Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    There’s good news and there’s bad news. The bad news is President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton. The good news is Bernie Sanders turned down the vice presidency, in part because Obama refused to remove Wasserman Schultz as chair of the DNC.  This was a good move for Sanders.  As for Obama’s part, it made me see that the U.S. government has nothing worthwhile to say to us. I’ve decided it will no longer be part of this conversation.

    I admit that I considered condemning the government outright, but I won’t because Bernie Sanders is part of it. It’s like that old legend where God promises Lot He won’t destroy the world for the sake of one righteous man.  I do know this is not a perfect analogy—the U.S. government is not the world and I’m not God. And we’d all be very sorry if the world were destroyed.

    But back to the good news. Already I can identify two gifts that we’ve received as a result of Sanders’s campaign. We’ve discovered that the majority of Americans share the same vision of the way forward, and we’ve heard the gospel of Bernie Sanders enough times that we can recite it by heart. May his vision become part of our common understanding of morality.

    Now if I’m sounding like this is over, it’s not over. After everything that’s happened, Bernie Sanders is headed to the last primary in Washington D.C. and as long as he’s in there fighting we have no business getting discouraged.  When this is over we’re going to owe him big time.

    P.S. I was going to stay cool and collected but I’ve changed my mind. I’ve been aware for quite some time that when the powers that be need someone to do their dirty work they make a woman do it. Consider Maricopa County Clerk and Recorder Hellen Purcell, Arizona’s governor Jan Brewer, and Nevada’s Roberta Lang.  It’s occurred to me that Hillary will be the worst bot of all and I’m sorry to say I may be right about that. Check out this video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ5d-CZSYSU

     

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    It looks like the Clinton camp is working its magic in California, however it might still be possible to undo the damage. Poll workers in California are being told that independent voters must vote on provisional ballots. This is wrong. California is an open primary, which means Independents can vote on a regular ballot. If they accept provisional ballots their votes won’t be counted. So…perhaps the Sanders campaign could make a radio announcement aimed at the voters as well as the poll workers? Thanks to Mike Malloy on YouTube for this information and to his source, Greg Palast.((Greg Palast with Denis J. Bernstein, Placebo Ballots: Stealing California from Bernie. Greg Pallast Journalism and Film, June 2. Available: http://www.gregpalast.com/placebo-ballots-stealing-california-bernie-using-old-gop-vote-snatching-trick/#sthash.jp7yNlEv.dpuf)) (Many of the poll-workers are clueless so don’t blame them.  Print the following PDF and take it with you to the polls: http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ccrov/pdf/2016/january/16036em.pdf)

    It is not a pretty sight to see our leaders behave this way, but I suppose a Sanders presidency is just not an option for our globalist masters and so they’ve been forced to show their hand more than usual. It’s my theory that this is all about getting Bill Clinton and his foundation back into the White House. Therefore, I imagine that if something should happen to Hillary’s presidential prospects Bill would sell her out in a heartbeat. If that were to happen the Democratic establishment types who threw their lot in with Hillary would go the unenviable way of opportunists everywhere who chose the wrong side. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    If we believe the media, this election is a battle between individuals and their parties. The media is lying. It’s really a battle between global finance and the people. This would put the supporters of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and the third party candidates on the same side.  A case in point is that the National Resources Development Council has endorsed Hillary Clinton.  ((Jay Taber, A Fixed Mentality. The Wrong Kind of Green. December 1, 2015. Available: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/tag/natural-resources-defense-council/)) The NRDC is represented by the likes of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, and its policies are endorsed by the Green Party. ((III Ecological Sustainability. Available: www.gp.org/ecological_sustainability))

    The most chilling thing about the establishment media’s support of Hillary Clinton is its ability to ignore the threat she poses to the people. However, there’s no need to demonize Hillary. What the establishment is supporting is a takeover by the globalist financiers.

    Hillary Clinton would not have set up a private server without the permission of those she serves. Therefore, we should assume that her masters didn’t care if the Russians, the Chinese, the hackers, and perhaps the tech-savvy ISIS, knew of her business dealings. Obviously, her dealings were beneficial to these parties, or at least they were no threat to them. On the other hand the globalists did object to the American people seeing her emails. Therefore, we should assume that the Clintons’ business dealings were detrimental to the people’s interests. The same arguments can probably be made for the Clinton Foundation.

    At one time we hoped that the FBI would take these pretenders out of the picture, at least for the duration of this election. Who knows, Hillary might welcome this intervention. If she were indicted for following her masters’ orders, they couldn’t blame her for failing to win the White House.

