in the region. Representing the American Jewish community, B’nai B’rith Director of United Nations and Intercommunal Affairs David Michaels presented a gift to Benedict from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum during the pope’s 2008 visit to Washington.


Benedict’s papacy was characterized by some controversies, including elevation of the status of the Tridentine Mass, with its Good Friday liturgy which, though revised by the pope, still included a prayer for Jews’ hearts to be “illuminate[d]” so that they would acknowledge Jesus as “Savior of all men.”


Despite this, Benedict visited Israel—and spoke warmly of the Jewish state—as well as important synagogues and other Jewish sites around the world, increasing goodwill between Jews and Catholics. Michaels and B’nai B’rith World Center Director Alan Schneider greeted the pope at the Western Wall in Jerusalem in 2009.


“Pope Benedict deserves appreciation for his contributions to the great cause of Catholic-Jewish engagement,” said Mariaschin. “We hope that Benedict’s successor will continue to build upon decades of historic progression in Catholic-Jewish relations.”




What I do not understand is why B’nai B’rith would shelter a man that slandered the Jewish faith and God in his antisemitic writing.


The American principle that Freud believed in was the Pursuit of Happiness. His Principles of Pleasure and Reality revealed pure happiness at first is found by seeking the immediate gratification of pleasure in order to satisfy our instinctual needs. As we mature our ability to better control instinctual urges for pleasure gratification increases. We are able to judge whether the reality of the event transpiring requires deferment of pleasure to a better time. Freud's wisdom is not original thought. Rather it is has been divine discourse in all faiths thousands of years before his time. The only part he does not not understand is pure happiness is controlling our animal desires through devotion to a higher power.


Biva Gita


Bg 13.8-12 — Humility; pridelessness; nonviolence; tolerance; simplicity; approaching a bonafide spiritual master; cleanliness; steadiness; self-control; renunciation of the objects of sense gratification; absence of false ego.



Proverbs 21


21:17 The one who loves pleasure will be a poor person; whoever loves wine and anointing oil will not be rich.


2 Timothy 2


3:1 But understand this, that in the last days difficult times will come.


3:2 For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,


3:3 unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers, without self-control, savage, opposed to what is good,


3:4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, loving pleasure rather than loving God.


Titus 1


2:1 But as for you, communicate the behavior that goes with sound teaching.


2:2 Older men are to be temperate, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.


2:3 Older women likewise are to exhibit behavior fitting for those who are holy, not slandering, not slaves to excessive drinking, but teaching what is good.


2:4 In this way they will train the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children,


2:5 to be self-controlled, pure, fulfilling their duties at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the message of God may not be discredited.


2:6 Encourage younger men likewise to be self-controlled,


2:7 showing yourself to be an example of good works in every way. In your teaching show integrity, dignity,


2:8 and a sound message that cannot be criticized, so that any opponent will be at a loss, because he has nothing evil to say about us.


I wonder if all those wonderful people praying in memory of a great icon realize what great damage Freud did to Moses and their great faith.


The seventh day of the Jewish month of Adar, which fell this year on February 17, is known to Jews as the day of Moses’s passing. Traditionally, Jews visit the grave of prophets and righteous people on the anniversary of their passing to pray.


However, Jewish sages teach that God hid the location of Moses’s resting place from mankind to prevent it from becoming a place where people would worship Moses. Since we cannot visit his resting place, where do we go when we want to give thanks to God for this man who was the great leader of the Jewish people?


For hundreds if not thousands of years, Jews have gone to the grave of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai on the day of Moses’s passing. Why? Well, Moses gave us the Five Books of Moses – the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible – to help us understand God’s laws and how we are to keep them. Jews believe that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai revealed the hidden meaning of the Five Books of Moses, which is known as the Kabbalistic tradition of Judaism. Therefore, Jews have always considered these two spiritual giants to be intrinsically connected.





Without faith in the wisdom of God, morality is dictated by the ever changing currents of society constructing a false ego that supersedes our instincts of what is bad and what is good. I am quite sure that most Americans do not even know that Freud despised the ideals of our Republic.


Sigmund Freud hated America. He couldn’t stand being called “Sigmund” by his informal hosts. He believed that Americans had channeled their sexuality into an unhealthy obsession with money. And he seethed at his own need for the dollars that we had in such unseemly abundance. “Is it not sad,” he wrote to a German friend after World War I, “that we are materially dependent on these savages, who are not a better class of human beings?”


But while Freud loathed all things American (except its currency), the feeling was anything but mutual. “No nation outside of Germany and Austria was more hospitable to psychoanalysis than America,” notes Mark Edmundson in “The Death of Sigmund Freud” (2007). Freud may even have anticipated the eagerness with which Americans would embrace his theories. “We are bringing them the plague,” he reportedly told colleagues when disembarking in New York. “And they don’t even know it.”




Dr. William Alanson White helped homogenize Freudian psychoanalysis, or "talk therapy," in the United States.


