Friday, July 18, 2008
Johanna Rodoni will run
In the WTF? department is this passage:
“I am hoping to be on the ballot in November,” Johanna said.As I've said before, there shouldn't even be write-ins in a run-off, but unless somebody files a court challenge the state and local elections departments are basically allowing Johanna's (or anybody else's) write-in candidacy. The article states nothing about Johanna's legal argument. And whether she's actually on the ballot or as a write-in, somebody's bound to file a legal challenge either before or after the election, no matter who wins.
But whether or not voters in Fortuna and areas south will see her name next to candidates Clif Clendenen and Estelle Fennell on the ballot hinges on a legal opinion being considered by California’s Legislative Council, which is expected any day.
What a mess.
We have qualified candidates for this office. We don't need unqualified opportunists.
We know that you are a big Clif supporter so are you going to be the one who files a lawsuit? Or are you just trying to stir up a little business?
I am not anticipating any lawsuit regarding Rodoni, because such would have to be based on the law, and the law doesn’t stop her from running.
Just a suggestion Eric, one that might save you a little embarrassment later on. Try keeping your mouth shut and not type any blog entries until after you find out the legal basis. Every time you shoot from the hip and get shown to be wrong is pretty funny.
How lame is that?"
Well, in all fairness, you did that yourself when you said she could not run.
I can't see that there's any legal basis to have Johanna's name on the ballot itself and I guarantee that someone will file suit there if she managed to win.
But it'll all probably be moot. Clif will win at least the plurality in the general. If he wins over half, there won't be a basis for any lawsuit.
I'm way too lazy to find it, but it's here, and I'm not even sure you responded to it.
Oh for Chirst sakes at least read the decision in Bradley. The issues were completely different. In Bradley, two election contests were filed concerning the results of a runoff election for mayor and for one city council seat. The trial court granted the election contest concerning the mayoral race, removing the winning candidate and replacing him with the losing candidate, on the ground that the city clerk had improperly placed the winning candidate first on the runoff ballot. The trial court also granted the election contest concerning the city council race. The court found that the winning candidate had committed election offenses. It annulled her election, replaced her with the losing candidate on the ground of a ballot name-order error by the clerk, and declared the candidate whose election had been annulled ineligible ever to hold public office again.
As to the mayoral election, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and reinstated the winning candidate as mayor. As to the city council race, the court affirmed the portion of the judgment annulling the winning candidate's election for having committed offenses against the elective franchise, but reversed the portion of the judgment for the challenger based on the name-order change, and further reversed the portion of the judgment imposing the lifetime elective office disqualification. The court held that the city clerk properly used the same random alphabetized draw for ballot placement in the runoff election as he had in the primary election. The court said that a runoff election is merely the second round of voting in a single election, and therefore, Elec. Code §§13112 and 13113, does not require the clerk to request a new randomized alphabet draw for the runoff election. The court further held that the trial court properly annulled the city council candidate's election on the basis of the election offenses, even though it did not find that the offenses would have changed the result of the election. However, the trial court erred in awarding the city council seat to the losing candidate on the basis of the primacy effect theory (the candidate listed first wins a certain number of votes simply because of ballot placement). The court held that no judicial or statutory authority exists to reverse the election results where, due to unintentional clerical error, the ballot listed the candidates in the wrong alphabetical order. Finally, the court held that the lifetime elective-office disqualification should not have been imposed, since the candidate disqualified by the trial court had not been convicted of a felony under Elect. Code, 18501.
Now in Edelstien, the question presented by the case was whether former City and County of San Francisco, Cal., Charter art. XIII, § 13.102 (repealed Mar. 5, 2000), by prohibiting write-in voting in runoff elections for municipal offices, violated the free speech clause of Cal. Const. art. I, § 2(a). The state supreme court reviewed and determined that Govt Code 15430 allowed for write in votes in a general election and then reviewed the matter to see if the charter violated the constitution. The court concluded it did not. Those challenging the measure entirely failed to supply the court with cogent reasons to conclude that disallowing write-in voting in runoff elections violated the free speech clause of the California Constitution. San Francisco allowed write-in voting in its municipal general elections.