    But what if we were wrong to give up on the FBI? There was that story about how certain agents threatened to resign if nothing came of the investigation, and hints that they might leak information to the press. Of course the leak could easily be denied…

    On May 29, an article on Huffington Post alleged that the FBI recommended an indictment of Hillary Clinton on federal racketeering charges. It was promptly deleted and denied, and the author’s Huffpo account was suspended. But to quote a well-known public figure, ‘what difference could it possibly make at this point?’ Because evidence of racketeering is already in the public domain. The only thing in doubt is the FBI’s recommendation.  And lest Donald Trump get overly excited by this argument, he’s every bit the servant of the globalists that Hillary Clinton is.

    In the end, the most important lesson of this election is almost never mentioned. It’s a measure of whether our leaders value their own legitimacy. A ruler’s legitimacy has always been inseparable from the will of the people, or at least the appearance of the people’s will. If the establishment no longer recognized this, it wouldn’t have bothered with an election at all. And it certainly wouldn’t have negotiated with Bernie Sanders. It’s our job to strengthen these limits.

    As for the global financiers, they actually believe they operate under some kind of immunity. They honestly think standards of accountability don’t apply to them. They’re wrong. Accountability is not something one agrees to. It’s a fact of life. Therefore, not only is the entire premise of the global elite pathological, its new world order is built on sand.

  • Reading Time: 4 minutes

    It’s time to explain my general approach—again. I’ve been rethinking it due to the new developments in this conversation—for example our inclusion of Pope Francis—or maybe I should say his inclusion of us—and my support of a candidate in this presidential election. In the case of the election, I’ve wanted to avoid confusing my opinions with Senator Sanders’s platform. In the case of the Catholic Church I’ve become aware that there are many among us who don’t understand its relevance to the American conversation. But I haven’t given up on women’s rights. The unspoken question remains, can we talk about patriarchy?

    I’ll begin by explaining why I think Americans are fortunate to be invited into the Church’s conversation. I will end with a mention of Plato and his effect on both the Church and women.

    The Church Can Enrich the Conversation

    I’ve already mentioned the biography of Albert Gleizes. After much study and thought I’ve come to the conclusion that without the presence of the French Church and especially its priests, this story wouldn’t have been so rich and meaningful. Of course the same can be said of the artists and writers.

    The priests didn’t lead this conversation—they were a natural part of it because of their closeness to their communities and their interest in the art and culture of those communities. They listened, they invited the artists to teach in a church setting, and they commissioned work. Since reading about this process, the entire French conversation has had a hallowed place in my imagination. Sadly, that world is gone now. It died in World War II. Many people fear that the pre-war confidence in a restoration of order died with the old world. But fortunately, the Church didn’t get the memo. It continued the conversation.

    Vatican II

    “In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War there was a widespread desire within the Roman Catholic Church for a change in the way in which the Church was presented to the world—a desire for greater openness and ‘relevance’ to the conditions of modern life. Its most radical expression in France was the ‘worker-priest movement—the movement of priests who, acutely aware of the divorce of working-class life from the Church, became workers, as indistinguishable as possible from their fellow workers, often actively engaged in the political struggles of the class led by the Communist Party.

    “In art, the post-war period was characterized by a willingness to use well-known, sometimes controversial, artists, giving them considerable freedom, regardless of their own religious beliefs. The two names most prominently associated with this tendency were Fathers Marie-Alain Courturier and Pie Raymond Régamey, both Dominicans. They were to be behind the church at Assy, in the Haute Savoie, built between 1948 and 1950, with work by Léger, Lurçat, Matisse, Chagall, Bazaine and (especially controversial) a crucifix by Germaine Richier. They were also responsible for Matisse’s chapel—realized for the Dominicans—at Vence (1948-51), and for Le Corbusier’s church at Ronchamp (1955) and his Dominican priory at La Tourette (1960).” 1

    A Pattern for Dealing With Disagreement

    Previously I mentioned the theological disagreements that arose from Gleize’s adherence to Rene Guenon. However, it’s important to also mention that these disagreements didn’t end the interaction of Gleizes and the Church. Today, many people associate theology with the Inquisition. I’ve read their articles online.  While the the Inquisition was indefensible, some of the worst events in our history have been a result of getting the theology wrong, so I would argue that it’s a force that must be reckoned with. Whatever hope we have of building a new and better world, it will have to be built with an awareness of the relevance of theology, for better or for worse.