Founded in 1855 as the Government Hospital for the Insane, the hospital's mission, as defined by mental health reformer and founder Dorothea Dix, was to provide "humane care" and "enlightened curative treatment" for "the insane of the Army, Navy, and District of Columbia." During the Civil War, when it served as a hospital for wounded soldiers, the soldiers did not want to say they were in an insane asylum, and instead said they were at St. Elizabeths, the colonial name for the land where the hospital is located, overlooking the point where the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers meet. Congress officially changed the name in 1916. At its height in the 1940s, the complex covered over 300 acres and housed 7,000 patients.


Dr. William Alanson White was superintendent of St. Elizabeths from 1903 until his death in 1937. His tenure there coincided with a 34-year time span that provided a historic and unprecedented transition in the understanding and treatment of mental illness. Dr. White helped introduce Freudian psychoanalysis, or "talk therapy," in the United States and embraced it as a theory and treatment method. He converted St. Elizabeths from a prison-like setting in which physical restraints and sedatives were used to control its patients to one that resembled a college campus—complete with classes, a beauty parlor, gardens, and recreational activities




I wonder whether the devil is that cunning in crafting a false reality that man is god or is he just as upset that people are no longer believing in him too.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Poseur




Sit around and watch the phone, but no one's calling

Call me pathetic, call me what you will

My mother says to get a job

But she don't like the one she's got

When masturbation's lost its fun

You're fraking lonely.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The intentions of the cybernetic totalist tribe are good. They are simply following a path that was blazed in earlier times by well-meaning Freudians and Marxists - and I don't mean that in a pejorative way. I'm thinking of the earliest incarnations of Marxism, for instance, before

Stalinism and Maoism killed millions.


Movements associated with Freud and Marx both claimed foundations in rationality and the scientific understanding of the world. Both perceived themselves to be at war with the weird, manipulative fantasies of religions. And yet both invented their own fantasies that were just as weird.


The same thing is happening again. A self-proclaimed materialist movement that attempts to base itself on science starts to look like a religion rather quickly. It soon presents its own eschatology and its own revelations about what is really going on - portentous events that no one but the initiated can appreciate. The Singularity and the noosphere, the idea that a collective consciousness emerges from all the users on the web, echo Marxist social determinism and Freud's calculus of perversions. We rush ahead of skeptical, scientific inquiry at our peril, just like the Marxists and Freudians. - Jaron Lanier, You are Not a Gadget


Jaron Lanier s an American computer scientist, best known for popularizing the term virtual reality (VR). Lanier is popularly known for his skepticism about claims sometimes made about progress in computing and about the internet. His book, You Are Not a Gadget (2010), is a critique of Web 2.0.got him nominated in the TIME 100 list of most influential people.


In his book You Are Not a Gadget (2010), Lanier criticizes the hive mind of Web 2.0 (wisdom of the crowd) and describes the open source and open content expropriation of intellectual production as a form of "Digital Maoism". Lanier argues that Web 2.0 developments have retarded progress and innovation and glorified the collective at the expense of the individual. He criticizes Wikipedia and Linux as examples of this problem; Wikipedia for its "mob rule" by anonymous editors, the weakness of its non-scientific content, and its bullying of experts. Lanier also argues that there are limitations to certain aspects of the open source and content movement in that they lack the ability to create anything truly new and innovative. For example, Lanier makes the observation that the open source movement didn't create the iPhone, but it did create Android. In another example, Lanier claims that Web 2.0 makes search engines lazy, destroys the potential of innovative websites like Thinkquest, and hampers the communication of ideas like mathematics to a wider audience. Lanier further argues that the open source approach has destroyed opportunities for the middle class to finance content creation, and results in the concentration of wealth in a few individuals—"the lords of the clouds"—people who, more by virtue of luck rather than true innovation, manage to insert themselves as content concentrators at strategic times and locations in the cloud.


In the two decades I have watched closely and found that anonymity can be very valuable in furthering a free and open discourse. I do feel that the United States is taking a similar route to China's Internet censorship that forces forums to verify the identify of a commenter before permitting the post. I feel in a sense having the ability to anonymously post on Wikipedia allows the information to grow and posters to gain respect through sharing information and discourse. But, in the same aspect, content sites like Wikipedia, should not be considered the bible to everything.


Our freedom to speak out is slowly being removed in cyber-culture. Moderated and automated thought police keeps hostility down, but is that good? Facebook has a very interesting function where you can censor people on your forums without them actually knowing. Google now filters out similar content coming out from the same Internet Provider address range. Thousands of posts have been removed from this forum for not following our guidelines as well. At the same time these major harvesters of information do not reveal who they are censoring and their methods of filtering.


Our site quality algorithms are aimed at helping people find "high-quality" sites by reducing the rankings of low-quality content. The recent "Panda" change tackles the difficult task of algorithmically assessing website quality. Taking a step back, we wanted to explain some of the ideas and research that drive the development of our algorithms.