Now Eric - since the Supremes recognized that 15430 allows write in candidates in general elections AND that it constitutionally permissible for a municipality to pass local legislation to prohibit it, then given the fact that there is NO SUCH PROHIBITION in this county and 15430 is still in effect, do you want to say "oops," you made a mistake OR are you going to continue to try and justify a very lazy attempt to spin things your own way?
Now, lets all be nice and play fair.
Wed Jun 11, 03:09:00 PM"
In addition to what I posted at 3:09, I forgot to respond to what you earlier posted about using cases for issues other than what was decided in the specific case.
May I quote: County of Ventura v. Channel Islands Marina, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 615, 626 [“[A] case is not authority for matters not discussed therein.”
or maybe Contra Costa Water Dist. v. Bar-C Properties, 5 Cal. App. 4th 652 and Palmer v. Ted Stevens Honda, Inc. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 530, 539 [238 Cal.Rptr. 363].) "Opinions are not authority for issues they do not consider."
What did you learn in law school? This is basis stuff Eric.
Now back to work friends and remember to play fair.
Wed Jun 11, 03:24:00 PM"
Go Johanna! If you're allowed your name on the ballot you're a sure winner in November! And even if handicapped as a write-in candidate, you can probably top the other two contenders in November.
I will be rooting and tooting for ya and giving these Proggie anti-Democrats something to think about every time they post another anti-democracy, anti-community topic or comment. At least while I can. Eric may take the Heraldo chickenshit path and go WordPress so he can censor opposition voices like me.
The principle of Edelstein and Bradley overturns the Attorney General decision of 1982 which stated pretty much that the right to a write-in in any election trumps the run-off provision. This was the only decision on point before Edelstein. What Edelstein did was to state that a runoff provision which excludes write-ins does not frustrate the right to a write-in because the run-off is merely the second part of the same election.
So the operative question is whether the state run-off provisions exclude write-ins. That's the only relevant question which has not been decided, Deukmejian having been overturned on his assumption of a right to a write-in in both phases of the runoff. The ONLY issue left is whether section, I think it was 8141, I can check it later, excludes write-ins in the second phase.
My argument is that the wording, which states whom the candidates "shall be" implicitly excludes write-ins in the second phase for several reasons.
1. It states whom the candidates "shall be," and provides no explicit provision for write-ins.
2. The provision, and in fact the whole statute string, is rendered meaningless if the first the phase of the run-off has no purpose.
3. The old version of the statute before it was amended in 1960 stated specifically that the first round decides which names shall be placed on the ballot, which did leave it open for write-ins. It was amended eliminating that sentence and replacing it with wording telling us whom the candidates will be, not merely whom will be listed on the ballot. When a law is rewritten, there is a presumption that the rewrite was intentional and done with a purpose in mind.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who has been interviewed by the Times Standard or KMUD, and nobody from either the state or local elections department, has addressed the actual wording of the statute. Nobody. Never. Nowhere.
And to answer a previous question, no, the Secretary of State's office has not gotten back to me. Not even with a form letter. They charged out with a statement about a case in San Diego citing it as authority because nobody thought to bring up the issue of the implied exclusion as if that alone is determinative. But no case since the Attorney General decision of 26 years ago has attempted to interpret the statute.
It takes a couple hundred bucks to get the legislative history of the statute, which would probably be determinative of the legislative intent, one way or another. The Secretary of State could call up the file and have it in an hour. But they went on record without checking it out, and now they'd look stupid to go back on their public statement. So no, I don't expect a response from them.
Pretty big assumption that they "went on record without cheking it out", or perhaps they already know what you don't.
Isn't this about the will of the people...
Or did you only mean that if it is beneficial to your candidate.
Face it, you really are not democratic or progressive.
--You, Eric, Estelle, all need to understand why Jesus directed us all to acting on the Spirit and not the Letter of the Law. The Spirit of democracy demands you help local people achieve their democratic right to elect the candidate of their choice, not yours.--
Get it, Eric? The law isn't helpful in this situation. Why not think about people's rights for a change instead of always looking for the "win", you know, like EPIC does too, looking for the "win" that is really a cover for much greater loss. In this case, democracy.