    Authoritarianism Always Finds a Way

    I can argue this another way. When I wrote about our Ayn Rand episode, I argued against her tendency to define her philosophical machinations as morality. I think it’s shocking that we were being fed the doctrines of Ayn Rand by financial institutions that have no concern for us.   Today there are many people slinging a new and improved world view and hoping to get followers. My point here is that none of our current ideas can be taken for granted simply on the claim of rationality or secularization. And if not for our cultural history I would have had no basis for my argument against Rand.

    The Exception of the American Catholic Church

    On a negative note, one concern I have is that the Catholic church takes on a different character depending on its setting and circumstances. I imagine the interwar period in France was a humble time for the Church, and I don’t know if the American Church shares any of the same characteristics, or if it ever did. Thanks to the U.S. bishops, our conversation with the Church has already had a some rude shocks. First we learned that the bishops believe it’s okay to risk the lives of mothers who trust Catholic hospitals to care for them. Second, there was a recent headline about a meeting between the U.S. Bishops and the Mormon Church to discuss shared concerns. Neither of these things increases my confidence in the bishops.

    America’s Use of the Occult in its Medical System

    Hermes in India convinced me that the Devil presides over the medical system. Therefore, I can’t take this news about hospital policies lightly.

    Can We Talk About Patriarchy?

    Here’s my suggestion for an approach to the discussion of patriarchy. One objection to patriarchy is its economics, which I call ‘trickle-up economics’. I would argue that greed was the original motivation for the denigration of women. As long as large amounts of unattached wealth exist in the world, as opposed to being owned by communities (and passed down through mothers), there will be an endless struggle for control of it. I’m sorry to say, Plato’s philosopher-king isn’t coming—just an endless stream of shady characters in expensive shoes. This is the aspect of patriarchy that has to end.

    But is a rejection of Plato the same thing as a rejection of the church’s theology, which depends on Greek thought? Not necessarily. Not unless economic inequality is more of a central tenet of our culture that I realize.  I think you have to look at the whole theological process rather than a single set of ideas from twenty-five hundred years ago.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    When I brought up a previous post, [intlink id=”985″ type=”post”]The American Diamond in the Rough[/intlink], I wasn’t trying to reintroduce the subject of patriarchy. I was focused on campaign strategy. I was looking for a non-confrontational way to respond to the criticism of my objections to the diverting of Sanders’s supporters to Jill Stein. Because the problem with this approach seemed so obvious to me, the personal, confrontational nature of the criticism led me to believe that the problem was more than a simple difference in strategy.

    The critics acted as if this was a question of whether third parties have a place in American politics. (I’ll ignore for now their doubts about the voters’ ability to choose.) For me, this wasn’t a question about third parties. I was objecting to the assumption that Jill Stein is the same as Bernie Sanders, and that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Bernie. Since they are not the same as people or as politicians, this makes no sense as a strategy. Bloggers who claim to be Sanders supporters should be telling people to write in Sanders, not to write in someone else. In fact, they should be telling Jill Stein’s supporters to vote for Sanders. Considering Bernie Sanders’s success so far, it’s more likely that this would lead to his nomination and therefore to the success of the progressive agenda.

    As I write a certain blogger is scolding Senator Sanders again on YouTube for not solving the shocking behavior of the Democratic Party at the Nevada Democratic convention. Unfortunately, I believe she’s laboring under a misunderstanding of what’s really happening here. Does she really believe there’s a simple remedy available to Sanders after party officials revealed themselves to be thugs and called out law enforcement to enforce their thuggery? If so, I’m sorry to be the one to tell her this, but instead of railing against Sanders we should be mourning the end of our democracy because that’s what we’re witnessing here.

    Those who talk about how common sense will prevail and go on about how this must be the end of the evil party, are also mistaken. We’re seeing the fruits of the decades since World War II with numerous treacherous men at the helm of this country.

    On the other hand, if those who are still waiting to vote in their state primaries are too discouraged to vote as a result of what I’ve just said, that would be a mistake. The only other choice we have at this point is to hand it over now rather than in July, and I’d advise against that. Even though I have less confidence now than I’ve ever had before in the FBI’s coming to our rescue, I say let’s finish this. There will be plenty of time to talk about what we’ve learned at the end.