Below are some questions that one could use to assess the "quality" of a page or an article. These are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves as we write algorithms that attempt to assess site quality. Think of it as our take at encoding what we think our users want.


Of course, we aren't disclosing the actual ranking signals used in our algorithms because we don't want folks to game our search results; but if you want to step into Google's mindset, the questions below provide some guidance on how we've been looking at the issue:

  • Would you trust the information presented in this article?
  • Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
  • Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
  • Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
  • Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
  • Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
  • Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
  • Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
  • How much quality control is done on content?
  • Does the article describe both sides of a story?
  • Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
  • Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
  • Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
  • For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
  • Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
  • Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
  • Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
  • Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
  • Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
  • Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
  • Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
  • Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
  • Would users complain when they see pages from this site?



All of that makes great sense it that was the absolute truth. Digital technology has given us a massive expansion of human control over data and information. What I worry about is abuse of controlling information. Google does its job data harvesting and organizing so well that no one can compete with it. The cream of good data theoretically floats to the top. But, at the same time Google promises nothing to anyone. So what Google giveth, Google taketh away with little to any input from society.


What happens when all these to big to fail cyber networks get corrupted by bottom line profit margins.


Since 2008, there has been a steady flow of cash, personnel, and technology from Google’s California headquarters to the White House. Google employees have given the President over $1.5 million in combined donations. In fact, they were his fourth-largest source of cash in 2008, and in third-largest in 2012. Google’s biggest contribution however was the specially-designed technology, not yet available to the public, that allowed Obama to connect with voters in ways his opponents could not.


The sad truth is that this settlement is just the latest, amid a long line of examples, in what has emerged as the cornerstone of Google’s Obama-era business model: break the law, or make the law, in a way that shackles opponents, while boosting their own bottom line – without suffering any real consequences.


While Google scratched Obama’s back, the favor has been returned in spades. It has happened with “net neutrality” regulations and rigged spectrum auctions being pushed through at the FCC, and in addition to this latest settlement, the DOJ’s voluntary 2011 settlement with Google over additional illegal advertising practices.


Some conservatives like Google, hate regulators, and therefore look favorably on the company’s string of free passes. But Google opposes big government only when it restricts Google, and the Obama administration has no commitment to regulatory restraint. Google, like Halliburton, should play by the same rules as everyone else.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

With advances of technology we can now see an aerial view of our home from satellite, virtually on the ground in 360 degrees. People are texting and sexting each other while they are walking and driving.


In less than a year computer glasses will be out photographing and videoing everyone around sending time date stamped media with global locations to public cloud computer databases that organize information for public and private applications. Instantly a stranger will be recognized from the cloud database. You may or may not get access to who that stranger is, but those who own and share the data will.



Whether we like it our not Big Brother is now everyone. Big Everyone can predict what you will do before you think it. Predictable recordable outcomes are the future of us all if do not change our thinking.




Imagine accessing all cloud databases within a predicted global location where a suspect hangs out based on all the recorded time stamped areas posted on social networks (Facebook, Google Circles, etc). What other patterns can be seen. Maybe you hang out those same places. Now you are put on the watch list. You movements are tracked who you interact with are tracked and analyzed.


Galatians 2


2:4 Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Who will be watching Big Everyone to make sure your civil liberties are not infringed upon? Government and corporate surveillance will be increasing their monitoring soon. Remember to wave at all the cameras.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAW

Dispel the myths and work from the truth.


Remarks by General Counsel Rajesh De at Georgetown University


False Myth #1: NSA is a vacuum that indiscriminately sweeps up and stores global communications.


This false myth reflects the misguided idea that NSA can and does pick up any communication, any place in the world, at any time. Put differently, this false myth presumes that NSA’s discretion is the only meaningful limitation on the scope and scale of its global operations. This myth, however, ignores the reality of the legal, policy, and mission landscape within which NSA operates.

First, all intelligence activities of NSA must be properly authorized pursuant to the law and must be conducted in accordance with the law. Though this statement may sound simple, it is quite powerful. NSA only operates under positive authority—if the law does not affirmatively authorize NSA to take an action, the Agency cannot do it. Moreover, NSA must conduct authorized activities in accordance with applicable legal constraints—including those embodied in the Constitution, federal statutes, Executive Orders and other Presidential directives, as well as relevant regulations and guidance—that may limit NSA’s exercise of its authorities. How NSA conducts its activities is just as important as whether it may do so, and NSA must be able to affirmatively point to the source of its authority for any activity.


As noted earlier, NSA is a foreign intelligence agency. Executive Order 12333 defines foreign intelligence as “information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, foreign persons, or international terrorists.” This language largely mirrors that which Congress adopted in the National Security Act of 1947. FISA contains a more intricate definition of foreign intelligence information for the specific purposes of that statutory scheme, but all support the same overall conclusion—NSA’s mission is neither open-ended, nor is it discretionary. NSA may only collect signals intelligence for a foreign purpose.