I remember it as well. If I remember correctly, Eric, you made a huge gaffe in the fact that you took a judges statement on an unrelated matter and said it applied to this situation. Apparently that is a first year legal students mistake.
Then why didn't they say something about it?
Well Stephen, for one thing democracy is defined not just by majority will, but by process that isn't arbitrary. We have rules set up for elections and everybody who participates plays by them, or should. Instead, we have people trying to change the process because it didn't work out for them.
Johanna didn't run in the initial phase of the election, but three other campaigns spent tens of thousands of dollars on a campaign which is rendered meaningless. If I ever decide to run for local office and the interpretation of the law hasn't changed, I'll probably just skip the first round and run in the fall - especially if Johanna manages to establish a precedent of getting her name on the later ballot.
I'll just let everybody know I'm planning to run and slowly raise the money while the other candidates are spending it for a meaningless election.
I remember it as well. If I remember correctly, Eric, you made a huge gaffe in the fact that you took a judges statement on an unrelated matter and said it applied to this situation. Apparently that is a first year legal students mistake.
A first year legal students mistake. Did you mean law student?
Get your language right before you start spouting off legal principles you don't understand. In any case, it's addressed in a post above.
Allowing "write-in" canidadates still does not "put your name" on the ballot.
That was not the case in primary where she helped to keep Rodoni below 50%, but it is if Johanna runs in the general.
In which case?
Allowing "write-in" canidadates still does not "put your name" on the ballot.
"Well Stephen, for one thing democracy is defined not just by majority will, but by process that isn't arbitrary. We have rules set up for elections and everybody who participates plays by them, or should. Instead, we have people trying to change the process because it didn't work out for them."
Well, for one other thing, Eric, you're still seeing Steve Lewis phantoms in posts not mine. Do you have bad Steve Lewis dreams too? Get religion and learn why the Spirit of the law is always more important than the legal system you work under that kills and imprisons blacks and brown people while letting rich white off, the legal system that protects tobacco and credit card companies from lawsuit, or maybe you see the legal system as an opportunity for fame and fortune working it looking like a good person instead of a shyster buck seeking lawyer with a fat lawsuit win against a Love Canal poisoner.
Eric, you got that ancient Jewish Chosen One Judges ideology blinding you to real ethical decisions. You think lawyers and judges make smarter decisions than lay people forgetting democracy thrives on the common man's (woman's too!-pc) ability to buck entrenched power.
Democracy= the common person's protection against people like you who would take away their rights with "legal" eze.
The rodoni regime is arrogant enough to once again demand special priveleges by having the election office break the election rules just for them and put johannas name on the ballot.
Not only will it not be legal for her name to be on the ballot, it will not be legal for her to participate in this RUN OFF ELECTION as a write in candidate.
The Power Elite in Eureka has had 12 long years and just do not want to let go and obviously will do anything to keep a strangle hold even if it means breaking the election laws.
There definitely needs to be a legal challenge to this corrupt plan they are hatching.
Well 4:05 and for that matter you too Eric. Will you eat your words if the leg counsel or court says this is not a special privilege and no "election rules" are broken.
Nah - didn't think so. What I do see however, is that you lose poorly and without any grace or humility.
Then it's up to the "common man" to change the laws properly, not in the middle of an election.
But if it was put to a vote, how many "common" folk would want their June vote to be rendered meaningless? The people of San Francisco explicitly voted for a runoff system which would guarantee that the winner took the majority of votes and not merely a plurality.
There's a difference between the Legal Counsel and the court, but if there is some law that I'm missing then I would accept the decision as valid. So far I've seen no law to justify that her name be placed on the ballot in the ensuing election of a runoff race. That would be mystifying.
As for the write-in, I'd certainly accept a court decision which took into account the legislative history of the provision.
