what web site can you get free credit reports and dispute credit? where could i look

Does anyone know where to get a free credit report? I am turning 18 soon and I know my gaurdian has use my credit and I want to see what is all on there so I can dispute it.. I do not have a credit card. Does anyone know where I can get a free credit report wothout using a credit report.

how do i get a free copy of my credit report without having to send them my credit card number? i want to view my credit report online and dispute some items but i want it free

how can i get the paper work needed to dispute my credit report? i need to clean my credit report for free

Do I get a copy of my credit score after disputing with TransnUnion? I ordered a free credit report and there was an error. I disputed it and received a response that it was fixed, but could not see an updated report on their web site or a corrected score. Their web site says that they will send a report unless filed online. The report I see is still the old report and the score is also not updated so did I waste $8 on a bad score? I called and they want more money to tell me what the correct score should be and want me to pay for another report with the correction as well. Does anyone know how to get a good score and report from them after a dispute online?

free annual credit report; how can i....? i pulled it 2 months ago, so i know i can't get it again for free or can i?? there were a few things on there i was wanting to dispute, but i didn't have the time right then and as time went on, i kinda forgot until now that i am appling for a loan. however, i was denied about 4 weeks ago on one thing. i know when you are denied, you can request it for free. also, i have lost my confirmation number from the freeannualcreditreport website. is there anyway that i can access it again w/o paying for it? and w/o the comfirmation number? is there a way to request it online since there was a denial 4 weeks ago?

Can I get a free copy of my credit report over the internet? How? I need to dispute some items on my credit report as fast as I possibly can. Thanks for your help.

How do I update my personal info with credit bureaus? I just want to update my phone number. I looked online and called some numbers for transunion and equifax in the phone book, and all I get is a bunch of stuff about free credit reports, fraud alerts and disputes. I need to update my phone number because I put a fraud alert on my file, so I can't apply for credit anywhere without them calling my phone. And what info do I need to include if I mail them?

Credit Report help...? Ok, I got a free credit report on 1/4/2007 from www.annualcreditreport.com. I did not like what I seen so naturally I dispute most of it. I heard that they have 30 days to prove this and if they cant it gets taken off. Well its almost been 30 days, so who do I contact about getting these things taken off?? Also after I done so I read in a book (Gureillacreditrepair) that you should not dispute things online, which is what I done. Any advice as to how to get these stupid charges off my crerdit report? They are mine but from when I was 18, I am now 24 and all of them have been paid already. Its just annoying

My credit report is Inaccurate; Job and CreditCard.? I checked my free Credit Report for the first time and it says that I dont have any job information (unemployed). I graduated in May and started working on September 10th. The firm I work for gave me a credit card as well. Both, my job and the CC, and not displayed. The reason I checked is cause I applied for a creditcard and got a low creditline (500$) and that's somewhat useless. Any ideas? Is there a time those reports are updated? Am I supposed to dispute them? I haven't activated the card because I was given the lowest class available for the card. I wanted to mid-class. Thanks!

credit repair.? am i correct?? i just went to this credit repair place and JUST got some information on how they work....then i came home and found out that all they do is submit letters to credit places.//then they submuit them to the creditors and if they dont respond its deleted....isnt that the same thing u can do on the 3 major credit places website?? called credit disputing?? alll i want to know is--is what these people are charging all this money for (credit repair) if u do some research u can do it free urself?? that wasnt my question A mercer! i was asking the same thing credit repair services do u can do urself for free correct?

I just looked at my credit report...? The hospital claimed that I owed them money but never really sent me a bill. They were also told the truth, don't bill me because my mom is responsible for my bills. I see that they have put a mark on my credit. I want to dispute this. I wrote the FTC and filed a complaint against them. Is it possible to get this taken off my credit? How do I find out my credit SCORE for free? This is driving me crazy? Does the majority of the public have a perfect score or what is the normal score? I don't just want a free report, I want the score. I was 19 when this went on.

Expiring off my Credit Report but they are trying to collect, what should I do? In an effort to improve my credit score I've collected all three of my free annual credit reports. It seems theres a few items that will be expiring due to the seven year statute of limitations. I know the creditor can file a civil suit to claim their money. My question really is this: If I respond to these debts, even to dispute them does the statute of limitations start over again? Would it be in my best interest to let the debts expire? Note this is in the United States.

Is it possible to have items removed from your credit? And what are some good ways to rebuild damaged credit? 3 years ago I broke a bone and, like the smart, responsible guy I am, I wracked up a lot of hospital bills which I neglected to pay. I thought I had paid them all off finally, until the other day I was going through some old papers, and I found a bill for $558. I didn't remember paying it so I got online and checked my free annual credit report, to find that it was listed on the report from Experian.com but not on Equifax.com. That makes 3 negative items on my credit report, 1 of which is paid off, and the other is being disputed.. (Never name your child after yourself, it's just bad news) Basically what I'm getting at is I'm older now and trying to rebuild my credit and this is just another count against me. I'm getting it taken care of right away but it's still going to hurt my nonexistent credit. Is it possible for them to take the item off of my report if I ask nicely or something? I've had a very difficult time building credit because I have no credit to get any. Advice?

Has anyone ever used True Credit from Trans Union? I recently ordered what I thought was the 30 day free trial from True Credit for myself and my husband. To my surprise they charged me the not free $14.95 report for both reports. I have yet to be able to pull up the one for my husband and they will not take the charges off my credit card. They will not cancel the report for my husband because they want information and keep saying that is not the right answer. It is now in dispute. NEVER NEVER NEVER USE THESE PEOPLE. Has anyone else had this problem?

i did not give my credit card no. to FREEDOWNLOADHQ>COM? the FREEDOWNLOADHQ.COM was not mentioned. it showed the adobe reader logo, and it said free download. that's all. i definitely did not give my credit card no. to them. it was a site from my church,and i wanted to read the bulletin. that's all . so they said it was a free download ,which i downloaded. i was not told that I had 7 days in which to cancel .i never knew that this would be charged to my credit card. when i called them, they said that i missed the deadline to cancel , then she said have a nice day. for 52.92 i could have had a great day. the credit card co. would not let me dispute it. because it was past the cancellation time of 7 days. so what course to take now? this was as sneakey as they can get, i wonder if adobe knows what they are doing? because that is a free download in reality. i am really angry about being taken by a sleasy outfit as that one.

can I remove an negative item from my credit report? ok I am aware you can dispute negative items that appear on your credit report. And there is a lot of law firms and businesses out there who claim they can remove negative items from your credit report. But here is my issue. I have a card I was 120 days late on a few years back and I've disputed it a few times but its only been taken off temporarily to be verified on a put back on my credit report. I was with Lexingtonlaw a year back and it was just a endless cycle of disputing items on my report. The credit card companies just kept on responding with "That item has already been verified" so in the end, really none of my negative acconut statuses improved. Can you really get rid of a negative item on your credit report even if its partially true? Is the whole credit repair business just a sham because its just doing you a service that you can do just as easily yourself for free?

Is it bad, or are there any negative repercussions of disputing accounts on your credit report? I hear people even dispute accounts that they are still responsible for. Now even I know there is no "Free Lunch" in America, so to speak.

Easiness to report to Credit reporting agency? I have a threat from a professional with whom I would like to dispute a charge, but he is going to report it to Credit reporting agency. Once he does it seems life becomes tough for me to get it out, I will have to go to a lawyer and fight in court. Just want to know how easy it is for this individual to report me to the credit agency + any fees associated. FTC does not ask for any proofs or anything just asks the filer if it is right. Once they say yes thats it. You got to go to an attorney. Please let me know how easy it is for him or if it is free or really cheap.

Can I still dispute a charge from 6 mos ago if I just found out I got scammed? I used my credit/debit card to pay for a service about 6 months ago, and didn't realize it was a scam and is actually a free service untill today. I would like to know if it's too late to dispute the charges with my CC company or bank to have my money refunded. Please let me know what I can do, if anything.

How do you get something off your credit report? Ok I have been told that you can contact the credit agency and make an arrangement where you pay the bill and in return have them take it off your report all together not just seen as paid is there any truth to this and if so how do I go about doing it do I contact the actual company of debt, the credit collection agency, or the 3 credit bureaus and I have also been told to ask for it in writting before I even start to pay on it is that true as well I really want to get this credit crap cleared already please help P.S. I have recently disputed all my creedit reports and one was actually removed (so cool!!!) iif you know any other tricks to either remove items all together or have them reduced please feel free to mention them and again thanks

Someone opened a discover credit card account back in 1989 with my SS# I just got a collection letter.? Saying I owe them almost $8400.00 I had an account with $0 balance which I closed years ago. I got my discover card in 1997. How can I have 2 accounts? They say I opened one 1989. They have 2 different account numbers. The orignal account was opened in 1989 and was being used until 1998. PS the collection agency that sent the letter is National ActionFinancial Services, Ltd. Very rude people I wanted to dispute and they hung up on me? I need free legal help Please....Any suggestions? Please

How do I resolve a billing dispute that is being billed to my phone? I signed up for a free trial of netzero internet service that i called and canceled before the trial period was over. A few weeks laternetzero called me and asked if if i would try it again on another free trial period. I agreed and it wasn't working out for me so i called and canceled before the trial was over and they started billing me even though I had closed the accounts. Every month i would get my phone bill and they had charged me again and i called them each month and they promised to credit my phone bill and make sure the acount was closed. this went on for months. They never credited me and they stopped billing me about 6 months ago. Last month they started billing my phone bill again and this month too and calling them is not helping and my phone bills like 150.00 and they keep adding late charges and i dont wanna turn my phone off because it'll go against my credit and I keep calling them and they keep lying. I am just so aggrivated i don't know what to do. thanks

Escrow dispute with realtor when buying a house.? Me and my fiance signed with a realtor to buy a house and have deposited our funds into his escrow account. How we are unable to get a bank loan because my fianace is not 21 years of age and cannot own property unless she gets her minorty waived which is not an option b/c it would drop her from her mom's federal health insurance plan. We where never told that Jennifer could not own property, we cannot secure any type of loan with any bank for any amount, regardless of making a down payment or not, b/c my credit alone is not good enough to get a loan with only my signature, and I cannot find someone with good credit to co-sign with me. We are simply unapprovable at this point in time or until 4 months passes when Jen is 21. My question is this, the realtor has informed us that the $500 that we gave to him which he deposited into escrow can only be given back to us if the seller wishes to, which I cannot just see someone giving back $500 of free money to them back to us. What are my options? Do a stop payment on the check and risk being sued. Say that the contract is void b/c we where never informed that Jen could not own property. Say that the contract is void b/c Jen's signature is all over the buyer's contract which in itself makes the contract void b/c she at the time of signing the contract she was a minor.