Second, NSA does not independently set its foreign intelligence collection requirements. NSA’s collection is driven by the requirements of U.S. policymakers and warfighters, as established through the Executive Branch and funded by Congress. For example, NSA’s collection priorities are approved by the President every six months as part of the National Intelligence Priorities Framework. In accordance with those priorities, U.S. policymakers, agencies, and the military submit their specific intelligence requirements to NSA through a formal National SIGINT Requirements Process. This process is an important policy means by which the ocean of big data is further refined for NSA’s collection efforts.


Finally, from a mission perspective it would be ineffective and inefficient—indeed, it would be counterproductive—to simply collect and store as much information as possible, even absent any legal or policy constraints. This simple reality has never been more evident than in the era of big data. Every day at NSA, conversations take place about whether, even within the bounds of these legal and policy constraints, it makes sense to collect, use, or retain certain information. Simply put, it would be neither feasible nor desirable to just drain the ocean of big data into a government pool of big data.


False Myth: #2: NSA is spying on Americans at home and abroad with questionable or no legal basis.


This false myth reflects both deep philosophical distrust of the secretive NSA by some, and the reality that signals intelligence activities, unlike some other intelligence activities, inevitably implicate the privacy rights of U.S. persons. It also reflects more recent controversy over so-called “warrantless wiretapping” under the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). Without getting into details about the TSP (the authorization for which ended in 2007, but much of which is still classified and the subject of litigation) or FISA (an intricate statutory scheme), I would like to make a few general points about our current operations to help dispel this myth.


First, without an individualized determination of probable cause by a federal judge, NSA does not target the communications of any unconsenting U.S. person anywhere in the world when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes in the United States (note that pursuant to statute and regulation, under certain emergency scenarios the Attorney General can make an initial finding of probable cause, but if within the purview of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court must subsequently make that determination).


One point worth highlighting in particular is that, amidst the controversy over the recent amendments made to FISA in 2008 and reauthorized in 2012, an important change was made: targeting a U.S. person abroad now requires a probable cause finding by a federal judge, whereas previously it could be approved by the Attorney General alone under Executive Order 12333.

Second, under even one of the more controversial provisions of the recent FISA amendments, Section 702, where no individualized probable cause finding is required, express limits were enacted:

  • Section 702 may only be used to target non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

  • Section 702 may not be used to intentionally target any person in the United States or a U.S. person outside the United States.

  • Section 702 may not be used to conduct “reverse targeting”—i.e., targeting of a person outside the United States if the purpose is to target a particular, known person inside the United States.
  • Section 702 may not be used to intentionally acquire a “wholly-domestic communication”—i.e., a communication where all communicants are inside the United States.
  • Section 702 must be implemented in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Third, to the extent that information to, from, or about U.S. persons is acquired incidentally as part of NSA’s foreign intelligence mission, there are specifically-tailored and externally-approved rules in place to address the collection, handling, use, and destruction of such information consistent with the Fourth Amendment. These rules are called “minimization procedures.” Although public dialogue has more commonly concerned the procedures required by statute (minimization procedures are required by FISA, which must be approved by the FISC), NSA has in fact long been required by Executive Order 12333 and Department of Defense regulation to handle U.S. person information in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General and consistent with the Fourth Amendment.


FISA defines minimization procedures generally as “specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information.” Not much has been disclosed about the details of these procedures to avoid providing a roadmap to spies, terrorists, and foreign governments looking to circumvent U.S. intelligence efforts, but I would like to make a few general points here.

  • The underlying presumption for minimization procedures—that information to, from, or about U.S. persons inevitably will be acquired during the course of foreign intelligence activities—has been anticipated and accepted by all three branches of our government for decades. The legislative requirement for court-approved minimization procedures dates back to 1978, and the executive branch has required Attorney General approved procedures for the handling of U.S. person information since at least the signing of Executive Order 12333 in 1981.

  • Minimization procedures are multi-faceted in that they are designed to address each stage of the intelligence process—from acquisition to use to dissemination to retention of information. Such procedures should be considered holistically, with interrelated constraints that span across the entire intelligence process. These constraints may be procedural, technological, or substantive limits on how information may be acquired, how it may be handled, who may see it, or when it must be destroyed. Significantly, FISA provides that the dissemination of information about U.S. persons is expressly prohibited unless it is necessary to understand foreign intelligence or assess its importance; is evidence of a crime; or indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm.

  • Minimization procedures are specifically tailored—in other words, there is no one-size fits all set of procedures for all data for all time. As FISA states, these procedures must be “reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance.” Relevant to such analysis would be considerations about the intrusiveness of the surveillance techniques involved; the nature of the data acquired; the reason for the acquisition; and the likelihood of any incidental U.S. person information.

These procedures are one means by which the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of U.S. person information can be appropriately protected even in the era of big data.


False Myth #3: NSA operates in the shadows free from external scrutiny or any true accountability.