Early on the Republican Party sent out a mailer to all Republicans in Humbodt spelling out to them that it was essential that they(republicans) keep this supervisors seat and that they will do ANYTHING to ensure they keep that seat.
We are now seeing the effects of that Republican declaration. Blatant disregard and rule breaking of the election laws.
With the help of a Democratic Party Secretary of State.
Actually Eric already posted that the spelling need only be a "reasonable facsimile."
63 percent of the voters in June said otherwise.
"Then it's up to the "common man" to change the laws properly, not in the middle of an election.
But if it was put to a vote, how many "common" folk would want their June vote to be rendered meaningless? The people of San Francisco explicitly voted for a runoff system which would guarantee that the winner took the majority of votes and not merely a plurality."
This isn't San Francisco, Eric. Big City politics that you and invading Prog pols represent is what isn't needed in Humboldt County. Your facile words forever flowing out of your mouth to cover your lack of empathy for real democracy when real democracy thwarts your political ambitions tells us that you don't care. You don't care about 2nd District voters rights at all. You want to "judge" them according to your lights so that you can wipe out their choice of candidate.
You might think of returning to the Bay Area where your cutthroat us vs. them political values would be more at home.
The claim that there can be a write-in candidate in a run-off was shocking, the claim that there can be additional names on the ballot is outrageous. This isn't just about THIS election but about those in the future as well. This makes a mockery of our election system where they just negate an entire election and create chaos when everyone thought they were playing by the same rules at the beginning.
If someone wants to challenge this, I would donate and I bet lots of other people would too.
We're all sick to death of this useless parasite.
Why? Because Steve Lewis going down in history. Your grandchildren will read about the prophet of God who fashioned Paxcalibur, Sword of Peace, Sign of the Messiah and new Word of God in their history books. Students of religion will read my religious books in order to understand how all intellectual Christians went Gnostic after Stephen's Gospel was published and why Israel failed and how the Republic of Canaan was resurrected and established in its place at the ending of the Israeli-Palestinian war.
I'm sorry to disappoint my haters but I now know who I am and my role in history. Part of the reason I've come back to post here is results from an overflow of words spilling out of me as I go through another one of my visionary periods. I've been in this one now for about two weeks and it's already changed me. I won't be running for Supervisor or organizing any more social change projects save for my mission from God.
My Father has revealed startling information to me about the Son of Man prophets and now I have to tell the world what God told me in spiritual communion. A Son of Man prophesy bearer bearing Good News, a new gospel, does not come along very often and you've got one right here in Humboldt County who can explain Jesus and Son of Man prophets role as no one else ever has. And I bear witness of Her arrival, a Sign from God that has connected me spiritually and now with blood line ties to the Lakota and spiritually to the Northern Cheyenne, Nez Perce, Wiyot and of course, Bear River, all Native America actually. My spiritual revelations will eventually change Christianity forever because unlike the dead prophets in the old books, this prophet is alive and working in our lifetimes, Paxcalibur is real and the work I was sent to do for my Father and all humanity is fully documented. My spiritual authority comes with honest to goodness real miraculous Signs from God but there won't be myth created but truth revealed this time around.
Sat Jul 19, 02:52:00 PM
"Why? Because Steve Lewis going down in history. Your grandchildren will read about the prophet of God who fashioned Paxcalibur, Sword of Peace, Sign of the Messiah and new Word of God in their history books. Students of religion will read my religious books in order to understand how all intellectual Christians went Gnostic after Stephen's Gospel was published and why Israel failed and how the Republic of Canaan was resurrected and established in its place at the ending of the Israeli-Palestinian war."
Sat Jul 19, 04:30:00 PM "I will be offering my lottery system expertise to whoever wants to take on this new project I've started to organize after the Heartlands Project tanked (again) in March of this year. Go to: www.lifelinelottery.org. to see how a lottery system can help save lives.
so, god wants MORE gambling?
it turns out that stephen's got his very own "gnostic chosen one" and i guess chosen ones don't like competition.
I am truly starting to believe that Stephen Lewis is crazy.