How long does Truecredit take for disputed item to be updated? on your credit report? I disputed 3 things from Transunion and I got a notice they were deleted and recieved my free copy of my credit report online with them. I am also a member of Truecredit.com and its not updated on their website yet.....How long does it usually take???

What legal action can California plumber take in billing dispute? I paid plumber $130 to unclog sewage pipe in November. Week later, same pipe stopped up. Dispatcher said there'd be no charge for 2nd visit, since it came so soon after first. He ran camera down the line, said tree roots had separated pipes, recommended digging up line ($80/hour) and he'd replace ($150/hr.) I dug up line to save money (2 days back-breaking labor), discovered there's no problem with pipes. The backup, turns out, was under street, which city fixed free. I complained to plumbing company, asked why he didn't check both ends of pipe, and thought that was end of it. Now, they're charging $250 for 2nd visit. I wrote back that I'd been assured no-charge visit, I didn't authorize a $250 work action, plumber didn't ask to start $250 work action, that I signed nothing on 2nd visit, he didn't give me a bill... But it's my word vs. theirs. My question, what can they do to me? Attach lien to my home? Ruin my credit? Sue me for debt & legal fees? I pay my debts, but I don't owe this!

Christians (the few left)...? Read ALL of this and tell me God is real and good! If God wants something from me, he would tell me. He wouldn't leave someone else to do this, as if an infinite being were short on time. And he would certainly not leave fallible, sinful humans to deliver an endless plethora of confused and contradictory messages. God would deliver the message himself, directly, to each and every one of us, and with such clarity as the most brilliant being in the universe could accomplish. We would all hear him out and shout "Eureka!" So obvious and well-demonstrated would his message be. It would be spoken to each of us in exactly those terms we would understand. And we would all agree on what that message was. Even if we rejected it, we would all at least admit to each other, "Yes, that's what this God fellow told me."[2] Excuses don't fly. The Christian proposes that a supremely powerful being exists who wants us to set things right, and therefore doesn't want us to get things even more wrong. This is an intelligible hypothesis, which predicts there should be no more confusion about which religion or doctrine is true than there is about the fundamentals of medicine, engineering, physics, chemistry, or even meteorology. It should be indisputably clear what God wants us to do, and what he doesn't want us to do. Any disputes that might still arise about that would be as easily and decisively resolved as any dispute between two doctors, chemists, or engineers as to the right course to follow in curing a patient, identifying a chemical, or designing a bridge. Yet this is not what we observe. Instead, we observe exactly the opposite: unresolvable disagreement and confusion. That is clearly a failed prediction. A failed prediction means a false theory. Therefore, Christianity is false. Typically, Christians try to make excuses for God that protect our free will. Either the human will is more powerful than the will of God, and therefore can actually block his words from being heard despite all his best and mighty efforts, or God cares more about our free choice not to hear him than about saving our souls, and so God himself "chooses" to be silent. Of course, there is no independent evidence of either this remarkable human power to thwart God, or this peculiar desire in God, and so this is a completely "ad hoc" theory: something just "made up" out of thin air in order to rescue the actual theory that continually fails to fit the evidence. But for reasons I'll explore later, such "added elements" are never worthy of belief unless independently confirmed: you have to know they are true. You can't just "claim" they are true. Truth is not invented. It can only be discovered. Otherwise, Christianity is just a hypothesis that has yet to find sufficient confirmation in actual evidence. Be that as it may. Though "maybe, therefore probably" is not a logical way to arrive at any belief, let's assume the Christian can somehow "prove" (with objective evidence everyone can agree is relevant and true) that we have this power or God has this desire. Even on that presumption, there are unsolvable problems with this "additional" hypothesis. Right from the start, it fails to explain why believers disagree. The fact that believers can't agree on the content of God's message or desires also refutes the theory that he wants us to be clear on these things. This failed prediction cannot be explained away by any appeal to free will--for these people have chosen to hear God, and not only to hear him, but to accept Jesus Christ as the shepherd of their very soul. So no one can claim these people chose not to hear God. Therefore, either God is telling them different things, or there is no God. Even if there is a God, but he is deliberately sowing confusion, this contradicts what Christianity predicts to be God's desire, which entails Christianity is the wrong religion. Either way, Christianity is false. So this theory doesn't work. It fails to predict what we actually observe. But even considering atheists like me, this "ad hoc" excuse still fails to save Christianity from the evidence. When I doubted the Big Bang theory, I voiced the reasons for my doubts but continued to pursue the evidence, frequently speaking with several physicists who were "believers." Eventually, they presented all the logic and evidence in terms I understood, and I realized I was wrong: the Big Bang theory is well-supported by the evidence and is at present the best explanation of all the facts by far. Did these physicists violate my free will? Certainly not. I chose to pursue the truth and hear them out. So, too, I and countless others have chosen to give God a fair hearing--if only he would speak. I would listen to him even now, at this very moment. Yet he remains silent. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that I am "choosing" not to hear him. And therefore, the fact that he still does not speak refutes the hypothesis. Nothing about free will can save the theory here. Even when we might actually credit free will with resisting God's voice--like the occasional irrational atheist, or the stubbornly mistaken theist--the Christian theory is still not compatible with the premise that God would not or could not overcome this resistance. Essential to the Christian hypothesis, as C.S. Lewis says, is the proposition that God is "quite definitely good" and "loves love and hates hatred." Unless these statements are literally meaningless, they entail that God would behave like anyone else who is "quite definitely good" and "loves love and hates hatred." And such people don't give up on someone until their resistance becomes intolerable--until then, they will readily violate someone's free will to save them, because they know darned well it is the right thing to do. God would do the same. He would not let the choice of a fallible, imperfect being thwart his own good will. I know this for a fact. Back in my days as a flight-deck firefighter, when our ship's helicopter was on rescue missions, we had to stand around in our gear in case of a crash. There was usually very little to do, so we told stories. One I heard was about a rescue swimmer. She had to pull a family out of the water from a capsized boat, but by the time the chopper got there, it appeared everyone had drowned except the mother, who was for that reason shedding her life vest and trying to drown herself. The swimmer dove in to rescue her, but she kicked and screamed and yelled to let her die. She even gave the swimmer a whopping black eye. But the swimmer said to hell with that, I'm bringing you in! And she did, enduring her curses and blows all the way. Later, it turned out that one of the victim's children, her daughter, had survived. She had drifted pretty far from the wreck, but the rescue team pulled her out, and the woman who had beaten the crap out of her rescuer apologized and thanked her for saving her against her will. Everyone in my group agreed the rescue swimmer had done the right thing, and we all would have done the same--because that is what a loving, caring being does. It follows that if God is a loving being, he will do no less for us. In the real world, kind people don't act like some stubborn, pouting God who abandons the drowning simply because they don't want to be helped. They act like this rescue swimmer. They act like us. So we can be certain God would make sure he told everyone, directly, what his message was. Everyone would then know what God had told them. They can still reject it all they want, and God can leave them alone. But there would never be, in any possible Christian universe, any confusion or doubt as to what God's message was. And if we had questions, God himself would answer them--just like the Big Bang physicists who were so patient with me. Indeed, the very fact that God gave the same message and answers to everyone would be nearly insurmountable proof that Christianity was true. Provided we had no reason to suspect God of lying to all of us, Christianity would be as certain as the law of gravity or the color of the sky. That is what the Christian hypothesis entails we should observe--for it is what a good and loving God would do, who wanted us all to set right what has gone wrong. And since this is not what we observe, but in fact the exact opposite, the evidence quite soundly refutes Christianity. Despite this conclusion, Christians still try to hold on to their faith with this nonsense about free will--but they haven't thought it through. Meteorologists can disagree about the weather forecast, but they all agree how weather is made and the conditions that are required for each kind of weather to arise. And they agree about this because the scientific evidence is so vast and secure that it resolves these questions, often decisively. It can't be claimed that God has violated the free will of meteorologists by providing them with all this evidence. And yet how much more important is salvation than the physics of weather! If God wants what Christianity says he wants, he would not violate our free will to educate us on the trivial and then refuse to do the same for the most important subject of all. Likewise, if a doctor wants a patient to get well, he is not vague about how he must do this, but as clear as can be. He explains what is needed in terms the patient can understand. He even answers the patient's questions, and whenever asked will present all the evidence for and against the effectiveness of the treatment. He won't hold anything back and declare, "I'm not going to tell you, because that would violate your free will!" Nor would any patient accept such an excuse--to the contrary, he would respond, "But I choose to hear you," leaving the doctor no such excuse. There can't be any excuse for God, either. There are always disagreements, and there are always people who don't follow what they are told or what they know to be true. But that doesn't matter. Chemists all agree on the fundamental facts of chemistry. Doctors all agree on the fundamental facts of medicine. Engineers all agree on the fundamental facts of engineering. So why can't all humans agree on the fundamental facts of salvation? There is no more reason that they should be confused or in the dark about this than that chemists, doctors, and engineers should be confused or in the dark. The logically inevitable fact is, if the Christian God existed, we would all hear from God himself the same message of salvation, and we would all hear, straight from God, all the same answers to all the same questions. The Chinese would have heard it. The Native Americans would have heard it. Everyone today, everywhere on Earth, would be hearing it, and their records would show everyone else in history had heard it, too. Sure, maybe some of us would still balk or reject that message. But we would still have the information. Because the only way to make an informed choice is to have the required information. So a God who wanted us to make an informed choice would give us all the information we needed, and not entrust fallible, sinful, contradictory agents to convey a confused mess of ambiguous, poorly supported claims. Therefore, the fact that God hasn't spoken to us directly, and hasn't given us all the same, clear message, and the same, clear answers, is enough to prove Christianity false. Just look at what Christians are saying. They routinely claim that God is your father and best friend. Yet if that were true, we would observe all the same behaviors from God that we observe from our fathers and friends. But we don't observe this. Therefore, there is no God who is our father or our friend. The logic of this is truly unassailable, and no "free will" excuse can escape it. For my father and friends aren't violating my free will when they speak to me, help me, give me advice, and answer my questions. Therefore, God would not violate my free will if he did so. He must be able to do at least as much as they do, even if for some reason he couldn't do more. But God doesn't do anything at all. He doesn't talk to, teach, help, or comfort us, unlike my real father and my real friends. God doesn't tell us when we hold a mistaken belief that shall hurt us. But my father does, and my friends do. Therefore, no God exists who is even remotely like my father or my friends, or anyone at all who loves me. Therefore, Christianity is false. The conclusion is inescapable. If Christianity were true, then the Gospel would have been preached to each and every one of us directly, and correctly, by God--just as it supposedly was to the disciples who walked and talked and dined with God Himself, or to the Apostle Paul, who claimed to have had actual conversations with God, and to have heard the Gospel directly from God Himself. Was their free will violated? Of course not. Nor would ours be. Thus, if Christianity were really true, there would be no dispute as to what the Gospel is. There would only be our free and informed choice to accept or reject it. At the same time, all our sincere questions would be answered by God, kindly and clearly, and when we compared notes, we would find that the Voice of God gave consistent answers and messages to everyone all over the world, all the time. So if Christianity were true, there would be no point in "choosing" whether God exists anymore than there is a choice whether gravity exists or whether all those other people exist whom we love or hate or help or hurt. We would not face any choice to believe on insufficient and ambiguous evidence, but would know the facts, and face only the choice whether to love and accept the God that does exist. That this is not the reality, yet it would be the reality if Christianity were true, is proof positive that Christianity is false. You have to read it ALL to see my position.