     

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    See also: [intlink id=”985″ type=”post”]The American Diamond in the Rough[/intlink]

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    I realize that I got off on the wrong foot on the last post. I blame the fact that I approached the subject backwards. When I saw that first Chris Hedges interview with Ralph Nader, I didn’t get the part where Hedges was supporting the Green Party. I thought he was promoting Clinton. Obviously if you support a third party candidate, you’re going to support him or her in a presidential election. And I agree with Hedges that something has to be done about the Democratic Party.

    It would be nice if the Green Party people could be more clear about their agenda. It’s true that those on YouTube were trying to be supportive of Sanders for the most part but I guess I haven’t been watching them long enough to notice the Green Party affiliation. I regret getting this wrong, and hope to hear more about the Green party agenda.

  • Reading Time: 3 minutes

    I’ve been enjoying the political commentary on YouTube since I discovered it a few weeks ago, but I’m sorry to have to report a disturbing pattern. Previously I questioned the wisdom of Sanders supporters pushing voters to a third party candidate.  I was talking about a YouTube blogger that I haven’t mentioned on this blog, but I wasn’t aware that he had so much company. Normally I wouldn’t consider this a problem—everyone is entitle to an opinion.  However I think it’s a curious strategy for Bernie Sanders supporters.

    Since then I’ve realized that this has been going on since the beginning of this campaign. I first saw it in the person of Chris Hedges, senior fellow at The Nation Institute, but I didn’t know how to fit it together.  Hedges often interviews Ralph Nader, and they both spend time shaking their heads over Bernie Sanders’ campaign. At first I thought he must favor Clinton. Now I know there’s another rationale, although it will probably end up helping Clinton anyway.

    Hedges thinks that working within the Democratic Party is validating a corrupt party. He prefers third party candidates–the Green Party in particular. However in practice this means running campaigns that have no hope of success and believing that this will eventually topple the establishment. Never mind that the Green Party has been around for decades and still hasn’t managed to do what Sanders has done in one year.

    While Hedges has a right to his opinion, I think pushing this agenda in the middle of a presidential election is either reckless or calculated. I would opt for calculated since Hedges can’t possibly be unaware of its effect on an election.  He’s seen it in action.

    Ralph Nader participated in three presidential campaigns, two of them as a Green party nominee. His most recent effort was the 2000 presidential election, in which he won 2.74% of the popular vote. Some people claim he acted as a spoiler in that election, inadvertently helping to elect George W. Bush. (The Nader-ites deny this.) And there are hints that Nader holds a grudge against Bernie Sanders because Sanders tried to keep him from running.

    The Nation Institute’s Investigative Fund supports the Nation Magazine, among other publications and programs. Chris Hedges and The Nation Magazine are ardent supporters of Occupy Wall Street.  Occupy Wall Street has been taking credit for Bernie Sanders’ campaign but the connection doesn’t really fit.  Not only is the chronology wrong, Occupy gravitates toward the civil disobedience route like Chris Hedges, as opposed to the electoral route.

    These people tend to blame the electorate for the mess this country is in, which in my opinion is a very serious charge that shouldn’t be ignored. The majority of Americans are trying to elect Bernie Sanders, the only candidate who promotes social and economic justice, so on that basis alone their accusation is hard to defend. But the most confusing part is how they seem to go back and forth between a strict party ideology and a tear-down-the-party ideology.  Or rather, they want to replace one party with another party on the one hand, and ignore the electoral process in favor of civil disobedience on the other hand.

    This has never been about the Party for me. It’s been about taking advantage of the opportunity that Bernie Sanders represents. In my view he’s the right guy in the right place at the right time to address the threats we face. However Hedges and associates put party structure and political theory first.  They want a candidate who fits their ideology–not a real person like Sanders, who has been holding on to his principles while working within the system as he found it. They’re all theory.

    Think about it this way. If Clinton’s and Sanders’ policies were exactly the same except that Sanders chose to run his campaign without corporate financing, I’d consider him the superior candidate on that basis alone. Campaign finance is a key issue and affects everything else.  Sanders was the only candidate willing to run without corporate help.

    Or…if Clinton’s and Sanders’ policies were exactly the same except for the fact that Clinton chose to hide her actions as Secretary of State from the American people, I would vote for Bernie Sanders on that basis alone. That kind of secrecy while serving in such an important office is a red flag for democrats everywhere.