This false myth is obviously a product of the necessarily secretive nature of NSA’s day-to-day operations. There is no doubt that in a democracy like ours, an important form of accountability is public transparency. However, it is absolutely essential not to assume that the legitimacy afforded by public transparency is the only way to achieve accountability, which may—in fact, must, with respect to NSA—primarily be achieved through alternate means. There is no perfect substitute for public transparency in a democracy; but when there is also no way to provide information to those whom you seek to protect without also providing it to those from whom you seek to protect them, we must largely rely on such alternate means of accountability.


It is evident to me that I am the General Counsel for one of the most highly regulated entities in the world. It is a reality that most audiences cannot appreciate given the classified nature of intelligence work. Given NSA’s unique mission, however, it makes perfect sense. NSA is part of the Department of Defense as well as the Intelligence Community. This means that NSA is subject to the relevant rules and regulations for DOD as well as to those applicable to other members of the IC. More broadly, NSA is subject to a spectrum of detailed scrutiny from across all three branches of government as a matter of law, policy, and practice. First, within the executive branch alone, NSA is responsible to multiple stakeholders, including:

  • internal oversight officials, including an Inspector General to whom Congress recently provided independent statutory authority under the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act;
  • the Department of Defense, which pursuant to presidential directive and statute exercises supervisory authority over NSA, to include officials such as the Assistant to the Secretary for Intelligence Oversight, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the General Counsel, and the DOD Inspector General;
  • the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which pursuant to presidential directive and statute is responsible for coordination of the Intelligence Community, and has an oversight role with respect to certain FISA activities, to include its own General Counsel, Inspector General, and Civil Liberties Protection Officer;
  • the Department of Justice, which by statute also has an oversight role with respect to certain FISA activities, and to which NSA like other intelligence agencies is obligated by statute and Executive Order 12333 to report violations of federal law;
  • the White House, to include the National Security Council, the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, and the Intelligence Oversight Board, to whom NSA like other intelligence agencies is required to report “any intelligence activities . . . that they have reason to believe may be unlawful or contrary to executive order or presidential directive”; and
  • independent entities such as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Second, apart from the multiple layers of accountability within the executive branch, NSA is by law accountable to the legislative branch. As a member of the Intelligence Community, NSA is required by law to keep the intelligence oversight committees of the Senate and House of Representatives “fully and currently informed” with respect to the Agency’s activities. Given the unique role of NSA and the range of its activities, however, oversight is exercised as well by a host of additional committees as diverse as the armed services, judiciary, and homeland security committees of both chambers of Congress. NSA, for example, is required by statute to provide both the intelligence and judiciary committees a copy of any decision, order, or opinion of the FISC that includes “significant construction or interpretation” of any provision of FISA. NSA also keeps Congress apprised of its activities routinely via testimony at open and closed hearings; formal notifications; other written submissions; informal briefings, visits; and other means. In other words, we interact with our Congressional overseers virtually every day.


Third, NSA is directly accountable to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for those activities conducted pursuant to FISA. The Court is comprised of eleven federal district judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The FISC not only authorizes certain activities pursuant to FISA, but it plays an active and constructive role in ensuring those activities are carried out appropriately. As I noted earlier, it is evident that the manner in which NSA operates is just as important as the authority under which it operates. The rules of the FISC, for example, reflect this commitment in that “f the government discovers that any authority or approval granted by the Court has been implemented in a manner that did not comply with the Court’s authorization or approval or with applicable law,” the government must “immediately” notify the Court. This obligation is one that NSA, together with our partners at the Department of Justice, take seriously every single day.


Finally, NSA traditionally has maintained a strong culture of compliance among its workforce. Employees receive basic mandatory training on NSA’s legal authorities and the procedures that ensure the protection of privacy rights. Personnel also must receive refresher training throughout their career at NSA. Follow-on training can include highly specialized legal and compliance training focused on the specific requirements of the employee’s assigned mission. NSA has also proactively established a corporate Director of Compliance to help ensure that legal, technical, and operational requirements of the mission remain aligned. NSA’s compliance efforts draw from best practices across industry (such as IT security and other heavily regulated industries like healthcare). NSA is actively engaging with the broader compliance community to partner, to share best practices, and to understand emerging trends.





Does the CIA spy on Americans? Does it keep a file on you?


By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA's procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ACLU



Photograph of Dr. Martin Luther King being arrested in 1958 for “loitering” in Montgomery, Alabama


Read the Dangers of Domestic Spying by Federal Law Enforcement,” written

by Marvin Johnson, Legislative Counsel for the ACLU


Here is an excerpt


Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech galvanized many Americans to fight against

the injustice of racial inequality. That speech and his other activities to advocate for equality,

for the rights of the poor and for peace not only changed the course of our history, but also

unfortunately earned him the enmity of our own government. As Dr. King worked for social

justice, the FBI engaged in an orchestrated campaign to ruin him.