Can we agree that there needs to be a more efficient way to dispute deleted questions, and suspensions on Q&A? I think that R&S takes heavier hits than most other subjects, which is somewhat understandable. Religion and politics, the two subjects to avoid when in a social situation. The point is, that is what this site is for. Their sponsors are paying for this site, it is not free for them. Ask a question about a specific product like a plasma TV, or a collectable horse sculpture. I did, and guess what popped up? I was not the one to discover this, and take no credit, but I am steamed that we have no say about community rules when our questions generate how much they charge a sponsor for "hits" on their product. I say lone roaming, with questions about products you have no intention of buying. Keep a list of the ads. We would be in a position to let them know that we can manipulate the ads, and inform the sponsors that they are wasting their money, because in fact we will boycott their product. What's community? Or are the trolls going to continue to go unchallenged? Oh, Beano, I spiced it up a bit. I can't have those horse folks thinking I'm a sissy. Of course it got deleted. It was questionable, but I see worse every day. It wasn't your fault. They would have just laughed me off if i would have asked your way. But nooooooo! Instead I had to ride that extra mile! I just asked if it would help my older stud if I sparked up the mare a bit. Let me put it this way, if there is a Viagra for horses, an ad should have popped up from my questions. This is not new. Spread it around. Keep track. Go window shopping for things you might buy if you hit the Lotto. They need to know we could control those ads, which makes them worthless to the sponsor. Boycott of a large corporation is an option.

Have you been contacted by a debt collector trying to collect on an old debt past the statute of Limitations? NEVER talk with anyone from a collection Agency on the phone about any debt that is past the Statute of Limitations. If you offer to make payment arrangements with these scumbags you do so at your own risk. Often they will gladly make an offer, take your money and still sue you in court. They can do that because by making any agreement to pay you are entering into a contract with them and the courts will see this as an acknowlegement of debt and will award them full judgement plus interest, fees, etc... You should immediately send the Collection Agency a dispute letter and a cease communication letter via certified mail with return receipt. Make sure to include a statement about your states statutes of limitations. For more on this visit www.budhibbs.com. Also go to www.myfaircredit.com and click on the Free Case Review to get free advice from a lawyer. File a complaint with the state attorney general and the FTC www.ftc.gov Check your credit reports, dispute any inaccuracies.

If a transaction for a sale between 2 people is arranged on the internet? Which state could a small claims court case be filed in? Example: Lets say a seller is in Arizona and a buyer is in Montana and a transaction happened on eBay, but the buyer filed a dispute with her credit card and the money was reversed from the seller. The seller has all shipping records and e-mails proving that he did nothing wrong and that the buyer was trying to scam him buy getting the item for free. Since the transaction took place online, can the seller file a suit in his own state, or does it have to be in the buyers home state? Yes is not a valid answer so I don't know what you are talking about????

Did you know? Did you know that if you have a dispute with a charge on your ATM card, you can file a Regulation E claim and get a credit while the claim is being investigated? Did you know that some banks offer a "Direct Deposit Advance?" It's a slightly cheaper "Payday Loan" for those who have direct deposit. Wells Fargo offers this. Did you know that some credit cards will give you free access to your credit score? Washington Mutual cards will. Did you know that if you call your finance company to ask for the pay off amount on an auto loan, they will offer you a lower rate without refinancing? Did you know that when you call your banks call center, you can ask for the "Executive Office" (or President's Office) to reach another call center that will help you with your problem? Did you know that if you ask to have a fee reversed, a call center employee will happily do it, if you reach the right one? I used to work for a bank. There is a lot of info that they won't tell willingly tell you. A Regulation E claim is not a loan. It is a regulation that was developed to protect cardholders from fraud. The bank has to give you a monetary credit while your claim is being investigated. Also, under Regulation E, when you make a deposit to the ATM, the first $100 is immediately available.

Did you know? Did you know that if you have a dispute with a charge on your ATM card, you can file a Regulation E claim and get a credit while the claim is being investigated? Did you know that some banks offer a "Direct Deposit Advance?" It's a slightly cheaper "Payday Loan" for those who have direct deposit. Wells Fargo offers this. Did you know that some credit cards will give you free access to your credit score? Washington Mutual cards will. Did you know that if you call your finance company to ask for the pay off amount on an auto loan, they will offer you a lower rate without refinancing? Did you know that when you call your banks call center, you can ask for the "Executive Office" (or President's Office") to reach another call center that will help you with your problem? Did you know that if you ask to have a fee reversed, a call center employee will happily do it, if you reach the right one? I used to work for a bank. There is a lot of info that they won't tell willingly tell you

Do you know you have a soul? Soon enough there will be no paper money, no dollars and no cents. Everyone will have a credit line of some sort, which will be a person’s source of sustenance. What lies in the future for mankind? I can guess with the best of them, and I think my guesses my hit home for some, and for some…oh I’m just a heretic madman. I eat food, I drink water, and I was born from a woman as well as from a man. To the common mind, that would make me human. Well as a human being I see things that could be detrimental to our well being as a race. We as Americans are comfortable compared to other countries in this world, basking in our freedom, and by my opinion we should bask away! We are free!! But…freedom doesn’t mean doing immoral things just because you can. That is not freedom. The concept of morals that many in society have without a doubt were birthed upon religious foundations. A common belief in a God, who will be coming back to harvest the righteous from the evils this world was infected with. This God made rules and sent a message of understanding to man, that his rules were meant not only to be preached about, but to be followed. Many of these rules from God that we understand to be righteous; are that way not because we know they are righteous, but because we also feel that it is. For example, helping those in need, or giving your time to do a good duty. You not only know that this is good within your mind, but you feel internally that it is good. Could that be your soul you feel? And if we have a soul doesn’t that prove that there is a God? Because this God we all know, no matter which religion, this God has told us about our souls. Thousands and thousands of years ago, when men were writing on papyrus and there were no cars, or computers, or planes, there was without dispute a belief in a God who talks to his creation and informs them that they are spiritual, of the spirit, the force, the energy, we contain souls!!! You know you have one… My question is, do you know that you have a soul? Or better yet…do you know your God?

how does one get out of a timeshare bought in Mexico? How binding is the contract I signed? I recently put a down payment on a timeshare in Mexico but changed my mind 4 days later. I notified by credit card company and they are helping me dispute it but I was wondering how binding the contract is considering it was signed in Mazatlan Mexico. Is there a grace period to cancel without any penalty? If my credit card company is able to get the payment from going thru am I home free? What can the people I bought the timeshare people do to me legally? What are my rights? They told me I can't cancel the only thing I can do is down grade the timeshare purchase to a less expensive one or forfeit the down payment? Do you have to be a certain age to buy a time share in Mazatlan Mexico?