He's bustin' loose, he's bustin' loose
He's the Chosen one, he's a gnostic nob
He's the one true son of the one true God!
While I agree that Estelle should really stay focused, I think the criticism is unfair. She's in a little bit of a tight spot with Johanna in the race because people who voted for her in the first round may be more hesitant to do so in the second round. In fact, there's bound to be pressure on her to beg out to avoid splitting Clif's vote, since Clif did go toe to toe with Rodoni in Fortuna in round one. I've already spoken to two people who are considering a change of vote for the fall.
She can't drop out at this point, or at least she can't remove her name from the ballot, having qualified in the first round.
The Cal legislature really needs to clean this up. Either limit the second round to two candidates, or eliminate the first round. If the Secretary of State is correct in her interpretation, the law makes absolutely no sense.
that phrase could describe probably 20% of the laws that are in place today.
but i agree, the election law needs to be clarified on this point and it looks like this may be the case where that happens, at least i hope so.
and, beyond the write-in question, there's the the report (on heraldo's blog) that some unidentified rodoni supporters are apparently trying to find some way to force johanna's name to actually be placed on the fall ballot.
i'm pretty sure that gambit's going to fail (what possible basis cold there be for it to succeed) but it's pretty troubling that people would even be trying to pull off something that blantantly illegal. johanna hasn't run for anything so far, so what possible justification would there be for placing her name on the ballot, other than the fact that she was married to roger? and how is that any legitimate reason to place her on the ballot? that whole thing is an amazing sham, no wonder the "unnamed lawyers" don't want to be named.
“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
“For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
About 13 days after finding out CJ is WBCW, I found out from my daughter living in Oregon at the time who had the first vision of CJ 14 years before me, that her nice young lumber grader blond white guy Eureka fellow she married just happened to discover a year before all this happened that his Native American kinfolk he knew vaguely about were Lakota, himself an 8th Lakota and direct descendant of Chief Sitting Bull. Got Sitting Bull's family tree history and Peace Medal as a family heirloom. I got in touch with Arvol Looking Horse, the 19th Keeper of the Lakota's Sacred Pipe, given to them by White Buffalo Calf Woman to tell about my vision of Christ Josephine. He told me if our paths were meant to meet they would and two years later I'm good friends with Alex White Plume with his tribe, the Oglala Sioux interested in the Heartlands lottery project--except now I can't get hold of their current leader, John Steele--he's always on the road so I don't really know if the Oglala are still interested or not.
I am a vision driven person which is why I often find myself at odds with those who are materially bound to this world. But it is people like me who bring the spiritual visions that carry a people to higher levels of humanity regardless of the shit we have to endure because entrenched materialists never ever want to concede social power to those who serve God and humanity before power or money.
It is so odd but not really but around 1997 I was going to be sharing a house with Sparky's ex, one of the Northern Cheyenne women of the Little Big Man family. She and I stood together with Dennis Banks at a Bear Lincoln rally in Round Valley. We told the assembled NA's there about our Heartlands Project. Now God's told me the Vision of CJ is coming to earth through the Little Big Man line because salvation is of the Jews..
I get periodic updates from the dna company I used to trace my Jewish ancestry and my mother's side is filled with Eastern European and Central Asia names and Ashkenazi genes, even some Sephardic ones showing up. There's no way on earth now anyone can prove I am not Jewish by ancestry through my mother's side of the family. But for all of that I now know why Jesus came down so hard on Jews and Pharisees in the New Testament.
When he parted Stephens hair with a lightning bolt
Now an overflow of words from the Prophet's mouth
And SoHum Parlance is headed south
Stephen Lewis is Buster Luce
He's bustin' loose, he's got the juice
He wants to tell you about the Goddess, Christ Josephine
And reveal to you what no eye has ever seen
Her beauty is exquisite, her gnosis sublime
But, she is beyond perception of mortal minds
And Zeus? Hate to break it to ya but Zeus is really Hay Soos.
Just how many gods do you worship Stephen? How are you being in any way monotheistic?
Stephen=false prophet=harbinger of the Anti-Christ.