    Ideological purity during an election takes on a different meaning than it would have had in the absence of an election.  And it raises serious questions about motive. Nothing Hedges says can qualify as neutral in this election because there’s an elephant in the room–the candidates who stand to benefit from his criticism of Bernie Sanders.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute
    1.  People who criticize Bernie Sanders because he’s not radical enough.
    2.   People who give Occupy Wall Street credit for creating Bernie Sanders. These are often the same people who think Sanders is not radical enough.
    3. People who play the role of America’s honorary lefty, usually at the behest of the people mentioned above. Their job is to come out on cue and criticize any candidates who threaten the establishment.
    4. People who tell Sanders’ voters that in the event Sanders is not the nominee, they should write in Sanders’ or Jill Stein. This is not a strategy unless your goal is to take votes away from Sanders. By the way, how did Jill Stein manage to attach herself to Sanders’ campaign? Talk about a free-rider!
    5. People who claim to be on our side, and then react to strategy suggestions like they’re personal attacks.
    6. People whose personal pride is more important to them than the conversation.
    7. People who openly call the electorate ‘ignorant’, which is not even close to the spirit of this conversation as I understand it.
    8. People who publicly blame our candidate for widespread election fraud, potentially causing doubt among his supporters, which makes no sense considering the process for addressing election fraud is defined by statute in each state, meaning that avenues for recourse are constrained by these statutes. The case of New York should illustrate how blaming a candidate is nonsense. All we really need to know here is that a candidate can’t initiate a re-canvas in New York, except in village elections. However, I’ll also mention the two law suits and the audit that have been initiated in new York, and which are going forward as they should, without Sanders’ input.

    Have a safe and uncluttered primary day everyone.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    I’m finally listening to the last debate—I can never get CNN’s live stream to work so I have to wait for it to be posted on YouTube. Sadly, it feels like torture to listen to it. I know that if New Yorkers voted today, and if it was a fair vote, Bernie would win. To put it more bluntly, I know he would be ahead already if not for all the tricks. So when Hillary lays claim to Bernie’s policies, it sounds like she’s laughing at the very idea of authenticity—it sounds as if she’s mocking us. She’s laughing at the idea of truth.

    During this election we’ve been hearing a lot about how her foreign policy decisions made things worse in the Middle East instead of better, and how these decisions have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. In her own defense she’s said that her vote on Iraq was a mistake and also that it’s too early to tell how Libya will turn out. Many have expressed concern that she seems poised to handle Syria in the same way, but of course her supporters are not concerned at all. They seem to have no objection to her recklessness. Maybe if they were confronted with the domestic meddling that Hillary carried out as a civilian they would have to admit there is something deeply troubling in this candidacy.

    In 1993 when Hillary Clinton was first lady she was largely responsible for the tragedy at Waco, Texas in which members of the Branch Davidians, many of them women and children, were burned to death in their compound.((Linda Tripp—Hillary Ordered Waco Slaughter and Clinton Abused Monica, rense.com. Available: http://www.rense.com/general8/tripp.htm))

    According to Linda Tripp, Janet Reno begged aides for a reason not to proceed with the orders she received from first lady Hillary Clinton, but she was finally forced to launch a military-style teargas attack, after which a U.S. army tank rammed the building and inserted flammable gas. That’s what started the building on fire. Vince Foster was devastated over this outcome and he was dead three months later, supposedly from suicide. However, according to Tripp Hillary seemed unmoved by it.

    This shouldn’t be surprising considering that during the standoff Hillary did what she could to make her cowboy approach acceptable to the public. According to Steve Barry, a retired, long-time member of Army Special Forces, Hillary put together a “crisis center” on her own initiative, and it was this crisis center that sent out accusations of “child abuse” by adult members of the sect, including leader David Koresh.

    As frightening as Clinton’s foreign policy exuberance is, this story suggests that her behavior is motivated by an equal opportunity character flaw—a character flaw that includes domestic policy.

    The Clintons didn’t have to do any of this—it was a calculated political decision. President Clinton and Hillary were embarrassed politically by the standoff so they pulled out all the stops, even sending the Combat Applications Group of Fort Bragg, N.C. ((Mike Blair, Military Unit Responsible at Waco. The Forbidden Knowledge. Available: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/military_unit.htm))

    Later they claimed Delta Force had an advisory role, but this claim has been contradicted. Delta Force had a direct operational role according to Barry, and as such it violated Posse Comitatus which outlaws the use of Army forces to enforce civilian law. Bill Clinton’s order for Army involvement at Waco was a high crime or misdemeanor and therefore, an impeachable felony offense.

    Meanwhile, the recorded debate is still playing in the background. I can hardly believe my ears—Hillary is trashing Senator Sanders over his gun policies!

error: Content is protected !!