So, what do you think of this? Buyer Beware! I recently had a very unpleasant experience with a website online. As luck would have it, our 4 year-old kitchen faucet stopped working properly; the handle wouldn’t swivel, it was hard to pull out & the whole thing was so out of whack that I couldn’t even get hot water from it. My handy-dandy hubby decided that he was going to fix it for me. I took everything out from under the sink & he proceeded to take the faucet apart. Upon close inspection he found that the mounting bracket had rusted out & some other parts were apparently damaged. “Get a new faucet, & I’ll install it for you”, he said. I went online & did a search for kitchen faucets. Lo and behold, a website: http://www.efaucets.com, which had photos of hundreds of faucets by all different manufacturers, popped up! I looked through it & clicked on “pull-out kitchen faucets” and came upon 2 attractive faucets that looked identical but had 2 different model numbers & prices. I looked at the description of both and they sounded the same. Naturally, I was confused, so I asked my hubby if he could detect a difference. “No”, he said, “The cheaper one is probably just last year’s model, why don’t you call & ask?” I did that, but since it was a Sunday night, they were closed. The less expensive of the faucets had a caption that said, “Hurry & place your order, as there are only 10 left in stock”. I did as suggested & gave my credit card number & all other pertinent info. Something still nagged at me; I went back & re-read the description. That’s when I noticed the word “prep”. What could that mean? I received a confirmation email stating that orders are shipped the same day if placed before 3 pm but if placed on a Saturday or Sunday it would be shipped on Monday (I placed my order at 7 pm on Sunday). I called the company the very next day as soon as they opened & asked what the difference was between the two. The lady at the other end said the one I ordered was a smaller bar faucet. I told her that I wanted to change my order because I didn’t realize that and she said: “Sorry, it’s too late as it has already been shipped, besides, it plainly stated it’s a “prep”. I explained to her what my confirmation email stated regarding shipping, etc. Her answer was that even though the company was closed, the shipping dept was open 7 days a week, blah, blah, blah and so I would have to pay shipping charges & a 15% re-stocking fee if I returned it, or a 25% fee plus shipping if I didn’t accept delivery. I then asked for a tracking number & she said she didn’t have that yet as they don’t get it until the following day…but this was the following day! Realizing I was getting nowhere fast, I hung up & called back ½ hr. later. I asked to speak to a supervisor & got the same story except that she was kind enough to offer me a 5% discount on the other but much more expensive faucet when I re-ordered; all other charges applied. I told her this was not a fair return policy & she haughtily said that it was clearly stated on their website. Having had enough of this nonsense, I called my credit card company who told me the purchase had been approved but not posted yet which is further proof that the item had not been shipped. They noted it on my file and asked me to call back once it was posted so they could dispute it. I called e-faucet once more & told the lady this. She was very nasty & said: “fine, they can talk to our legal dept” I replied, “OK, lady” & hung up. But wait, there’s more! Approximately 20 minutes later I got a call from a very polite & apologetic voice telling me that her name was “Amy” from e-faucet and that they would be happy to exchange the faucet for me for the other model, that it was not too late, that it was all a mistake, blah, blah, blah. She even offered to ship it overnight mail at “no extra charge”. “Sorry”, I said, “It is too late as I’m no longer interested because the whole incident left me with a bad taste about your company. I will buy it locally, and furthermore, if you don’t credit my account, I will not accept delivery & the transaction will be disputed. You then will have to pay for the shipping both ways, so what will it be?” “I will take care of it immediately” was her reply. To make a long story short, I finally called the Delta Company, which is the manufacturer of my original faucet & found out that it has a lifetime warrantee. They are shipping me all the replacement parts for my “old” faucet free of charge. Now my hubby has one more item on top of his ‘honey-do list’.

Help how do I get this bill resolved? How do I resolve a billing dispute that is being billed to my phone? I signed up for a free trial of netzero internet service that i called and canceled before the trial period was over. A few weeks laternetzero called me and asked if if i would try it again on another free trial period. I agreed and it wasn't working out for me so i called and canceled before the trial was over and they started billing me even though I had closed the accounts. Every month i would get my phone bill and they had charged me again and i called them each month and they promised to credit my phone bill and make sure the acount was closed. this went on for months. They never credited me and they stopped billing me about 6 months ago. Last month they started billing my phone bill again and this month too and calling them is not helping and my phone bills like 150.00 and they keep adding late charges and i dont wanna turn my phone off because it'll go against my credit and I keep calling them over &over.than

Who owns your cell phone data, you or the phone carrier?

Old rationales for government growth (discredited) and terrible time of recruiting employeess : GOOD¡? If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles. Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones. Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help. The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups. Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do. In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole. This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice. The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works. But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice. He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition. As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war. The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights. The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality. Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed. Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality. There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do. The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power. This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade. What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment. People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos. Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse. Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need. We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled. On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies. Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history. Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system. An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%! Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster. Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow. Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools. Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized. The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails. More from Lew: $25 Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world. We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day. We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others. We thank you for supporting education for liberty, for supporting the Mises Institute financially and morally, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lew Rockwell

State : Neither Samaritan Nor Solomon ?? Mises? If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles. Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones. Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help. The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups. Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do. In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole. This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice. The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works. But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice. He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition. As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war. The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights. The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality. Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed. Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality. There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do. The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power. This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade. What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment. People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos. Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse. Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need. We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled. On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies. Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history. Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system. An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%! Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster. Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow. Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools. Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized. The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails. Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world. We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day. We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others. We thank you for supporting education for liberty, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. : Mises Institute

What do you think of this web site about Bush being 1 Anti-Christ? Nice Guy? or the Devil's Spawn? He snorted cocaine ... He dodged the draft....His friends knew him as an alcoholic womanizer with a bad temper....a complete failure at business until his wealthy friends bailed him out. Yet within a few short years he was elected Governor of Texas, and quickly catapulted into the White House, in spite of losing the popular vote. He was re-elected with last minute help from Osama Bin Laden, in spite of high disapproval ratings. He still couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag .....and yet he's declared an endless war and instituted some of the most radical political changes in American history .... ....... How has He done it? I submit to you that George Walker Bush is the ANTI-CHRIST. The violence and destruction that started when Bush first entered office, is likely to culminate in the apocalypse, just as predicted in the Bible, over 2,000 years ago. ( I first posted this on Geocities over four years ago, before the 2000 election, to sound the alarm. Tragically, nobody listened. Now the World Trade Center has been hauled off for scrap, the Constitution is in tatters, our civil rights in ruins, and our nation is off fighting a Holy War in the Middle East..) The Evidence: Let's look at exhibit 1: The Number of the Beast The Bible gives us a way to prove whether or not a person is the Antichrist. Rev 13:18 says: "Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." That is, the number 666. St. John the apostle, the author of Revelation, was a Jew who wrote in Greek, though he did his thinking in Hebrew. He knew that every Hebrew letter has a numeric equivalent, and that's how the number 666 originated. Gematria is the process of adding up or counting the letters of the Hebrew alphabet in a word or name. Here is a table that list the Hebrew letters and the numbers that correspond. PLATE I.- TABLE OF HEBREW LETTERS Hebrew/Chaldee Letters Name Sound or Power Roman Letters Used Numerical Value Aleph Beth Gimel Daleth He Vau Zayin Cheth Teth Yod Caph Lamed Mem Nun Samekh Ayin Pe Tzaddi Qoph Resh Shin Tau a (soft breathing) b, bh (v) g (hard), gh d, dh (flat th) h (rough breathing) v,u,o,w z, dz ch, h (guttural) t (strong) i, y (as in yes) k, kh l m n s o, aa, ng (guttural) p, ph (f) ts, tz, j q, qh (guttural) r sh, s th, t A B C,G D E V,W Z H,Ch T I,Y K, C L M N S O,U P Tz Q R Sh Th 1 (Thousands are 2 denoted by a 3 larger letter; Thus 4 an Aleph larger 5 than the rest of 6 the letters 7 among which it is, 8 signifies not 1, 9 but 1000). 10 20 final = 500 30 40 final = 600 50 final = 700 60 70 80 final = 800 90 final = 900 100 (The finals are not 200 always considered as 300 bearing an increased 400 numerical value) (note: the letter 'S' has a different value depending upon whether it's used to form a hard or soft sound as in 'bus' or 'Bush'): If you add up the name 'George Bush' in Hebrew letters it comes out: G = 3 (gimel) e = 5 (heh) o = 70 (ayin) r = 200 (resh) g = 3 (gimel) e = 5 (heh) B = 2 (beth) u = 70 (ayin) s = 300 (shin) h = 8 (cheth) total = 666 (Antichrist) I challenge anyone to find another powerful world leader, either now or in the past, whose name adds up to 666 in Hebrew. Unlike Hebrew, the letters of the English alphabet don't automatically have a numeric value. The way numerologists convert names into numbers is through a simple numerical code. The most common method used by numerologists today is the Pythagorean System, named for the Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras, who invented it in the fifth century BC. It looks like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z If you add up the numbers of his full name using this system, according to the table above you get 7+5+6+9+7+5 for George, +5+1+3+2+5+9 for Walker, and +2+3+1+8 for Bush, which all adds up to a total of 78 = 7+8 = 15 = 1+5 = 6. The other method used in numerology is the Chaldean System, which has its roots in ancient Babylon, and is closely related to the Hebrew Kabbala: It looks like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A B C D E U O F I K G M H G Z P J R L T N W Q S X S If you add up the numbers of his name using the Chaldean System you get 3+5+7+2+3+5 for George, +6+1+3+2+5+2 for Walker, and +2+6+3+5 for Bush, which adds up to a total of 60 = 6+0 = 6. Once again the number is 6. But hold on, because we’re not done yet. ASCII stands for American Standard Code for Information Interchange. The computer you're using to read this can only understand numbers, and ASCII is the numerical representation of characters like ‘A,B,C’ or an action of some sort. now if you add up Bush's name in ASCII code, you get 71+101+111+114+103+101 for George, 87+97+108+107+101+114 for Walker, and 66+117+115+104 for Bush, which totals up to 1617 = 1+6+1+7 = 15 = 1+5 = 6. To recap: George Bush's name is equal to 666 if we use the Hebrew letter equivalents. It also equals 666 when we use the two most commonly used systems in numerology, together with ASCII code. Bush has another name used to identify him politically. A Republican from Texas. If you add up Republican in the most commonly used Pythagorean system you get 9+5+7+3+2+3+9+3+1+9 = 51 = 5+1 = 6. If you add up Texas you get 2+5+6+1+1 = 15 = 1+5 = 6. And if you add up Texas Republican you get 15 + 51 = 66. (Ever wonder why George Herbert Walker Bush Sr. left out the 'Herbert' when naming his son? George = six letters, Walker = six letters, and BushJr (or 'Busche', which was the original German spelling of their name) = six letters. = 666. Once again, the number of the beast.) But hold onto your hat, because there's more. Revelation says the number of the beast (the Antichrist) is 666 – it does not explicitly say this is the number of his name, though that could be part of it. So let's continue with the second number used by numerologists, the date of his birth. Mr. Bush was born July 6, 1946. If you add up all the digits in his date of birth you get 7+6+1+9+4+6 = 33 = 3+3 = 6. The third number used by numerologists is the "fate" number. There are two ways to find the number. Many numerologists find the fate, destiny, or ‘lucky’ number by taking the day of the month you are born, and reducing if necessary. Since Bush’s birth day is the 6th of July – no reduction is necessary. The other way is by adding the three components of the date of birth to a sum before reducing. Bush’s birth date is 7/6/1946 = 7+6+1946 = 1959 = 1+9+5+9 = 24 = 2+4 = once again, our third 6. However, to be absolutely certain that we’re dealing with the Antichrist, consider that you can also identify a man by the most important dates in his life – the day of his marriage, or the dates of his children’s birth, for instance. However, since it's the Antichrist we're considering, the most important dates in his life will be the dates on which he acquires world power. These dates will also be readily available to people everywhere, so that anyone can check to see whether a world leader is the Antichrist. Bush's first step in attaining world power was achieved on that fateful day Mr. Bush was first elected governor of Texas - his first elected office - on November 8, 1994. Again, just by adding up the digits we get 1+1+8+1+9+9+4 = 33 = 3+3 = 6. Then he was inaugurated as Governor of Texas on January 17, 1995. = 1+1+7+1+9+9+5 = 33 = 3+3 = 6. After losing the popular vote on November 7, 2000, Bush took his next giant leap towards world domination when he was inaugurated president of the United States on January 20, 2001. 1+2+0+2+0+0+1 = 6. Another six to replace the one he had as Governor. There you have it - 666 - the number of the Beast, any way you care to add it up. The number of his name in Hebrew = 666. The number of his name using the Pythagorean system = 6. The Chaldean system = 6. ASCII code = 6. The number of his birthday = 6. His lucky number = 6. The number of the date when he was first elected Governor = 6. When he is first inaugurated Governor = 6. The number when he was inaugurated president of the United States = 6. The number of the man/beast named George Walker Bush = 666. What are the chances? The chances of anyone's name being equal to 666 in Hebrew are at least one in a thousand. The chances of each of the others by themselves is 1 in 9. Using the law of cumulative probability, we can figure the chance of all these things occurring together in the same man to be 1 chance in (1,000 x 9 x 9 x 9 x 9 x 9 x 9 x 9 x 9), or 1 chance in 43,046,721,000. That's about seven times the current total world population. Since the Bible says that the Antichrist will be the most powerful leader in the world, and George Bush has already attained that goal, we would need to see another 43,046,721,000 most-powerful world leaders come and go, before we would have an even chance of another world-leader as strongly associated with the number 666. If all the future most powerful world leaders lasted only an average of 4 years, followed one right after another - as with a single presidential term - it would take over 172 billion years before we'd have a fair chance of seeing another world leader as strongly associated with the number 666. Unfortunately, according to the latest estimates, our sun will burn out in another 4-5 billion years. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely that another world leader will ever again be as strongly associated with the number 666 as George W Bush. There is still one more very remarkable piece of evidence: Bush declared his candidacy for president on June 12, 1999, at a mid-day Bar-B-Q in Iowa. By turning the day into a product of simple addition, we easily come up with the date 6/(6+6)/1999. That's a right-side up 666 next to an upside down 666, separated by a 1 that is holding the place for 1,000 years. The 1,000 years is the millennium of peace, which the Bible says will come after Christ defeats the Antichrist (the right side up 666) and rules the world for 1,000 years. Then, after the 1,000 year millennium, Satan will once again be released from hell (the upside down 666, as in coming up from hell). He is then defeated and thrown into the lake of fire forever (Revelation 20:7-10). So what are the chances? Obviously, the chances of any other world leader introducing himself to the world on 6/6+6/1999 are nil - it simply didn’t happen. Bush is the only one and he is the only leader in history who is so intimately connected to what must be the most inauspicious day in world history. Numerology was widely used in the early church, and St Augustine encouraged its teaching as a basic part of Christian education. In the Bible, seven is considered to be a perfect number because God created the world in 7 days. Six is considered to be an imperfect or sinful number, because it falls just short of the perfect number seven, in the same way our sins fall short of the mark. Mankind was created on the sixth day, and it was through mankind that sin came into the world through the fall of Adam and Eve. So the association of the number six with evil, as expressed in the book of Revelation, has its origins in the first few pages of Genesis, at the very beginning of the Bible. Exhibit 2 : Nailing the Beast Revelation 13:1-2 “And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns upon its horns, and a blasphemous name upon its heads. And the beast I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have a mortal wound, but the mortal wound had been healed.” This beast in Revelation is based upon one that first appears in the book of Daniel: Daniel 7: 7-8 “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast- terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns. While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.” So what are we to make of this confusing symbolism? What do the horns represent? What do the heads represent? What do the crowns mean? What does the body symbolize? It's not that difficult to figure out, now that we know who the Antichrist is. This beast is the image of an empire – the final world empire, and the one that gives rise to the Antichrist. Its body is likened to a leopard, because according to Victorinus, a father of the early church "“This signifies the kingdom of that time of Antichrist, and the people mingled with the variety of nations.” The spots on the leopard represent a multi-national, multi-racial, and multi-cultural 'melting pot'.. This was once the case with Rome, and is currently the case with the United States of America. The mouth is like a lion because Americans speak English, and the United States was once an English colony, and England has always been represented by a lion on the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. The bear is the symbol of Russia, and the bear-like feet of the beast are symbolic of how the only other superpower for forty years was the Russian bear, but now the US is walking all over what was formerly Russian territory, and it now has its ‘feet’, or military bases planted in countries that were once part of the USSR, like Uzbekistan and Kyrgistan. It says this beast comes out of the sea, and this is in reference to the New World, which was discovered by navigators like Columbus. The United States came out of the sea in the sense that at the time of St. John’s vision, it was assumed that the only thing west of Europe and east of the orient was water and the end of the world. The United States, as part of the 'New World', seemed from the perspective of the Biblical or ‘Old World’, to come up out of the water, and literally rise out of the sea. Daniel says this beast is different from the previous beasts. Because unlike all the others, the American Empire isn't headquartered in Europe or the Middle East, and the United States doesn’t formally colonize and occupy other nations (at least before Iraq), but it maintains military bases around the world, and its ships, planes and missiles are able to reach clear around the world, and that's what makes the United States an Imperial super-power. Horns symbolize power or virility, and the horns of the beast represent the powerful men who have come to rule over the American empire. Daniel says quite explicitly (Dan 7: 24) “the ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones. (the Antichrist)” America acquired superpower status, and gained the reach of a world-class Empire, when it acquired the nuclear bomb - at the very end of WWII. Since then there have been exactly ten “kings” or post-war presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, BushSr, and Clinton. The prophecy from Daniel says that after these ten presidents, there will appear another one, an arrogant “little horn”, which is the Antichrist, George W Bush. It says this “little horn” is unlike the other ten presidents, and this is in reference to the fact that Bush had no popular mandate, that he lost the popular vote by over a million votes, and was appointed to office when five un-elected judges on the Supreme Court stopped the counting of votes in Florida. This never happened before in American history, and it makes him different from his predecessors – that and his arrogance, dishonesty, law-breaking, and lust for world power. It also says that “three of the first horns (10 presidents) were uprooted before it.” Bush is a far-right Republican, and this in reference to the fact that when Bush Jr came to office, right-wing conspiracies had already uprooted and destroyed the presidencies of three previous key Democratic presidents, thereby changing history and sabotaging a more moderate course for the nation: John Kennedy, by assassination, Jimmy Carter, through the Iran hostage crisis “October Surprise” , and finally the Monica Lewinski sex impeachment. (which ultimately damaged Gore, as part of the Clinton/Gore presidency.) In all three of these right-wing conspiracies, there was direct involvement by the Bush crime family. Crowns are always associated with kingdoms, and the ten crowns on the ten horns represent the ten kingdoms or imperial powers whose power was eventually assumed by this particular beast, which is the United States. There were ten imperial powers over the past several hundred years, which became the European heirs to the power of the Roman Empire. At one point or other the United States, the ultimate and final heir to the Roman Empire, has either beaten these weaker empires outright in war, or assumed the power and sphere of influence they once commanded. These empires were the Spanish, Portuguese, British, Dutch, Austro-Hungarian, Byzantine/Ottoman, German /Holy Roman, Russian, Italian and French. The American beast, a former colony of these European Imperial powers, now proudly wears their crowns like scalps or trophies. This is symbolic of the US presidents who have wielded their power since WWII, when the power of European imperialism was broken.. Finally, what about the seven heads? Just as the ten crowns represent the power held by ten empires that divided the power of Rome, the seven heads are the seven world-class empires which for a time ruled over all the known world, of which Rome was only one. These seven master empires in chronological order are Babylon (both Old and New), Egypt, Assyria, Medo-Persia, Greece or Macedonia, Rome, and finally the United States. Islam once conquered a large area of the Middle East, but they never had a cohesive, world-class Empire. This also doesn’t include the Chinese, Inca, Mongol or Mayan Empires, because they were too far removed from the Biblical world, which includes the Mediterranean world of the Middle East and Europe. This area remains the critical heart of the Biblical world, even today. It doesn’t include empires like the British and Ottoman, because their power was actively contested by contemporaries, and they never held the sort of ‘sole superpower’ status that once marked Rome, and currently defines the USA. The head with a mortal wound that was healed is the Roman Empire/Nero, which seemed to have been dead for the last 1500 years, but now has been resurrected in the American Empire/Bush. All the other world-class empires were more or less continuous – whenever one was defeated the next sprang up on its heels. In that sense, from the perspective of the Biblical world, there was one continuous world empire that never seemed to die until Rome was finally defeated by the Christian church. This is the 'Whore Babylon' spoken about in prophecy - a premier line of world-class empires that first began with Babylon, and continues on with six other world class empires - the "seven mountains on which a woman sits" (Rev 17:9). A woman who keeps putting on different makeup - but it's always the same old whore. These empires not only dominate the world militarily, but economically and culturally as well. The “blasphemous name” written across the seven heads of the beast (and it says ‘name’, not ‘names’) are the seven letters B-A-B-Y-L-O-N. It also says about these seven heads or empires, that as of the time of the writing of Revelation (95 AD), (Rev 17:10) “five have fallen (Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece), one is (Rome), the other has yet to come (USA), but when it does, he (George Bush – the Antichrist) must remain for a little while.” When the American World Empire moved into Afghanistan and Iraq, in order to dominate and remake the middle east by force, it was a signal that the last World Empire, the Antichrist, and the final days had arrived. Many people wrote to me that Bush can’t be the Antichrist because “the Antichrist will come from Europe” or “the Antichrist will come from the Middle East”. But when pressed to back up their claim, they could not. Whether we like it or not, the evidence proves the Antichrist could only come from the United States of America, and it is none other than George Walker BushJr = 666. Exhibit #3: Daniel's Perspective On Current Events Here is a running commentary on a prophecy of Daniel concerning the Antichrist – one remarkably similar to what we are reading in our daily newspapers: Daniel 8:1-17 In the third year of King Belshazzar's reign, I Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. In my vision I saw in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam (located in Iraq just east of Babylon)...I looked up and there before me was a ram with two horns (Saddam Hussein), and the horns were long (Saddam once had the fourth most powerful army in the world). One of the horns was longer than the others but grew up later (his forces were divided into the regular armed forces and the Republican army. The Republican army was formed later and eventually grew into seven elite divisions that became the backbone of his forces.). I watched the ram as he charged towards the west, the north and the south. (Saddam was causing a lot of trouble in the Middle East - sparring with Israel in the west, then brutally suppressing the Kurds in the north, and finally invading and occupying Kuwait in the south, which triggered the first Gulf War.) No animal could stand up to him, and none could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great. (By 1990, Iraq had become the greatest military power in the region, and was on the verge of acquiring nuclear capability. This would have enabled him to overrun Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Persian Gulf oil states.) As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn came from the west (United States military forces under President George HW Bush), crossing the whole earth without touching the ground (US forces were either shipped across water or airlifted in from across the globe). He came towards the two-horned ram (Saddam's forces) they had seen standing by the canal (the straights of Shatt Al Arab, an important oil-producing region shared by Iraq and Kuwait, and crucial in the conflict. Kuwait was later found to have been slant drilling for Iraqi oil.) and charged at him in great rage. I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. (the air war that proceeded ground action in the Gulf War shattered and demoralized the dug-in Iraqi forces, both the regular army and the Republican Guard.) The ram was powerless to stand against him, the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. (US ground forces then rolled right over Saddam's forces. Other Arab nations in the region were either neutral in the conflict or openly supportive of US military intervention.) The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off. (After the War American prestige and power in the region soared. Yet in spite of world-wide acclaim and a job approval rate of over 90%, George WH Bush nevertheless lost the presidency a year later, and was no longer commander-in-chief of the most powerful military machine the world had ever seen.) And in its place four prominent horns grew up towards the four winds of heaven. (Having retired from politics, his power and reputation was now in the hands of his four sons: George, John (aka “Jeb”), Neil & Marvin. It was up to them to redeem the family’s name and power.) Out of one of them (that is, from one of his four sons) came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. (George W Bush started out failing at everything, and spent most of his adult life drinking. He had no power to speak of – his horn was very small. Then at the age of 48 he was suddenly elected governor of the southern state of Texas. He gained more power when he was appointed to the presidency, and moved east to Washington DC to assume the office. Now he's sent American forces off to conquer or ‘democratize’ the Middle East, also known in the Bible as 'beautiful land'.) It grew until it reached the host of heaven and it threw some of the starry hosts down to earth and trampled on them. (Here we have a picture of an arrogant leader whose great power has gone completely to his head. He challenges the authority of heaven by pretending to be on a divine mission to attack other nations.) It set itself up as great as the Prince of the host; (With 'Operation Infinite Justice', Bush compared his bloody justice to that of a patient and merciful God) it took away the place of daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. (The United States invaded and destroyed numerous Mosques in the pursuit of fundamentalist Moslem ‘terrorists’. It has also proclaimed that any Islamic state offering them sanctuary will be attacked.). The heavenly host was delivered up (many innocent civilians are being slaughtered by American forces - over 650,000 at last count , an Iraqi casualty rate that's the same as killing about 8 million Americans, or the entire population of New York City - and delivered up as angels before God), and the little horn (George W Bush) raised itself impiously against the regular offering and cast true religion to the ground; (though he claims to be a Christian, and a man of peace fighting against forces of evil, just the opposite is the case. He is a violent and profane man consumed by greed and a lust for power; he persecutes and murders the poor to increase the profits of the rich, and trades blood for oil.) It succeeded in all he did, and truth was thrown to the ground (for a short time his 'war on terrorism' was very successful. He won every military battle and announced 'mission accomplished'. He fooled a lot of people with lies about WMDs, while pretending he's fighting for freedom and democracy. ). Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled? -....." He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated." (The ‘war on terrorism’ will last about six and a half years, causing an unbelievable amount death and destruction. Then Bush/the Antichrist will be removed by God, and peace restored to the Middle East)....While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. (Jesus, the son of God) And I heard a man's voice calling, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision." As he came near the place I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end." (This vision is about the last days - the time of the Apocalypse and the battle of Armageddon.) Exhibit #4a: the Bush/Nero Connection The term "antichrist' was first used in the most recent books of the Bible, ( 1 John 2:18) " many antichrists have made their appearance." Most Biblical scholars believe that St. John was referring to members of a Gnostic Christian cult. For the early church, all those actively working against the spirit of Christ were considered antichrists, whether or not they call themselves Christians. As St. Augustine put it: “There you have the Antichrist – everyone who denies Christ by his works.” At the same time, the early church believed that there would be one individual, a single man whose evil deeds would far exceed all the others; and this Antichrist would make his appearance just before the second coming of Jesus. Jesus called him ( Mark 13:14) "the abomination of desolation" Paul referred to him as the ( 2 thess 2:3) "man of sin" and "son of perdition". John in his letter and in his Revelation to the church called him "the beast" or "antichrist." Most scholars now believe that the antichrist in the book of Revelation was Nero, emperor of Rome from 54 - 68 AD. Nero was the first emperor to persecute the church with a vengeance, blaming Christians for the burning of Rome, and torturing them to death in the Forum. Both St. Paul and St. Peter were executed by Nero. After Nero committed suicide, it was widely believed that Nero was still alive in Parthia (the Middle East), hiding out (much like Elvis), and that he would return to reclaim his throne. As late as the fifth century AD, Lactantius (240-320 A.D.), Jerome (340-420 A.D.) and St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) all assumed that the Antichrist would turn out to be some kind of resuscitated Nero. Were they wrong? Certainly Nero the man never returned from the dead, and the church eventually looked elsewhere for the antichrist - but that doesn't invalidate the prophecy. Nero has indeed returned, but not as Nero the Roman emperor. He's returned in spirit as George W Bush, the 43rd (P)resident of the United States.. Nero was only a foreshadowing of the last antichrist. This final and most powerful antichrist in history is prepared to finish the campaign that began with Nero almost 2,000 years ago. Most Biblical historians, including Barclay, believed that 666 was in reference to Emperor Nero. The Hebrew transliteration (without vowels) of Nero's Latin name, Caesar Nero, (QWSR NRWN) adds up to 666 using the Hebrew alphabet above. But St. John gave us this number (666) rather than his name (Nero) so that we could identify him today. Because as I have already demonstrated conclusively in exhibit #1, George Bush has the mark of the beast like no other man in human history. The Beast and His Brain: One of the mysteries of Revelation has been the identity and connection of a second beast who rescues the antichrist and serves as his prophet. Rev 13:12 "He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast." Carl Rove became Bush's