Yes, if I didn't talk about my sex life I would have none at all.

Tough call Bobby. I kinda preferred #1 but as I looked I couldn't eliminate any of them. #5 was great but #6 was right up there as well. Decisions, Decisions, You couldn't go wrong with any of them.

I avoid Starbucks for two reasons, their coffee is the foulest tasting glop I have ever had and their prices are ridiculously high.

I don't want any space roasted beans coffee, thanks. Doesn't matter who buys, there are some limits on how much stupidity I would support and this goes beyond the pale. Put it in the same box with the Civet cat pooper scooper coffee.

Where does one apply to have an accident with one of these cuties?

email@news.boblivingstonletter.com

Or look up Bob Livingstone. Newsletter is free.

The election process in America has become a disguise for corruption that attracts the corrupt. When men and women go to Washington, they pretty soon learn that they are paid by the federal government and, therefore, they are in the hire of the federal government. No allegiance to their constituents is necessary and, as a matter of fact, there is very soon is even little pretension — at least until election time.

One need merely look at the fossils who have held office for the last generation; people like Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Thad Cochran, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Richard Shelby, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Sen. Chuck Grassley — all of whom have "served" 30 years or more — to see why a term limit bill like the one introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz and co-sponsored by Republican Senators Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and David Purdue is necessary.

Limiting the terms of representatives and senators and eliminating their federal pensions would be a first step to restore our liberty.

If Americans could restore their power over so-called elected representatives, this could cut out the smoke and mirrors of politics. I think the hour is late and maybe even too late, but let's try to reverse all the perks that our "elected representatives" have bestowed upon themselves.

If we are to undertake this monumental task we must first look back to see when and how republicanism died.

The year 1913 was a terrible one for human liberty. The 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified that year, and the Federal Reserve central bank was established. The Federal Reserve created a fiat money system of theft for the benefit of the banksters and the moneyed elites. It is designed to impoverish the people. The 16th Amendment established a progressive income tax that the U.S. Supreme Court failed to strike down. The 17th Amendment changed the way Senators were selected, taking the appointing power from state legislatures and placing it in the hands of voters. That removed the final nail holding the checks and balances the states had in place over federal power.

Most of the nails had already been removed in 1861 when Abraham Lincoln shredded the Constitution, stripped Americans of their strongest check against federal tyranny and invaded the secessionist states. The result is that in 1913 the U.S. government was taken over once and probably for all time by moneyed power.

Many of the Founders — particularly the anti-Federalists — feared a powerful central government. The Constitution they established to create a restraint on federal power decreed that each state's legislature would choose its two senators as one of the checks against a strong central government.

Depending upon their point of view, Founders either hailed or lamented the fact that, by simply refusing to appoint Senators, the States could see the central government "destroyed" (William Richardson Davie) and "put an end to" (Samuel Johnston). Or, as Alexander Hamilton (who actually wanted a U.S. system similar to British mercantilism) opined: "It is certainly true, that the State Legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of Senators, may destroy the National Government."

The 17th Amendment was proposed ostensibly to correct a procedural problem that cropped up when divided State legislatures were unable to agree on a Senator to send to Washington, D.C. This would leave States unrepresented.

According to a research paper by Wendy Schiller from Brown University and Charles Stewart III from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in about 2 percent of cases the State legislatures were deadlocked and unable to resolve their differences and select a Senator. However, it did occur — even occurring in the very first Congress, when the State of New York went without Senate representation for three months.

The direct election of Senators by the people ended that problem, but created a whole new problem in which Senators are now bought and paid for by the banksters and lobbyists. It is this system that explains why the Republican elite have gone against Republican voters on subjects like amnesty for illegal aliens, Obamacare, etc., which are pushed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and big corporations,

Term limits and repealing the 17th Amendment would take the money out of senate elections on the federal level. Senators would be beholden to their state legislatures rather than the corporatist class which lines their pockets and finances their re-election campaigns.

Their ability to vote for themselves pay raises, their tenure and pension perks, their liberal, special low-cost health perks not available to citizens, their immunity from the laws they pass on the people, their retirement plans paid for by the government (read: the people) and their lack of term limits must all be removed. Their salaries should be paid by their respective States.

The notion that long-serving politicians and political bureaucrats would become obstructionist to the will of the people, corrupt and wealthy off government is not new. John Taylor of Caroline, in his book, "An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States," published in 1814, warned about that very thing.