The documented excesses of the FBI in targeting groups and individuals like Dr. King because

of their beliefs led to Congressional hearings, and, in 1976, guidelines adopted by Attorney

General Edward Levi. These guidelines regulated FBI activity in both foreign and domestic

intelligence gathering, and made it clear that constitutionally protected advocacy of unpopular

ideas or political dissent alone cannot serve as the basis for an investigation.




Donate to the American Civil Liberties Union today.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think not of life and children first, and of justice afterwards, but of justice first, that you may be justified before the princes of the world below. For neither will you nor any that belong to you be happier or holier or juster in this life, or happier in another. Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws, but of men. But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least of all to wrong, that is to say, yourself, your friends, your country, and us, we shall be angry with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to destroy us. - Socrates, "Crito" by Plato




The God Loving, the Godless, and God Hating must follow the laws of the State. But, the three are currently free to discourse their version of the truth of what is unjust and attempt to get public support to overturn legislation without using a moral argument. All three must show current law or lack of law harms Citizens and guests of the State. This method gives great advantage to Godless proponents over their opposition. For science and logic has little need for morality in its argument, rather it sees practical outcome as its endgame. Although, if God Loving and God hating proponents can demonstrate how laws or lack of law as unjust harms their freedom of religion the is morality must be clearly defined and understood. Like the Godless, the State has no relationship with God. But, if we expose the State to consist of human beings then the God Fearing and God Hating have a chance to appeal to the individual moral conscious of our public leader to the good and evil result of their decision.


This same logic can be applied to corporations as well. There are companies that follow the Golden Rule and there are others that strictly follow profits to stockholders and board members without concern to their employees and their families.


Not long before he embarked on his ill-fated espionage mission in 1775, Nathan Hale purportedly told a friend who thought spying was disgraceful that “Every kind of service necessary to the public good becomes honorable by being necessary.” Although many Americans may think that super-utilitarian calculation has always lain at the heart of the intelligence enterprise, former CIA counterintelligence officer James M. Olson shows in Fair Play that reality is much more complicated ethically when one gets down to cases. Even in the post-9/11 world, when the ends-justify-the-means argument seems more appealing than ever, there remain moral boundaries that intelligence professionals should never cross and many quandaries of conscience they will encounter well before approaching those red lines.


Practitioners, however will not get conclusive guidance from the great philosophers, theologians, and political thinkers. Those eminences from the Great Books canon—as quoted in Olson’s second chapter—run all over the moral map, from Machiavelli (“No good man will ever reproach another who endeavors to defend his country, whatever be his mode of doing so.”) and Cicero (“In times of war, the laws fall silent.”) to Kant (“Among these forbidden means are…the appointment of subjects to act as spies…or even employing agents to spread false news.”) and Pope John Paul II (“…human activity cannot be judged morally good…simply because the subject’s intention is good…”). As Olson points out, “If you pick the right theologian or philosopher, you can defend almost any position….” ( 225)




I would state to Olsen that if you want to follow the bad that is your God-given right and you are free to do it. If you want to follow the good you are free to do it. I personally choose good.


I have been following Declan McCullagh reports on secrecy and surveillance technology for years. New technology can be used for good purposes and bad.


Concern about domestic use of drones is growing, with federal legislation introduced last month that would establish legal safeguards, in addition to parallel efforts underway from state and local lawmakers. The Federal Aviation Administration recently said that it will "address privacy-related data collection" by drones.


The prospect of identifying armed Americans concerns Second Amendment advocates, who say that technology billed as securing the United States' land and maritime borders should not be used domestically. Michael Kostelnik, the Homeland Security official who created the program, told Congress that the drone fleet would be available to "respond to emergency missions across the country," and a Predator drone was dispatched to the tiny town of Lakota, N.D., to aid local police in a dispute that began with reimbursement for feeding six cows. The defendant, arrested with the help of Predator surveillance, lost a preliminary bid to dismiss the charges.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest United Republic

On Saturday, April 13th, hundreds of people dressed as $100 bills will walk and run down lobbyist-infested K Street to the US Capitol building, and for the first time ever, MONEY will be denied entry to Congress. We’ll promptly present a shiny Golden Plaque to the Capitol Police for doing what politicians won’t: keeping money out of Congress.


It will be fun. It will get the media’s attention. But to pull it off, we need to raise $6,000 to buy 600 money costumes.


Will you buy one, five or ten money costumes for our activists to wear? That’s $10, $50 or $100.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Prime Outsourcing

"But, I do hope people of other faiths consider God more just than a blind woman holding scales.


We cannot depend on documents to restore morality in justice. This must come from ourselves.


Our Creator is more than just a metaphor."


I agree. If people will only follow the law - not only the government law but above all God's commandments, this could be a better place. We should stop depending on our own understanding and abuse the power that we have. We should think not only for ourselves, but for others as well.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Thomas

Humanism is a mental virus that is lobotomizing our humanity. We should be discussing the consequences of, atheism generated discrimination and persecution to those that believe.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Within one of our Lakota origin legends, a young Lakota warrior scouted desperately for food as the Hohe (Flathead) closed in on him. Beyond mortal help, he cried out with a prayer, “Great Mystery, allow my brothers and sisters to hear my voice before I am destroyed!” As a traditional Lakota warrior, he recognized his impending death. He cried out “Great messenger whose feathers extend beyond the heavens, remember me!”


The eagle hearing these cries responded, “Brother, I am your sister. I will call upon our family’s strength to save you.” Immediately thereafter, this proud Lakota warrior humbly saw fifty eagles descending. Yet it took only six of the eagles to save this Lakota warrior. They flew him high up in the mountains to the Lakota and the eagles’ ancestral nest. Few among the Lakota today realize the significance of the nest which represents the perfection of the Great Mystery.




This weekend I had the honor of attending a sweat lodge ritual of the Lakota nation sanctioned under Chief Leonard Crow Dog. I was invited to let go of all the things bothering me to the glowing rocks in a pitch black tent. "


The rock nation is the oldest of all nations. They sacrifice themselves to take in your suffering."


As water was poured over the stones, it would transcend into a cloud of steam that surrounded my body. I found the temperature almost unbearable at first, but as I calmed myself I gained a catharsis in the small lodge which had no boundaries. All the people around me were no longer bodies, but invisible spirits sharing wisdom and chanting spiritual songs that cleansed our thoughts in one rhythmic voice. Each one of us in turn was puffed from the Chanupa (ceremonial pipe) to convey our prayers to the Creator. I prayed for my son to get well and special intentions for the rest of my family and friends.


When the tent flap opened I could see a radiant fire lighting a parade of snow flakes falling from the sky. I thought how our life transcends like snow into other forms, but held together by a spirit learning to know itself.


Don Rico shared a profound thought to me. Native Americans did fight over territory, food, and material possessions. But, they never made war over religion. I wonder if the real truth is that we use the sacred ideals of religion and freedom as an excuse to gain territory, food, and material possessions.


A woman by the name of Susan shared a personal epiphany that we should not consider ourselves victims to injustice. Rather we should consider ourselves survivors to a greater justice.


For this experience I am grateful.


"Mitakuye Oyasin" All My Relations



Put your intellect aside and be human.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

To better understand how Sigmund Freud was able to find acceptance within his culture, I am interested in finding what is morality in Humanistic Judaism. It appears that many Jewish Atheists feel comfortable within any of the three major non-Orthodox Jewish denominations (Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist) where belief in God is not a necessary prerequisite to Jewish observance.


What Sigmund Freud had a problem with was three major Orthodox Jewish denominations (Ortho Conservative, Orthodox, and Hasidic) who held firm beliefs like his father.


Being the son of a Deacon, I can understand a child's difficulty of following strict rules of observance to faith. I was surrounded by children of different beliefs and cultures who were more in tune to Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll. I remember a time when my Dad grounded me for coming home late. My response was an act of defiant rebellion. I locked my bedroom door and cranked up ACDC as loud as the stereo would go.




My father injured my pride and in turn my pride tried to punish him for it. Sigmund Freud did the same thing in a more introspective way. His deconstruction of the History of Jewish faith was the result of an angry egomaniac trying his best to punish his father for being a righteous man. The damage I had done had my next door neighbors upset at the Anti Christian Devil Cult music blaring out of my window. The damage Sigmund Freud did was create an Atheist priesthood of psychoanalyst disciples.


Proverbs 16


16:18 Pride goes before destruction,

and a haughty spirit before a fall.







It is interesting to note that Sigmund Freud considered it good for Atheist Jews to raise their children within the Jewish religion for it places a high value on education and scholarly pursuits.


If you do not let your son grow up as a Jew, you will deprive him of those sources of energy which cannot be replaced by anything else.


This is similar to 18th century Deist views of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who rejected the divinity of the bible, but admired the high value of moral teachings within it.


In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. At the short interval since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestley his little treatise of "Socrates and Jesus Compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity as I wished to see executed by someone of more leisure and information for the task than myself. This I now send you as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith which the laws have left between God and himself. Accept my affectionate salutations. - Thomas Jefferson



"And this persuasion [that the Bible is good for you---TVD], with the kind hand of Providence, or some guardian angel, or accidental favourable circumstances and situations, or all together, preserved me through this dangerous time of youth, and the hazardous situations I was sometimes in among strangers, remote from the eye and advice of my father, free from any wilful immorality or injustice, that might have been expected from my want of religion. I say wilful, because the instances I have mentioned had something of necessity in them, from my youth, inexperience, and the knavery of others. I had therefore a tolerable character to begin the world with; I valued it properly, and determined to preserve it." - Benjamin Franklin


From the quotes above, the humanist manifesto, and previous discourse on this topic that past leaders of the Athiest, Agnostic, and Diest movements see the benefit of moral teachings and culture of the main religious faiths.