alter ego when he rescued Bush from political death after his defeat in a Congressional race, and since 1993 he has served as the brains and the cleverness of the antichrist. There is even a new best-selling book by that title "Bush's Brain". No mere presidential advisor has ever held so much power. Every decision Bush makes is calculated and spun by Rove for political effect, with absolutely no regard for the truth. A true prophet divines the will of God in order to help lead a nation in the path of truth and righteousness. But a false prophet like Rove can predict the moods and weaknesses of the people and manipulate public opinion through the skillful use of fear, in order to advance his evil agenda. Exhibit #4b: the Bush/Herod Connection George W. Bush is closely related to the House of Windsor and the British Royal Family, and he is related to just about every other Royal family in Europe. In fact, George Jr. is more closely related to British royalty by blood than his own father. Why? The blue-blood of the Pierce family running through his mother's veins. Bush is not only the wealthiest president we've ever had, he's also the purest aristocrat ever to sit in the White House. Why is this so important to our discussion? Because in his recent book, The Antichrist and a Cup of Tea, author Tim Cohen has meticulously documented why he believes the Antichrist must be someone who, like Bush, is closely related to the British Royal family. Though Cohen's prime suspect seems to be Prince Charles, clearly George Bush is a much better candidate for the role. Bush's bloodline is also tied into the 13th bloodline of the Illuminati. According to some, the Illuminati are a group of rich, powerful, satanically inspired families who have conspired throughout history to rule the earth, even to the present day. This thirteenth or 'royal' illuminati bloodline is the one that is widely believed to lead directly to the final Antichrist. Noted British author David Icke has traced the Bush bloodline as far back as Phillip of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the Great, who established the Greek World Empire. From that point, the Bush bloodline passes through the principal ruling families of the Roman Empire and eventually through European royalty as well. He is also descended from Queen Cleopatra, royal consort to Julius Caesar. Icke comments that "She also bore twins with Mark Anthony, who has his own connections to this line and its many offshoots" Marc Anthony happens to be the great-Grandfather of Emperor Nero. So now there is also a definite blood connection between Emperor Nero, the original Biblical prototype for the Antichrist, and George W Bush. One branch of the Bush bloodline also passes directly through Herod the Great, the Judean King who originally tried to murder Jesus as a child, and he is related to Herod Antipas, who murdered John the Baptist and turned Jesus over to Pilate to be crucified. Exhibit #4c: the Bush/Judas Connection Understanding the psychology of Judas Iscariot is a good way to understand the Antichrist. Judas was a model or template for the way the Antichrist would betray Christ, even while pretending to be a disciple and follower of Christ. You could say that George Bush is the spiritual reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, since he thinks, acts, and is motivated in precisely the same way. Judas is the disciple who betrayed Jesus for money. Thirty pieces of silver to be exact. The Bible is very clear that is what he did, and what actually happened. But it doesn’t tell us how he rationalized this betrayal in his own mind. It doesn't say because it was basically only a rationalization, and it really didn’t matter. But it is also clear that Judas did not see himself as a greedy man who sold out Jesus for money, even though that’s exactly what he did. The same is very true with Bush – and with many Christians today. We know that Judas was a greedy man because the Bible tells us he kept the money, and it also says that he was a thief. (John 12:6) So he must have been stealing all along. At one point, Judas objects that Jesus is being anointed with spikenard, a costly ointment. He rationalizes how it could have been sold and used to help the poor. But he really didn’t want to help the poor – he only wanted the money for himself. In the same way Bush rationalizes that his tax cuts for the rich were really to stimulate the economy, and to provide jobs and prosperity for the poor. In truth he cares nothing about the poor, and in fact the poor in America are poorer and more numerous since he came to power. Like Judas, Bush was put in charge of the government purse, and he has bankrupted the nation and enriched his wealthy cronies. He is a thief. Exactly like Judas, he uses staged photo-ops and a feigned concern for the poor - as he did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - as a cover for his continuing theft from the government purse. Eventually Judas even sold Jesus out for money. But it's obvious he didn’t understand the real extent of his betrayal till the very end, anymore than Bush will. It's only at the very end, when Judas finally saw himself for what he really was, and understood what he had actually done, that he threw away the money and hanged himself. He committed suicide because he couldn't live with the truth of what he had become. You see, Judas had deceived himself as much as he deceived everyone around him. Jesus constantly warned about the deceitfulness of riches, (Mark 4:19) but it’s not a warning Judas took very seriously. Nor has Bush. So what kind of rationalization did Judas give himself for betraying Christ for money? Did he tell himself it was to compel Jesus to take a more aggressive stand against Roman occupation? Had he convinced himself that he could hurry along coming of the Kingdom of God? In spite of all the miracles, had he convinced himself what a lot of other people believed – that Jesus was crazy, a charlatan, or that he needed to be stopped for his own good? Whatever rationalization he gave himself, it was not the real reason. The real reason was greed. In the same manner, Bush has betrayed and lied to his own countrymen, and gotten us involved in a bloody war in Iraq. He told us it was over weapons of mass destruction, but that was a lie. He's still telling himself it's to establish freedom and democracy in the Middle East, but that's a lie and a rationalization as well. The real reason is greed for oil. Why was it that Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss? Isn’t it because he didn’t yet understand the depth of his betrayal? So why should we expect Bush to understand? The fact that Judas didn’t understand until the very end, did not make him any less evil, or his actions any less reprehensible. It is our actions that matter, not how good we are at rationalizing them. It is the 655,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children killed, and 3,000 American lives wasted - that's what matters. Spinning and rationalizing is something the most evil people are best at doing. Including Bush. new exhibit! Exhibit #5 Photographic Evidence According to "Satanism In America" the Il Corduno or "horned hand" is a sign of recognition between practicing Satanists. Here is a picture of the salute taken from a Satanic manual. Notice how it is a one-handed salute, and that the palm of the hand faces outward. The following are just a few examples among the numerous times where Bush has been seen flashing the 'devil's salute'.- even at his second inauguration. His explanation? According to Bush, he's not giving the internationally recognized sign for devil worshippers. According to him, he's giving the sign of the University of Texas Longhorns. But this doesn't hold water for two very good reasons. #1 George W Bush never attended the University of Texas. He received his undergraduate degree from Yale University. The University of Texas law school then turned him down flat, because his record at Yale was so bad. But family connections enabled him to get into Harvard Business school. Nobody in their right mind goes around continually flashing the sign of a college they never attended, a college that rejected him. He likely did pick it up at college, but while attending Yale, and after joining a Satanic cult called "Skull and Bones". #2 There is another very good reason why his alibi just doesn't wash. Bush really isn't flashing the sign of the Texas Longhorns at all. This following is a picture of a University of Texas student giving the Longhorns salute. Notice how BOTH hands are used, and the back rather than the palms of the hands are facing outwards, to simulate a Texas Longhorn. It is apparent Bush is definitely NOT giving the University of Texas Longhorns salute. Rather, he's giving the Satanic 'horned hand' salute. Now he's even got his wife doing it! BTW: Laura also killed her boyfriend and got away with it. (Some have emailed me to say that many people in Texas use the same salute. That's irrelevant. Even if everyone in Texas does it (which is doubtful) - it's still a satanic salute, no matter who does it. It's Satanic because that's how the salute originated, and how it is interpreted by most people throughout the world today. Bush knows exactly what he's doing, and how it's seen and interpreted around the world. As a publicly elected (or appointed) representative of our government, he has a responsibility not to say or do something that might reflect poorly upon our nation. He knows it's Satanic, and yet he continues to do it. Therefore, he's intentionally flashing a Satanic salute.) Exhibit #666: Psychological Proof The Antichrist is the greatest deceiver of all time. The Bible indicates he will even pretend to be religious. In fact, he will ultimately pretend to be God, and be worshipped as God half way through the Apocalypse. More than any other president Bush wears his religion on his sleeve - both for political gain, and to deceive the world. Presidential assistant David Kuo quit his post because he was convinced that Bush had deceived conservative Christians. Bush says that God (rather than the Supreme Court) chose him to lead the nation, and he sees himself on a divine mission. Bush told an Amish group in Pennsylvania that "God speaks through me." Another story that ran in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz tells how Bush had told Middle East leaders that " God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did” What's important about these voices Bush is hearing, which are effectively telling him to go kill people, is that Jesus consistently taught his disciples to overcome evil with good, rather than with bombs and bullets and violence, and, "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Mat 26:52) It is eminently reasonable to assume that the voices Bush is hearing are not coming from God at all, but from Satan. It is also reasonable to assume that the devil does not desire peace, but war, death, and destruction. Why is it that when ordinary citizens hear voices telling them to go kill people, we lock them up for the safety of themselves and the community? Yet when Bush hears voices telling him to kill, many evangelical/fundamentalist Christians rejoice, and pretend he was chosen by God. Along with hearing voices, the degradation of his cognitive and verbal skills has been striking, when compared with where he was just ten years ago. “Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home. It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.” In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be doing “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration." In another much-under-reported story, a very prominent Washington psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank has diagnosed Bush as a very paranoid and sadistic megalomanic. In his new book, Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, he writes that Bush's years of heavy drinking "may have affected his brain function" and he "fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated." His diagnosis? "Our sole treatment option -- for his benefit and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office . . . before it is too late." Unfortunately, Democrats have taken impeachment off the table - at least for now. Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School. Bush seems to have fooled a lot of people into believing he really is God. One man in Florida said what may people on the religious right are saying, "this is the first time I felt God was in the White House." There is even a website dedicated to his worship called "Bush IS LORD". How's that for an abomination? (Some have e-mailed me to say that Bushislord.com is only a parody site. but the Bible says that the Antichrist will be worshiped as God, whether seriously or not. See below for the more serious Bush worshippers. As far as Bush not being the Antichrist because he's not very popular around the world, that mistake stems from a confusion over the antichrist as a system of values vs. the Antichrist as an individual. American culture is still very popular around the world, even though Bush is very unpopular. If the singular Antichrist was popular and beloved all around the world, how do you explain the battle of Armageddon, when the Antichrist will be violently opposed and overthrown by the rest of the world?) Chuck Baldwin is founder and pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He has a daily syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called “Chuck Baldwin Live” Chuck says: “many people attribute to Bush god-like qualities, which actually makes him a better candidate than Clinton was…I do believe that Bush possesses more deceptive qualities than Clinton did and, therefore, is more dangerous...one of the chief characteristics of the coming antichrist is that he appears "as an angel of light...Bush' s acceptance by the overwhelming majority of Christian people proves the country is ready for the Antichrist." Now listen to what the most renowned prophet of the Christian era has to say in exhibit 7: Exhibit #7: Nostradamus Michel Nostradamus (1503-1566) a French physician and astrologer who wrote over 900 predictions concerning the fate of the world. Written in four-lined rhyming quatrains, they were to be become famous for their astonishing accuracy. Note: A quatrain circulating around and attributed to Nostradamus: "The village idiot" etc. is a hoax, and it was not written by Nostradamus. That being