Before publishing this first of his four books on politics and agriculture, Taylor, a lawyer, served as cavalry colonel and a militia major in the Revolutionary War, served in the Virginia House of Delegates and two stints in the U.S. Senate, so he had keen insight into the corrosive nature of politics:

Great power, or a long possession of power, changes a man's moral nature, whether it is derived from inheritance or election. Patriots, as well as princes, become tyrants from being steeped in the same menstruum, and yet nations are still to learn, that its intoxicating qualities are the same upon both. They consider its effect as natural in one case, and monstrous in the other; as if both princes and patriots were not men. Revolution falls, because its usual remedy is only to draw the menstruum from election instead of inheritance, into which to plunge the moral qualities of human nature. Even a hope of office corrupts eloquence. It ceases to be the animated auxiliary of truth, and becomes the mercenary ally of interest. Honesty is exchanged for art. An artificial character is formed by a possibility of continuing considerable power. It assumes different principles with different persons. It gilds its baits with patronage, contract and charter, at the publick expense. And the varnish it assumes is to conceal the foulness of the stuff it hides. Whereas a portion of power, insufficient to arm treachery, and limited to an unalterable period, being chastened of the excitements to fraud and force, leaves the mind open to virtue, and the certainty of returning to a private station, settles its bias. From the foundation of Rome to the accession of Augustus, Was above seven centuries; and from thence to the termination of its empire, less than five. The first was a term of growth, the second of decline. The first of progressive prosperity; the second of oscillations depending upon the change of character. The first was a term of rotation, the second of permanent or hereditary power. The corruption or error of electing the same man a second time to the consular office, was a symptom and became an instrument of the destruction of the republic, except for which, we can only compute the probability of its duration, by an inference from the long term of its existence under the auspices of the annual rotation o[ executive magistrates, and a division of power. The same period demonstrates the error of the objection, that rotation causes a loss of talents to the public. It would have been most likely to produce this loss in military affairs. For seven centuries Rome applied the principle of rotation to her generals, and conquered; for five, she trusted to experience, and was subdued. The rotary generals and statesmen of the little Athenian republic, destined it to live for ever in the annals of fame, and most of its contemporary governments are for ever dead. As to civil affairs, the claim of experience would probably be answered by the old adage, but the burst of talents in both cases which blazes forth whenever the monopoly of experience is destroyed by rotation, is accounted for by the fall of the monopoly. The trade being laid open, the wares increase, and are made better by competition. Talents, civil and military, ale created by the prospect of employment, and smothered by the monopoly of experience.

The Cruz term limit bill is likely just a head fake designed to distract the American people and give the appearance that the elected class is listening to the people's complaints about the corrupt system. The likelihood that congress-weasels would support legislation that puts them out of the center of power politics is slim and none, and slim is on his way out the door. Certainly, for any such bill to be considered it would have to "grandfather" in the incumbent class.

But it's a measure that is long overdue, and a compromise that would be worth taking.

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Luciferianism: A secular look at a destructive belief system


Over many years of investigating the mechanics of global events and the people behind them, I have become perhaps a little obsessed with one particular subject — the source and motivations of evil. This fascination does not stem from a simple morbid curiosity, but a strategic need to understand an enemy. Much like an exterminator needs to understand the behavior of cockroaches to be effective, I seek to understand the behavior and motives of organized evil.

One very important fact that must be established in people's minds is that evil does indeed exist. Establishment propaganda has spent immense time, effort and capital attempting to condition society into believing that evil is nothing more than a social construct — an opinion. Evil is supposedly in the eye of the beholder; a product of religious conditioning. This is a falsehood. Just like concepts of beauty, concepts of evil are inherent in our psyches from birth.

These concepts are evident in two particular areas of human psychology:

First, as the work of Carl Jung (and by extension anthropologists like Joseph Campbell) exposed, all human beings, no matter where in the world they are born — from the most isolated tribe in the Amazon to the largest metropolis in America — carry the same archetypal symbols in their psyche. That is to say, we all have the same psychological elements in our minds regardless of environment.

This fact alone is so overwhelming to modern man that some people refuse to even acknowledge it as a possibility. We have been trained like lab rats to see only one path through the maze; we have been told over and over again that everything is "relative;" that each person is entirely a product of environment and that we all start out "empty" as "blank slates."

The vicious attacks on Carl Jung by the establishment (including lies that he cooperated with the Nazis) tell me that Jung was very close to the mark. He had stumbled upon something very dangerous to the establishment; something that could derail their conditioning of the public.