Ok, that creates more questions than it answers. So the true Godhead is a duality of male/female. If she is to be restored then there was a time before she left. Why did she leave in the first place? Why was she gone so long? If she coming back, how long will she stay this time? What does she have to do with peace on earth and goodwill to men? Did we have something to do with her leaving that made God mad at us? If we have her where is she? And if you know where she is are you going to tell God?
Christ Josephine is part of the Western Wakan revelations. Wakan Tanka is the equivalent of EL Elyon in the Holy Land. Both represent the Creator and both have icons of white bulls, the white bull of heaven (Book of Enoch) for EL.
It was EL Elyon who woke me up out of my spiritual slumber at Easter, in 1979, but that happened after I had meditated on things most every afternoon sitting on the hillside above our homesite and staring out across the valleys to Bear Butte. In 2003, I found out about the Lakota traditions of White Buffalo Calf Woman, 5 years after I had the Vision of Christ Josephine in 1998. I had heard of the White Buffalo legend before but didn't know much about it because I wasn't interested. The Near East was where "my" spiritual roots lay. Then in 2003, the Signs started coming in, learn CJ is a match for WBCW, learn my blond white son-in-law is an 8th Lakota and direct descendant of Sitting Bull so my grandkids make me Lakota kin.
White Buffalo Calf Woman came as an Ishtar-type warrior maiden Goddess the first time around. She gave the Lakota their 7 sacred ceremonies in order to live right and have abundancy. She is a Savior, She save the Lakota from starving. She brought the buffalo and horses.
But Christ Josephine is a transformed White Buffalo Calf Woman. WBCW's Lakota name is Ptsan Win and in my vision of Christ Josephine She bears much in common with Kwan Yin, the Asian Goddess of Mercy. A name change in Near Eastern religious texts often denotes the transformation of someone after being chosen by the Creator.
As for Sophia? She is always there too as Wisdom personified. But the Creator desires that we restore the Holy Family in heaven in order to restore the human family on earth, society in embryo. The Creator is returning a Great Goddess to the Godhead, actually two: a Great Mother, Asherah or the Tree of Life, as well as Her daughter, who Jesus actually takes on many of Ishtar's spiritual jobs, such as going down into the Abyss for three days to save her/his godly/human friends. And we all know Ishtar birthday at Easter is well celebrated with Her raisin cakes as Christian hot-cross buns. Her Star, the Morning Star, Venus, is Jesus' star as well as well as White Buffalo Calf Woman's.
Is God throwing out monotheism? The intolerant and very false Abrahamic variety, yes, indeed. Strict Monotheism is the source of puritanism and puritanism and violence go hand in glove in history. The Abrahamic intolerant religionists are responsible for an untold number of millions of unnecessary deaths through their bloody historical march through time and the world that is still going on today.
What is God then? I've known for well over a decade but didn't know I really knew until a few days ago. I am in another one of my periodic episodes of spiritual epiphanies and am keeping track of this new set because the new stuff's already changed my religion. When the current wave of visions stop I will tell you what I've learned.
God destroyed atheism and brought religion into the world at the beginning through synchronicity events no one could explain away other than as the intervention of a spiritual reality in our material world.
Synchronicity events continue on everyday regardless of what atheists believe. Test what I say. Ask your friends, ask your relatives if any of them have ever had a series of unexplainable "coincidences" happen that startled them.
Synchronicity events and near-death-experiences are the "seams" in material reality where God let's us glimpse the intervention of a spiritual world. Science cannot explain synchronicity events, doesn't even believe they exist but all one has to do is ask your friends or relatives if they've ever had these strange experiences of coincidences that continually happen in people's lives that continue to defy laws of probability.
You think Carl Jung and all those psychologists who followed his lead would waste their time on nonsense?
I know you say your synchronistic events are nothing like the red ford truck. But I think you're intelligent. I think Stephen, deep down you know that your religious synchronistic events were indeed just like noticing all the red ford trucks on the freeway. You refuse to admit it however.
Atheists think that everyone is spiritually disabled like themselves who haven't experienced spiritual phenomena. They don't realize they are exactly like a man blind to color telling those who see colors there are none to see.