said, the devil does hide the truth behind a lie, and the Antichrist's most important identifying trait is his ability to deceive. What better deception than to play the idiot? Hitler was once ridiculed and compared to Charlie Chaplain, but the world eventually discovered he was anything but a joke. Bush openly remarks that his greatest advantage lies in the fact that people tend to "mis-underestimate" him. The devil's most powerful weapon lies in the fact that we often underestimate his great cunning. I'm not denying that in may ways Bush is a complete idiot - however the principalities and powers guiding his actions are not stupid. Not by a long shot. Nostradamus outlined three distinctly different and progressively worse Antichrist figures, the last one being the bloodiest of all. The first two Antichrists have already come and gone, namely Napoleon and Hitler. So we are now waiting for the final Antichrist. Using this information as background, we can now focus on details concerning the final Antichrist, according to the prophesies of Nostradamus: century 6 quatrain 13 A doubtful man shall not come far from the reign The greatest part will uphold him A capital will not consent that he should reign. His great chair he shall not be able to maintain. This one is pretty straightforward, and it concerns the man who tried to stop the AntiChrist's rise to power: "A doubtful man shall not come far from the reign" = Everyone doubted Gore had a chance, but he ended up nearly capturing the presidency. "The greatest part will uphold him." = He won the popular vote. "A capitol will not consent he should reign" = The right-wing US Supreme Court in the capital Washington DC stopped the counting of votes in Florida to ensure Gore's defeat. "His great chair he shall not be able to maintain." = He also lost the office of Vice President. century 2 quatrain 62 Ma-bus then will soon die, there will come A horrible slaughter of people and animals: At once vengeance is revealed coming from a hundred hands, Blood, thirst and hunger when the comet will run. This gives us a clue to the last Antichrist's name, the sign of his coming, and the slaughter he will initiate before being removed. His rise to power is associated with a comet, and it was during the spectacular show of the Hale-Bop comet that Bush's own political star rose like a comet - he assumed his first elected office in '95 when Hale-Bop was first sighted, and by the time the comet reached its brightest stage in '97, he was already being talked about as the next president. "will soon die" may mean after the comet dies and the antichrist assumes power (the presidency), "will come a horrible slaughter " referring to the coming apocalypse in the middle east. "vengeance is revealed coming from a hundred hands" refers to the western alliance formed to take revenge for the bombings of the WTC and the Pentagon. "MA-BUS" is also short for ‘the AMerican, Bush’, just by inverting the first two letters and leaving out the last H, which is already silent in Latin languages like French, the language of Nostradamus. It is also a combination of MR.Bush, where the R looks like a capital A. Mabus is also a combination of MAgog and Bush, a reference to Bush’s given name in a Satanic cult. (Bush was named ‘Magog’ in the scull and bones society.) Homework assignment: Write down the first two letters of Mabus – Ma, turn them around 180 degrees, and hold it up to a mirror, Mabus becomes gW Bush. Note: Nostradamus also misspelled that Hitler's name, calling him "Hister" (Hysterical Hitler?) century 2 quatrain 30 One who the infernal gods of Hannibal Will cause to be reborn, terror of all mankind Never more horror nor the newspapers tell of worse in the past, Than will come to the Romans through Babel (Iraq). “ The AntiChrist, aka MA-BUS aka 'MAgog Bush'aka the AMeircan BUSh, is strongly associated with a reincarnated Hannibal. Hannibal was a general from Africa who invaded Italy with his elephants in order to conquer Rome. But he failed to deliver the final crushing blow. Sound familiar? Colin Powel is another general, originally from Africa, who also marches with the elephants (Republicans). Just like Hannibal, Powel launched an attack in the first Gulf War, but he failed to go all the way Baghdad to remove Saddam, just like Hannibal failed to capture Rome itself.. “Never more horror… than will come to the Romans through Babel (Iraq).” This Quatrain equates the United States with Rome, and tells us that it is because of the current war in Iraq, that the United States (the new Roman Empire) will suffer a bloodbath like the world has never seen before. century 8 quatrain 70 He will enter, wicked, unpleasant, infamous, tyrannizing over Mesopotamia (Iraq). All friends made by the adulterous lady: the land dreaded and evil in aspect. This indicates the antichrist (Bush), not desiring peace, will bully and 'tyrannize' Iraq. The 'adulterous lady' is the statue of liberty, lady liberty, a symbol of America, that followed the Antichrist to satisfy their greed and thirst for power (and oil). America's 'friends' are the allies bullied into aiding American aggression in Iraq. century 10 quatrain 66 The chief of London by the American reign, The isle will divide thee from Scotland by frost; They will have again as King one who is so false an Antichrist, That he will put them altogether in a conflict; The 'chief of London' is Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, and it indicates that America is telling him what to do. 'Divide thee from Scotland by frost' dates this prophecy by indicating how Scotland recently voted for home rule and convened their first Parliament since 1707. 'Have again as king...' indicates how Bush, the American Antichrist, is making British foreign policy like a king - and the fact that his family is descended from British royalty. 'Put them altogether in a conflict.' says he will drag both Britain and America into war in the Middle East. Century 1 quatrain 50 From the three water signs Will be born a man Who will Celebrate Thursday as his feast day. His renown, praise, rule and power will grow on land and sea, Bringing trouble to the East. Bush was born on July 6 = Cancer, one of the three water signs. He was born in America, which celebrates its birthday on July 4 = Cancer. He was born in New Haven Connecticut, which was founded by Puritans on March 17, 1638 = Pisces, another water sign, though he claims to be from Texas, which on March 2, 1836 became a Republic = again Pisces. The Thursday "feast day" is an obvious reference to Thanksgiving, which identifies the Antichrist as an American president. It indicates he will have considerable military success at first, but in the process stir up ancient fears and sunni vs shiite hatreds, that will eventually lead to the battle of Armageddon . century 10 quatrain 72 The year 1999, seventh month, From the sky will come a great King of Terror. To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols, Before and after Mars to reign by good luck. In June of 1999, Bush formally declared his candidacy for president, and by a July he was already calling himself the president. It is important to understand it was not just a mistake. The AntiChrist receives his authority from Satan - not from God, and not from men. By "mistakenly" calling himself president before any election had been held, Bush was announcing to the world for the first time in July of '99 that he was Satan's chosen ruler - the AntiChrist. Likewise the first AntiChrist, Napoleon, crowned himself emperor. And again the second AntiChrist aka Hitler never waited to receive a popular mandate before seizing power. Like Hister, Ma-bus aka 'AMerican- Bush', aka MAgog Bush, used thugs to enforce his authority in Dade county. If Bush had won the popular vote, and had not stolen the election in Florida, it would have been conclusive evidence that he was not the third AntiChrist. Secondly, the quatrain refers to the fact that Antichrist will come into the world from the sky - the French word can also be translated as 'heaven'. George Bush was born in 'New Haven' Connecticut. (Scripture says Jesus will also return from heaven, and the antichrist is the counterfeit of Christ.) Thirdly, it indicates that after the US gets bogged down and weakened by a religious war in the Middle East, it will be Communist China's good luck to be able to overrun what's left of the world in the style of Genghis Khan! Still not convinced? Exhibit #8: Bush's Secret Alliance With EVIL You won't read about it in the New York Times, let alone hear about it on the FOX network, but the current occupant of the White House is not only an ongoing member of one of the most evil and Satanic cults in America, but his family got rich helping Hitler come to power and exterminate six million Jews. George W Bush was/is a member of the "skull and bones" society. There's even a movie about it. And no, this isn't just another harmless Greek fraternity. It’s a secretive, satanic cult for the jaded and self-appointed elites at Yale University. The upper crust of the upper crust – with only 15 new initiates selected from each graduating class. Bush wrote in his autobiography it was, "so secret, I can't say anything more." But I can: We know that initiates undergo torture, kiss a scull, press a human femur bone to the initiates backside, act out a throat slashing ritual murder, and they pledge allegiance to a figure dressed up as Satan. They are also compelled to relate their entire sexual history while masturbating in a coffin. Bush had the name "Magog" , because he had the most extensive illicit sexual background of all the new initiates. And of course, Gog and "Magog" are names directly connected with Satan and the Antichrist in Revelation (20:8). The following is a short clip from a video taken by investigative journalist Ron Rosenbaum on April 14, 2001: Scull&Bones Clip The words and imagery of the cult are heavily centered on death, as they repeat the same mantra over and over, till it is burned into their conciseness: THE HANGMAN EQUALS DEATH! THE DEVIL EQUALS DEATH! DEATH EQUALS DEATH!’ Initiates are instructed to "die to the barbarian world" so that they can be reborn in the "The Order," a brotherhood of Satan. In a new and more recent twist, in addition to being cross examined by Satan, initiates are also being cross-examined by a member dressed up as George W Bush, aka "Magog", who hurls vulgar profanities and says thing like "I’m gonna kill you like I killed Al Gore." Some may want to dismiss all this as somewhere on the extremely poor-taste edge of college hijinks, but it’s much more serious than that. Such a darkly obscene and prolonged ritual cannot help but have a lasting impact on the souls of young initiates. Oaths to the devil taken in jest are nevertheless taken in fact. It's also important to point out that scull and bones cult members do not resign after graduation - like born again Christians they consider themselves to be born again into “the order” forever- only they're reborn in Satan, and not the Holy Spirit. They even have their own hideout called Deer Island, where former Bones members bring their families for summer reunions. A secluded hideaway is located in the St. Lawrence River, and owned by the Deer Island Club Corporation, a shell company operated by Skull and Bones members. The Scull and Bones Satanist Elites maintain their cultic relationships their entire lives - mostly by helping each other gain positions of influence and world power, in order to make more money. A satanic mafia for the super-well-connected. Though Bush kept going bust in the oil business, his comrades from scull and bones helped bail him out, and it was they who would later give him his start in politics. Bush was also involved in torture at Delta Kappa Epsilon, at a time when he was President of the fraternity. One pledge recalled how this "compassionate conservative" took great pleasure in branding him with a red hot iron, leaving him with scars which he carries to this day. When the hazing scandal broke in the campus newspaper in the late '60s, Bush tried to defend the illegal torture as a "harmless prank", but the fraternity was fined and the branding practice halted. It's little wonder that he still considers illegal torture a 'harmless prank': When he was a boy he also used to sadistically insert firecrackers into frogs and blow them up for kicks. Little wonder that under his leadership, for the first time Americans are engaging in the shameful and counter-productive practice of torturing prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib Prision. Then there's the Bush family alliance with the greatest evil in history - Adolph Hitler. Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush, also a 'scull and bones' man, got rich first by helping the Nazis come to power, then helping Hitler build the war machine that would decimate the world, and then even benefiting from Nazi slave labor and the extermination of millions of Jews. Auschwitz was built near coal deposits so that slave labor could be used in one of Prescott Bush's holdings, the Silesian American Corporation. Even after the US declared war on Germany, Prescott Bush continued violating the Trading With the Enemy Act, until the government finally shut him down late in 1942 - but not before making him rich, and establishing the Bush family as a power in American politics . Exhibit #9: The latest Antichrist Poll Results are in: According to the latest results of a non-partisan online poll, 52% of the public now firmly believes that George W Bush IS in fact the The Antichrist! Wow! That's over half of the public, and a far higher percentage than with any other person. Even Osama Bin Laden came in at only 2%. Seems like the word is finally getting out. An article in Seattle Weekly asks the question "Is Bush The Antichrist?" . While obliquely referring to this page as but a "whimsical 666-numerological riff", it quotes the Rev. Rich Lang of Seattle's Trinity United Methodist Church who says of Bush "He has the spirit of the Antichrist. Literally, break the word apart. It is a spirituality that is anti-Christ." Exhibit #10 (Rev 13:14-15) " that they should make an image to the beast..and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Check out the clip about "Jesus Camp," one of many fundamentalist training camps where little children are being indoctrinated as warriors, and taught to grovel and worship before the image of their Glorious Leader, George W. Bush. To better inform the p