December 28, 2005 journal, secret mystery Babylon the great has fallen and has become "the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3-For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies". Quoting from Revelation 18-2.

As of January I will refrain from making any political reference and stick to prophecies in writing and in painting. The Antichrist sits on his strong in Rome as a tyrant rules over the merchant world. Mother of harlots has hatched many little harlots in the Protestant faith.

I now quote a humorous writing that describes our situation very well as for the president. Capitol Hill Blue is covering the "revelations" about the NSA spying on Americans real well. Of course anyone who has been paying attention knows that this was going on long before the Chimp ascended to the throne. (but who is to say that makes it right or lawful?)

When does the chimp lie? Every time he opens his mouth! Dealing with a modern King George <capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7910.shtml> By REG HENRY of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Dec 28, 2005. "As I was saying to a fellow peasant just the other day, it is ironic that this country should rebel against one King George only to bow down before another monarch of the same name more than 200 years later. That our own King George - He of the House of Bxuxsh - is truly of royal blood has become clear in recent days with the announcement that he has empowered the National Security Agency to spy on whomsoever and whatsoever it wishes under royal decree. Happily for him if not his subjects, this cannot be challenged by the picky laws and constitutional concerns that rule us poor common folk. It cannot be challenged because he says so, which is the traditional way of kings. Previously, before His Majesty assumed his sovereign powers, the president - as he was then quaintly known - had to go to a secret court if he wanted permission for his agents to snoop on enemies within the realm. The esteemed judges of this court would take out their official rubber stamp, and the matter would be handled satisfactorily for all concerned except for the knaves and scoundrels, hopefully not all of them are Democrats. Although a rubber stamp administered in secret was about the same covering for the civil liberties as a lace pasty applied to an exotic dancer, the common people nevertheless rest-ed easily, because a genuflection had been made to their beloved Constitution. But kings do not bow down before anyone or anything. It is for us, the commoners, to prostrate ourselves before their highnesses. Thus did King George decree that it was too risky for the security of his kingdom to rely on a rubber stamp, which, after all, might wear out. Moreover, it was insulting for his agents to be kept waiting while the judges came in from the golf course. So he reasoned that, as he was fighting a war, one that conveniently for him was never going to end, he could do anything he liked because he was the king, or the commander in chief in the old manner of speaking. Laws, shmaws _ what were they to one so noble? Now everything is changed. Faith-based policies have rediscovered the divine right of kings. I hope the royal court realizes that I am writing this in a groveling position like the uncouth but humble person that I am. To show my fealty, I tug my forelock in the old ritual of subservience except that I haven't got a forelock, as a result of male pattern baldness, and therefore, as a substitute, I tug my back mullet-lock in all honor and true obedience. I pray King George for his gentle forbearance because he has said that even discussing his new royal powers may aid the enemy. Of course, the last thing I wish to do is aid the enemy. It's just that the old habit of free speech dies hard. Now that King Geor-ge has enthroned himself, it is only right that he assume the other trappings of monarchy. May I, his lowly and worthless servant, suggest a coat of arms? Perhaps a church built on the ruins of the wall of separation between church and state. Maybe lobbyists rampant on a field of money. His Majesty also needs royal titles tailored to the American context. It is my honor to suggest the following, which I hope the NSA will record to my credit.... Henceforth, throughout the land, let him be proclaimed as His Royal Texas-ship, Defender of the Faith, Interpreter of the Constitution, Protector of the SUVs, Guardian of Malls, Warrior King, Scourge of the Liberals, Bane of the Activist Judges, His Most High Maj-esty and Most Excellent King George W. the First of Many. We beseech you, your kingship, to institute a system of hereditary peerage based upon merit and loyalty (i.e., campaign contributions) so that we peasants will have someone to look up to other than the tawdry celebrities on TV. Sir Rush of Bloviation, Sir Karl of Spin, these will be names to conjure with in the future days of dynasty. Perhaps, as a goodwill gesture, you could name Bill Clinton as a knight of the garter belt. Please, sire, forgive us our petulant Bu-sh-bashing of former days before we realized you wore a crown. Spy on us as much as you want because we understand now that your knowledge of the Constitution is infinitely greater than our own. Indeed, it is good to be the king, at least for the king. Reg Henry is a columnist for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, e-mail address is <rhenry(at)post-gazette.com.>

While die-hard Republicans try to present a unified front in support of President George’s evasion of the law and Constitution in ordering nonstop spying on Americans, splits are showing in the GOP ranks. “What's wrong with it is several-fold,” former GOP Congress-man Bob Barr says of the domestic spying. “One, it is bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without a court order.”

Barr, one of the most conservative members of Congress when he served in the House, leads an increasing group of disenchanted Republicans who have had enough of B-us-h’s misuse of the law and encroachment of civil liberties that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. He has joined with fellow conservative firebrand Phyllis Schlafly and the ultra-liberal American Civil Liberties Union to fight renewal of many of the rights-robbing provisions of the USA Patriot Act. And he’s not alone. Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho and Olympia Snowe of Maine question Bush’s actions along with Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the powerful Senate Jud-iciary Committee. “I have grave doubts as to its applicability,” says Specter. “The Presid-ent’s actions raise very fundamental questions about privacy and the Bill of Rights.” Rep-ublican strategists tell me House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are fighting to hold GOP dissension over the President’s policies in check but they may not be able to keep the anger from spilling over into public view. Frist, hampered by questions over his insider stock sale of Hospital Corporation of America holdings,

couldn’t keep GOP anger from helping derail B-us-h’s push to make the USA Patriot Act a permanent law of the land. “The Wh-it Hous is particularly pis-sed at Frist,” says one longtime GOP consultant. “They want him out as majority leader and a more hardball leader in the style of Tom DeLay in his place.” B-us-h is also angry with Craig, a conser-vative who joined with Democrats in a filibuster to defeat permanent renewal of the Patriot Act. At a meeting recently, B-sh referred to Craig as “a goddamned traitor” and”

told the National Republican Senatorial Committee to start recruiting someone to run against the Idaho Senator in 2008. Such anger against those who dare oppose him is

typical for a President who all too often launches into obscene tirades when his policies are questioned. B-us-h, on many occasions, has called political opponents “traitors” and, in private, refers to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter as a “lily-livered bastard.”

Craig, however, is unfazed by all this and says the Patriot Act “doesn't do enough to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans.” And while Criag, Hagel, Snowe and Specter are willing to speak out publicly about the illegal actions of a President who is a member of their own party, other Republicans stick to grumbling in private–not surprising given the President’s reputation to waging wars on revenge against those who oppose him. “B-us-h may be under siege but he is still the President,” says political scientist Ge-orge Harleigh, who served in the Nixon Administration. “He still has the power to reward those who back his policies and punish those who do not.” Another political scientist, the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato, says B-us-h has problems and knows it. “Things are bad,” Sabato says of B-us-h’s situation. “Really bad.” Sabato says you can tell that B-us-h knows this because it is “written all over” his face when he appears in public. So he has a message for the President. “The lesson is obvious, Mr. President: You're a lot closer to Nixon than you are to Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. And that's not where you want to be. Nixon's second term ended rather badly, as you will recall.” <capitolhillblue.com/art man/publish/article_7909.shtml> Big Brother's deadly reach By MARTIN SCHRAM

Dec 28 We can drop the glittering ball amid the crush in Times Square. We can count the final seconds in the crush-free solitude of our TV parlors. We can wear silly party hats, blow silly noisemakers, kiss significants or strangers, inadvertently miss midnight by falling asleep in our Lazy Boys, or advertently miss it by banishing ourselves early to bed in the

grandiloquent philosophy of, like, whatever. 00> We can ring out 2005 and ring in 2006. But we can't seem to rid ourselves of 1984. Big Brotherism is back in the news. The spec-ter of it surfaced in the last days of the old year and now it's slopping over into the new. It is as though we have all fallen into an Orwell and can't get out. The Big Brother in quest-ion here is the super-secret National Security Agency, America's global stethoscope. Sup-er-secret, that is, until Dec.16, when The New York Times reported that since shortly aft-er 9/11, President Bush has allowed the NSA to electronically eavesdrop on conversations involving individuals inside the United States - without getting a warrant from a judge in a secret court created 3 decades ago for just that purpose. Yes, it revealed some security in-fo about surveillance. But what made this a story that had to be reported was that a pres-ident was deliberately ignoring the law. So the NYTimes reported and now the American people can decide. But faster than you could say "George Orwell, report to rewrite!" the scoop ignited firestorms of criticism and explanation. Distortion became the weapon of choice for Bh bashers and B-h defenders (including Himself). Soon Americans were eaves-dropping on a loud debate about a now-unrecognizable reality. Our job today is to clean up the Old Year's mess by making clear what is really happening and what is not; what is unlawful and what is not; and - mainly – what is needed to keep Americans safe in the global ter-ror age and what is not. The controversy began with a national security need

that is undeniably urgent. Shortly after al Qa-e-da's ter-ror attacks on U.S. soil, computers and cell phones seized in raids on al Qa-ed-a suspects overseas revealed contacts with people in the US. B-us-h sought to immediately begin eavesdropping on those al Q-da-

connected people. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits him to do so instant-taneously-for 48 hours while he seeks a warrant from a secret court that since the 1970s granted more than 18,000 and denied just four. But B>us-h ignored the law, ordering the continued surveillance in a way that, by any definition, is unwarranted. The Critics: Repu-blicans as well as Democrats criticized the president's disregard of the law. But many Democrats labeled it a sweeping program to spy on Americans - that goes too far. It is spying on people in America who, evidence shows, were in contact with suspected ter-ro-rists - and must be monitored. On Dec. 21, a page-one New York Times report headlined "Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls," fan the flames while covering the fire by reporting some NSA intercepts were "purely domestic communications." Example: a foreign-based cell phone thought to be overseas was actually in America and called another U.S.-based person. Technically it was domestic and should have been an FBI snoop under existing rules. Rethink and Reform: The globalization of economics, communications and te-rror-ism, demands that we rethink old rules requiring the NSA to conduct only foreign snoop-ing and the FBI only domestic. (As if the FBI never violated individual's rights!) Consider this: An al Q-da operative in Pakistan e-mails someone in New York, who instantly for-wards it to someone in Chicago. Requiring a bureaucratic handoff in mid-snoop invites

a catastrophic snafu (recall the FBI's pre-9/11 bungling). Our protection comes only from requiring a secret court judge's warrant to eavesdrop. And, of course, our unshakeable trust that our leader will not lie to us. A Guarantee B-us-h cannot Ignore: Our final

word comes not from a mere pundit but from an informed source familiar with B-u-sh's thinking: "... any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're

talking about chasing down te-rro-rists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." The source: B+us+h, speaking in Buf-falo, on April 20, 2004 - more than two years after he had begun ordering wiretaps with-out a court order. (Martin Schram writes political analysis for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail him at martin.schram(at)gmail.com.) "In a political system where retaliate-ion rules, you can’t expose corruption or misdeeds by depending entirely on those willing to allow use of their names. Without anonymous sources, the truth about Watergate would never have emerged. The Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting most often goes to a newspaper story or series of stories that depends heavily on the use of anonymous sources." --DOUG THOMPSON defending his use of anonymous sources to fully out the Chimp.” Such arrogance is history like Newt Gingrich such as this current goofy gopher.

A personal commentary, if you buy the official nine1one story which does not make sense with the ends not meeting, then you may be living in fear of attack by your Arab neighbor.

There has been no attack upon America since not because of our extreme secret security, but because the Moslem agenda has not yet matured even though the personnel is in place.

Even 60 minutes of liberal Columbia Broadcasting gave every clue that Israel is involved.

The beneficiaries of the attack upon the towers are the warlords that occupy the Potomac

and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq for their natural resources including poppy production. Iraq today is not safe "to walk one block". I discovered a strange relationship in the 70s,

when I saw the J-e-ws friendly with Arabs except in the hot spots of Israel, then in recent.