Stephen, it is more akin to you trying to convince people that goblins and ferry's live in your shoes. Time and again science beats you back into a corner and exposes your irrational belief system.
Wasn't there yet another tablet discovered that exposes the fact that Jesus' mythology was quite common and not exclusive to Christians or even Jews? Yes, at least 1500 years before this Jesus supposedly walked the Earth there were already stories of men who turned water into wine and rose from the dead. Ever heard of Dionysus Stephen? If that doesn't shake your belief to it's core, nothing will. The story of Dionysus, or more importantly when it was told, simply turns the story of Jesus Christ as one of the gods a ridiculous notion.
This is historical record. You cannot deny it Stephen.
That's your bias confirmation induced hallucination. Your gods, rational thought, logic, and science are masculine gods. But happily the worship of science as the almighty macho dominating truth is falling away. The feminine is returning as an equal to the masculine. This is a fundamental aspect of the new cycle we are now entering. With Her comes the recognition that judgments based on feelings are just as valid as judgments made by intellectualizing.
God is a "We", a Holy Family, Elohim where EL presides over a pantheon of gods and goddesses, as is stated in Genesis. Yahweh is His son and Israel is his portion given the sons of God. Yahweh forgot who he was until Jesus remembered for him and re-established the proper relationship of Son to Father. Now Jesus is Father and EL is Grandfather in the new pantheon model of the Holy Family.
God is balancing the sexual representative for a holy marriage, a hierogamos, that now will include "the Mother" as it already does in Catholicism giving Catholicism its lasting strength even when it's otherwise in full disagreement with Jesus' teachings, especially the one commanding Christians not to call anyone on earth their "Father".
The Pope is anti-Christ as every Protestant is taught for railroading Christians away from Jesus' teachings. But so then are all of Paul's followers, the vast majority of Christians. And so were the Pharisee Jews in Jesus' time and today along with Muslims, all against the spiritual truth Jesus brought us that has been lost again and again.
"signs" were about were biblical themes, but coupling them to my own life. This took place over Easter of 1979. Since then I've periodically gone through these epiphanies, major and minor but all in a set theme that in 1980 I learned was Gnostic. But modern Gnosis, more like Jung's but now this last batch has changed even that around.
I've written all my religious visions and revelations and God-guided research over the years in a book called "Biomystical Christianity". But since the month before end of last year when I got the cancer out of my body, the same type that killed my father, Father Jesus came to me personally for the first time.
Oh, I had plenty of spiritual relationship before that with God, but it was always through synchronicity events, signs that would reveal a spiritual or even a foundational historical truth that gradually built up "Biomystical Christianity" as a new modern Gnostic theology. But God never spoke to me with a voice, (I thanked God for that--not wanting to actually hear God's voice in my head--too many psycho movies I guess..) and never any direct contact with Jesus. I followed EL Elyon, God Most High and His Spirit of Christ manifested in the Story of Jesus. No personal relationship with Jesus for this Christian for 28 years, no spiritual (mental) voice of Jesus in my head like other Christians had. But plenty of spiritual information.
All that's changed with the voice of Father Jesus and this new understanding of who God is, what God is. Amazing stuff. I will have my old BC book up and the new Climax Christianity (nice uncontroversial name like everything else God load's on my plate, thank you very much) up online soon as this newest series of revelations stops. Slowed today with company around. I need to find intellectual Christians to tell them this new stuff who will understand it as I tried out on my Fundie friend today and blank stare and no wanting to go there plainly on her face as I spilled out the New Gospel to her.
Oh well, what's new..
Everything we know is subjective, in that it comes to us through our mind. Yes, the subjective can distort things. But so can the "facts" as perceived by someone, which they always are. Even an atomic particle's behavior is distorted by the fact gatherer.
With Her comes the recognition that judgments based on feelings are just as valid as judgments made by intellectualizing.
Sad. I mean really. You're advocating a return to the dark ages! Have you ever cracked open a history text? At least Stephen has, you Anon, appear to have no idea what you're advocating.