I conversing with a woman just today on Dharma Judaism. She jokingly called herself a JuBu (Jewish Buddhist)


I go to Dharma teachings all the time...and spirituality and Judaism are both included in the same vein...why not?


I spoke to another woman who a was a HuBu (Humanist Buddhist) her response was quite different.


Me: Do you think it is possible to be both a humanist and spiritual?


Her: Depending how humanistic is your spirituality.


Me: Does the intellect tend to get in the way?


Her: Intellect seems not to go well with spirituality.


Dharma means one that supports divine law. Adharma goes against divine law.


Throughout this discourse I have found many similar truths in other faiths. Being anchored in my own belief of God gives me common understanding how other faiths view our Creator. Therefore, it is theoretically possible that those who have a faith in a higher power have a greater ability to understand and be in communion with other faiths. But, those that lacks faith to understand something outside rational intellect cannot make a spiritual connection. Although, many moral truths can be objectified by Atheist as survival constructs and ways to find peace. As I think mocking my faith to be disrespectful; pushing conversion may be considered equally disrespectful. That is why I consider the Golden Rule so important. This value makes sense to both sides in a respectful way. It is also a path for the Atheist to journey toward salvation it is desired.


Is it possible for an Atheist to place their young in a faith based environment to learn morality? Yes, if Atheist realize and accept that their children will learn about God as well and do not plan on interfering in the spiritual as well as academic teaching process of those that do want their children to believe. The Atheist that plans to teach the non existence of God later in the child's life reminds me of how a female Cuckoo bird lays her egg in Warbler's nest to raise her young.



Children are imprinted with ideas the moment they are born. As they grow the world around them becomes more defined. It is the responsibility of all parents to realize this. Every action is noted.


Is it fair for an Atheist parent to put their child in a religious private school, because the education is good and/or has a practical location?


Where is the benefit to a child that will most likely be ostracized for having a belief different from the rest of the student body and/or possibly rebel against the parent's belief?


Is it fair for a faith based students to tolerate an Atheist student and parents in a faith based school? If they are Christian, the answer is yes.


Luke 15


15:1 Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming to hear him.


15:2 But the Pharisees and the experts in the law were complaining, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”


15:3 So Jesus told them this parable:


15:4 “Which one of you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go look for the one that is lost until he finds it?


15:5 Then when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing.


15:6 Returning home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, telling them, ‘Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost.’


15:7 I tell you, in the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to repent.



Atheist parents and those parents with faith should understand what these two Principles of Humanism really mean.


SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".


TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.


I would state the same is true for a religious person to force their beliefs in a secular system as well. This includes public schools. It is not respectful or fair to impose my belief in a government funded school where the Separation of Church and State prevails. At the same time, the State must be sensitive to forcing my children to do anything that conflicts with their religious beliefs.


It is easy to pluck out moral quotes without understanding the full context of their meaning. Web 2.0 makes it easy to accept the new collective consciousness.


I do not know Josh Billings, but his words I can live by:


Half of the troubles of this life can be traced to saying yes too quickly and saying no soon enough. - Josh Billings


Humanist are not human.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Professor Marvel never guesses. He knows. We must look at any profession that allows the use of imagination instead of reason to make assumptions that may not exist.


I still think I do, but I've given up on the notion of shrinking heads for a living. I've also surrendered to the painfully obvious fact that Psychotherapy is most certainly no 'Science' (though it may qualify as an 'Art') and is a sad species of Profession, offering little of value in return for its amazingly steep fees. Overall I would judge it as valid, helpful and consistent a practice as the fortune‑telling done by the brujas who run little botanicas in marginal urban neighborhoods across the U.S.: the customers are satisfied and keep coming back, but it's difficult for the rest of us to detect any true benefits from these questionable ministrations. - Confessions of an Atheist Priest, Kwazee Wabbitt 1993

I was surprised to listen to a friend who is a neurologist call psychology a 'soft science' to reside in the realm of fantasy with little demonstrable evidence to be considered truth. How much damage can be done if a psychologist does a series of diagnostic tests over a five hour period of time and writes that a patient has a cognitive mental disorder that cannot be described? There are so many outside factors that may cause the patient to not perform well on that particular day. Or biases a psychologist have on a particular patient. What about Psychiatry?






As I continue this discourse I plan to demonstrate that the Schools of Science, Behavior Arts, and Religious Studies to be all considered equal tools to understanding Man's finite's position in infinite creation.


I hope to show the benefits of establishing space for interfaith chaplains and chapels within public schools at no expense to the State. This space is not different than the chapels in hospitals, military bases, and Universities. I believe that any student with a faith should be allowed an alternative to a state hired counselor that may have a conscious or subconscious bias against their beliefs.


Blaise Pascal was a 17th century mathematician, physicist, and famously know for his invention of the mechanical calculator. He also was interested in probability and wagered the existence of God.


If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if he does exist, one will lose everything by not believing,



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.