Second, the undeniable element of the human conscience suggests that we are born with an understanding of duality. Meaning, just as Jung discovered, our psyches contain inherent concepts of good and evil that influence our decisions and reactions. The vast majority of people have an intuitive relationship with good and evil. They feel anxiety when confronted with evil actions or thoughts, and they feel personal guilt when they know they have done something evil to other people.

Some might call this a "moral compass." I would refer to it as part of the soul or spirit. But in any case, there is a contingent of people in the world that do not have it — a small percentage of the population that is born without conscience, or that finds it easy to ignore conscience. We'll get to those people in a moment, but first, we should probably define what evil is.

Evil is first and foremost any action that seeks to destroy or enslave in the name of personal gain. The problem is, evil actions are often presented as advantageous for the group. The needs of the many supposedly outweigh the needs of the few, and thus evil is rationalized as a means to a "positive end." In most cases, however, destructive actions do not end up serving the interests of the majority and only end up giving more wealth and power to an elitist minority. This is not a coincidence.

Evil begins with the denial of the existence of conscience, or the denial of the existence of choice. Each person is born with inherent archetypal dualities. Meaning, we have an inborn capacity or freedom to choose. We can listen to conscience, or we can ignore it. We can do good, or we can do evil. Evil tells us the choice is relative and that morality is relative.

Beyond ignoring conscience, we must define the motivation that drives evil. Psychology would suggest that destructive self-serving actions stem from an obsessive pursuit to obtain or control things we cannot or should not have. Interestingly, this is also what some religions teach us, but let's stick to a non-religious examination.

As mentioned earlier, there is a group of people in the world who do not see good and evil the way most of us do. Their psyche functions in a completely different way, without the filter of conscience. These people exhibit the behaviors of narcissistic sociopaths. Full blown high-level narcissistic sociopaths represent around 1 percent of the total human population, and most of them are born not made by their environment. Also, 5 percent to 10 percent of people hold latent traits of either narcissism or sociopathy that generally only rise to the surface in an unstable crisis environment.

I have written extensively on narcissistic sociopaths and the globalist establishment in numerous articles. I have also outlined how such people, contrary to popular belief, are not isolated from one another. They do in fact organize into groups for mutual gain.

There is an ideology or system of belief that argues for the exact opposite of what conscience tells us is "good," and that system is Luciferianism. In my view, luciferianism is a religion actually designed by sociopathic narcissists for sociopathic narcissists.

It is sometimes difficult to identify the true "sacraments" behind luciferianism because, for one, luciferians refuse to admit that the system is a religion at all. They prefer to call it a philosophy or methodology, at least in public. The system also seems to encourage active disinformation in order to dissuade or mislead non-adherents. The historic term for this religious secrecy is "occultism." I would call it "elitism."

There are some foundational beliefs that luciferians do admit to. First and foremost, the goal of luciferianism is to attain godhood. That is to say, they believe that some human beings have the capacity to become their own gods through the accumulation of knowledge.

Of course, the notion of self-worship is a core trait of sociopathic narcissists. Luciferianism just codifies it as if it is a virtue.

I have also written about the insanity of the goal of godhood in the past, outlining how quantum physics and Kurt Godel's Uncertainty Principle make total scientific and mathematical understanding of the universe impossible. This does not stop luciferian circles from destructively chasing that which they cannot have.

Second, luciferians seek to elevate the individual in general, which in the minds of many people doesn't sound like a negative at all. I have argued for the importance of individualism in the midst of societal controls often. But any ideology can be taken to extremes.

The problem is that the pursuit of individual gratification can be pushed too far, to the point that the people around us begin to suffer. Because of the elitist nature of luciferianism, there is a tendency to view non-adherents as "inferior;" stupid people that perhaps deserve to be sheared like sheep by those who are chasing a dream of personal godhood.

This attitude can be seen in the common actions of narcissistic sociopaths, who have no qualms about conning or exploiting people around them as resources, feeding off others like parasites. They treat this as an acceptable practice because they see themselves as "special;" they are destined to achieve more. They are meant to do great things, and their image is meant to be cemented in the foundations of history.

The elitism of luciferianism is hardly hidden. Luciferians claim that they have no interest in converting other people, instead, adherents have to be "smart enough" to come to the belief system on their own. However, their goal of influencing social and political spheres is rather evident.

Political gatekeepers, though not openly luciferian, tend to let slip their affiliations at times. Saul Alinsky, a high-level leftist organizer and democrat gatekeeper, praises the rebellious Lucifer in the personal acknowledgments of his political manual Rules for Radicals, in which he says:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

Luciferianism is also prevalent in globalist institutions. For example, the U.N. seems to be highly involved in the ideology through groups like Lucis Trust, a publishing house founded on luciferian beliefs. Former U.N. directors like Robert Muller are tied closely with Lucis Trust and openly promote luciferianism. Muller was central to the U.N.'s global education policies for children.

Luciferians sometimes argue that the mythological figure of Lucifer is separate from the Christian image of "Satan." The name "Lucifer" is not mentioned directly in the Bible in reference to Satan (though the phrase "morning star," the direct translation of the word "Lucifer" is mentioned in reference to Satan). But this argument seems rather coy and disingenuous to me. For centuries, the term Lucifer has been synonymous with the devil in the public consciousness. Luciferians seem to be trying to separate themselves from the negative connotations associated with satanism through a twisted form of wordplay and semantics.

Other Luciferians try to dissociate from satanism by claiming that Lucifer as a mythological figure is Satan "before the fall" described in the bible. Yes, they believe there are two versions of Satan that are distinct from each other. This amounts to a sort of laughable good cop/bad cop representation of Satan.

Satanists often refer to Lucifer and Satan in the same breath as being the same figure. In this documentary, Anton LaVey, a former circus performer and well-known figure in satanic and luciferian circles, does exactly that.

LaVey seems to be treated as an annoyance by the more discreet luciferian groups. I suspect that his public bluntness about what luciferian beliefs actually involve is seen as too honest. These people believe in secrecy and initiation to condition adherents to the darker side of the system. They don't like the darker side on display for the whole world to see and to judge.

A direct antithesis to someone like Anton LaVey would be Michael Aquino, a military intelligence officer specializing in psychological warfare who was a member of LaVey's satanic church. Aquino is best known for a tactical thesis on psychological warfare he wrote with then General Paul Vallely called "Mind War." The thesis outlines the use of propaganda and other strategies to turn a target population against itself, to either destroy that population or control it more easily.

Aquino left LaVey's more theatrical but more open satanic church and launched his own Temple of Set, which appears to fall in line with the disinformation and secrecy inherent in luciferianism.

The duplicity of luciferianism alone should be enough to make people wary of its promises and arguments. Humanity has spent the better part of 2,000 years trying to remove the influences of secretive occult elitism from our political and social structures. Yet, these people are relentless in their desire for power.

Regardless of the positive spin that luciferians adopt for their ideology, the fruits of their activities speak much louder than propaganda. What I see is a cancerous desire for control, over civilization and of every aspect of human thought. I also see a perversion of nature as they seek to obtain what they call "godhood." Transhumanism and genetic tampering carry all the hallmarks of the luciferian ideal. Regardless of one's religious affiliations, it is hard to find anything of value in their system. Everything about it is an affront to inherent conscience. It can only become acceptable to the majority through trickery.

If you have to lie about the motives of your philosophy in order to get people to adopt your philosophy, then your philosophy must be dangerously incomplete or outright cataclysmic.

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™

Big Bird and Ronald McDonald would be highly incensed at being included in any grouping with Nance Pelosi.

Those subsidies are used to make the green energy price competitive otherwise the companies producing it would go bankrupt.

That was the answer in the Socratic method.

What rimes with Chuck?

At the risk of being called a Beaner-lover, I enjoyed the Bullfights out of Mexico City when they were televised many years ago. Marvelous spectacle, high drama and the ever present thrill that at any moment someone could be killed. I wish they would return to TV.

Which of the six major Media corporations is right wing and when did Trump become a Journalist?

He is supplying his neighbor with copious quantities of beer, not saving it. To cap this stupidity he didn't learn from the first use of this switcheroo and repeated the swap.


This commercial raises all kinds of questions such as:

Why was it necessary for him to conceal the beer?
This seems like an excessive amount of beer, was he throwing a party or drinking it himself?
Is he an Alcoholic?
What kind of neighbor would be stupid enough to allow him to cut through the adjoining wall to install the carousel needed for the switch?
Whatever he is, it is obvious that he is not the head of the household. What kind of Pansy is being portrayed and is this a good example for your young children?

In view of all of these considerations I believe I would rather look at Janet Jackson's Tit.