And a return to the dark ages is exactly what you represent. Heres an idea, pick up a history book! Why was it called the "DARK" ages? Did god blot out the sun? Maybe that possibility will peak your interest.
Try it out. Try thinking you might be missing something instead of thinking others are in a dark age. Darkness may be in the eye of the beholder.
I have been guided by Ariel the Lion of God for 28 years until Father Jesus took over directly at the end of last year.
If you check with Salmon Creek people and others who knew me when I lived in SoHum you would know I went by the name of Ariel for 14 years there before going back to my God-given Christian name-the name I had rebelled from-my father's name and world. Being a double Aquarius, taken a good "non-biblical" hippie Aquarian name, Ariel, the good air spirit in Shakespeare's The Tempest and name of one of the moons of Aquarius' planetary ruler, Uranus. Four years later I go through my religious conversion experience and find out all about Ariel, old Jewish angel name meaning the Lion of God, Angel of Jerusalem,(see Isaiah 29) Messenger of Peace, hearth of the Altar of God. Ariel is also the Lion of Judah referred to in Revelation who can open the scroll and reveal the secrets, which I can.
Here's an example of just how wrong people have take biblical symbolism in Revelation.
"Armageddon" is the Greek word for the ancient Canaanite name for Meggido, a town and valley in ancient Israel and site of still more ancient pharaoh Tutmoses III's conquering of the Canaan confederation that created a power vacuum which Hebrew/Israelites tribes filled. The town and valley of Meggido is itself named after the Canaanite pantheon, or Divine Assembly, a title that shows up clearly in Hebrew some Psalms, e.g. 82. EL Elyon ruled the Divine Assembly as God Most High. The Hebrew equivalent term for the Canaanite one for Divine Assembly is "Elohim", where EL presides over the other gods and goddesses. (like Yahweh, one of EL's sons, which I'll get into later..)
Back to Armageddon. When you research and know that Armageddon originally meant the Divine Assembly before the physical place of battle, when you research the Canaanite people's way of worshiping EL vs the Hebrew's makeover of EL into Yahweh, you discover a hidden meaning--EL vs
Yahweh, the Armageddon Choice. Who do you worship as the God Most High, EL or Yahweh? Especially when you research and discover Yahweh started off in his god life as Yamm, who's icon is none other that that of the Beast from the sea. Believe me, it gets worse..people have really no idea what Revelation symbolizes, only wild guesses because so few have researched the archeological facts based history which EL through His angel Ari-EL, leeds me to discover.
EL was called "The Compassion One" which shows up in both Hebrew and Muslim appellations for God, but does "The Kindly One, the Friendly One", do these show up? Nope. Canaanites did not fear their God Most High, they loved Him and He loved them back because He was the One they went to to ask for forgiveness of their sins which He seems to have readily forgiven them with no recorded savage commandments of absolute obedience to EL or else that marks Yahweh worship recorded that I know of. EL was "Daddy" to the Canaanites and EL was "Daddy", "Abba" to Jesus.
The Canaanites get a really undeserved bad rep by in Judeo-Christianity because Canaanites were the Palestinians of yester-yon, the "evil people", the terrorists who just happen to be the native population of the land that ancient Hebrews wanted to take over guide by their tribal war god, Yahweh, pulling a Lucifer switcheroo that has pulled the wool of the Lamb over Jews and Pauline Christians alike for over 2500 years.
God is resurrecting the truth in our times. The Canaanites where also known as Phoenicians, both names deriving from "purple", the purple dye Phoenicians used as their main trade item with other nations. Trading nations aren't usually much into war and Phoenicians weren't known for their wars and neither was their God Most High.
But like Yahweh is symbolically cleansed of violence through Jesus' sacrifice of power for love of humanity, so too White Buffalo Calf Woman has been "born again" and now showing Kwan Yin, Goddess of Mercy attributes and not goddess of war ones. She does know about war and the role it plays in male society but She directs men to sports as an outlet for their war competition for territory-leaving peace outside the sports arena.
Links to this post: