With Pope Francis getting in to the morass of secularism: i.e. C*****e C****e, Gun ownership and his hypocritical income ine******y statements.

I expect there will be more more humanistic relevancy and morality comments and Christian opinions. But I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and read the full encyclical paper and then give an opinion.

I do believe Pope Francis was talking more about the Arms and the Munitions Manufacturing than home weapons ownership. Theirs is the profits of wars, k*****g and destruction around the world.

Governments and military strong men are far more dangerous than the person who possesses firearms. Is this the News Media reporting or has the Popes words been taken out of context.

Guess I need to visit the Vatican news agency and read the news source first hand. The Pope's have always been a large target, don't you agree ?

I have to admit Pope Benedict XVI could write incredible spiritual encyclical papers. Haven't seen any major papers from Pope Francis as of late.

Your just a gun owner and that's it. Its a firearm, not a idol of Lucifer.

I'm not particularly fond of his hypocritical income ine******y statements either.

In the past teaching of the past Popes they have been mostly correcting the wrongs of the reformation and the schism with the Eastern Orthodox Universal Church.

I have no problem with their theology teaching, but this is a new Pope, different from the rest. He has a progressive un-orthodox political teaching style.

I agree with his vow of poverty and not judging others, and changing the Vatican banking and ties to the Italian mafia, and not judging others.

This is no John-Paul II.

He is only a man, not God.

He was elected by other men, to be Pope.

That does not mean that he is infallible, in the public discourse of men and women and the worldly decisions of men and women.

Although, I have to point out Catholic Magisterium teaching on Jesus Christ, has not changed for almost 2,000 years. The Magisterium teaching which are part of the three pillars: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Christian Magisterium teaching have been consistent for almost 2000 years.

In the realm of man and of society this Pope, is clearly wrong on C*****e C****e, and Gun ownership.

As with many of the past Pope's and of many other religious institutions leaders they have been wrong before.

Is this Man's realm ? and not God's realm ?

Came across a very interesting article, regarding the gradual path of "Single-Payer Health-Care" mergers into the gradual "Single-Payer" Government Health-Care-Coverage, and the slow gradual top five Health-Care companies getting extremely $$$ rich $$$ in these Health-Care mergers.

Get ready America and OPP readers. It's coming. . . . .

Thank's all you, "Dam Progressive Liberal "Do-Gooders." You all v**ed for a health insurance plan, not a health care plan, shame, shame, shame.

And to our glorious politicians who did not even read the bill, but were hog-swallowed into greed and corruption. "Lets v**e for the bill, and we'll find-out what's in it. The politicians v**ed for "Pandora's box" from Greek mythology. Shame, shame, shame.

Instead of having 15 million people with-out health-care, but would still have free healthcare at emergency rooms.

We now have an estimated 45 million Americans without healthcare coverage and growing because they can't afford the Obama-Care insurance premiums. With the next phase of the Obama-Care, the employer Health-care mandates to be implemented this year, we could see as high as 60 Million Americans without Health Care Coverage. "Dam Progressive Liberal, "Do-Gooders."

There's an old adage cliché out there, "If Its not broken don't fix it."

How's that Hope and Change working out for America ? Having buyers remorse with your politician, yet and your political party ?



6/22/15, Obama's "Single-Payer" Monopoly Looms As Healthcare Merger-Mania Heats Up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-22/obamas-single-payer-monopoly-looms-healthcare-merger-mania-heats
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacares-oligopoly-wave-1434755295

It would appear, whether by plan or unintended consequence, Obama's dream of a single-payer socialized healthcare is getting closer by the day, and as WSJ reports, drastically increasing the risk that ObamaCare is creating oligopolies, with the predictable results of higher costs, lower quality and less innovation.

The five largest commercial health insurers in the U.S. have contracted merger fever, and if the logic of ObamaCare prevails, this exercise will conclude with all five fusing into one monster conglomerate.

The five largest commercial health insurers in the U.S. and with "One Ring to rule them and One ring to Bind Them All." We are all on an unavoidable path to Single payer health providers, this has always been the end game in all of this  Not just in healthcare, but in almost everything.

What is the difference if there are five business controlling a monopoly or just one? Its already a single-payer system under the covers. If you shop between provider its the same pricing, with the same deductiables and the same crappy service.

In the long term, it doesn't really matter, as cost continue to rise, few and fewer people are going to be able to afford health insurance. This is probably why they want to merge so they can accomidate a shrinking number of people able to pay, much as the airlines did over the past decade.


This multibillion-dollar M&A boom is notable even amid the current corporate-financial deal-making binge, yet insurance is only the latest health-care industry to be swept by consolidation. The danger is that ObamaCare is creating oligopolies, with the predictable results of higher costs, lower quality and less innovation.
 
The business case for the insurance tie-ups among the big five commercial payers, which will likely leave merely three, is straightforward. Credit is historically cheap, and the insurers have built franchises in different areas that could be complementary. As for antitrust, selling coverage to employers doesn’t overlap with, say, managing Medicaid for states.
 
More important, the economics of ObamaCare reward scale over competition. Benefits are standardized and premiums are de facto price-controlled. With margins compressed to commodity levels, buying more consumers via mergers is simpler than appealing to them with better products, to the extent the latter is still legal.

Synergies across insurer combinations to reduce administrative overhead and other expenses also look better for shareholders.

Why is this happening?

The mergers reflect the reality that government—Medicaid managed care, Medicare Advantage and the ObamaCare exchanges—is now the artery of insurance profits, not the private economy.

The feds “happen to be, for most of us now, our largest customer,” Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini said this month at a Goldman Sachs conference.
 
Mr. Bertolini added: “So there is a relationship you need to figure out there if you’re going to have a sustained positive relationship with your biggest customer. And we can all take our own political point of view of whether it’s right or wrong, but in the end-analysis, they’re paying us a lot of money and they have a right to give us some insight into how they think we should run our business.”

Such domestication is part of ObamaCare’s goal of political control, and it may well be that only fewer, larger and more centralized insurers can survive financially.

A healthier market would have many new competitive entrants given the t***sformative pace of technological and biomedical discovery. But as, The WSJ concludes perfectly - and ominously...

Health care has been consolidating since the 1990s, but ObamaCare has accelerated the trend. Insurer and especially hospital t***sactions will come under increasing regulatory scrutiny, but the antitrust cops are irrelevant when government’s overwhelming priority is to create and entrench cartels.

Average american comments !

*  *  * 
So five years into the glories of “health-care reform,” the same antiquated incumbents dominate as they did before, only with less accountability to patients. Cartels don’t care about quality, safety or costs to consumers.

*  *  *
Sooner or later you run out of things to buy, and if America does converge into a single monster “insurer” or “health system,” it will be the federal government.

*  *  *
Mission (Almost) Accomplished.

This is a prime exmaple of what I call "Organic" F*****m. Instead of planned f*****m by dictate from on high, the rules on the ground through duly elected legislators create a petri dish full of f*****tic growth media by which F*****m grows "organically". 

*  *  *
 
And the sheep get sheered with nary a bleet....the frog gets slowly boiled with nary a croak.

*  *  *

My dear fellow OPP readers,

When does a sincere and honest dialogue between: readers, writers, opinions and commenters on this OPP website forum begin ?

They begin with t***hful facts, and cited-post-articles to factually support a personal opinion and comments for discussion. Do you not agree ?

Then and only then, does a real intelligent and ernest dialog of idea's really begins. Do you not agree ?


That my friend, is open t***hful dialog on the OPP website post.


This is what I find personally lacking on this OPP website discussion posts. A true and open dialogue of intelligent idea's with factual supported opinion's and comment, a earnest open candor, to further thread-idea's that support the discussion.

For the majority of readers, writers and commenters, this is what ultimately happens and the intention on website, when a controversial article is posted on this OPP website.

1. Many writers and commenters, fail to remember these simple rules and principles on how to continue with an open discussion of ideas.
a. Be respectful when they give their personal opinions.
b. Opinions should always be bases on facts not conjecture.
c. Remember to further a discussion thread with their personal comments.
d. OMG, comment for the sake of commenting for their one second of immortality. As Steve Martin said in the movie "The Jerk," looking in the Yellow Pages, where he found his name and yells out to the world. "I'm somebody."

2. They OPP writers and commenters, usually try to validate the post article with their personal opinions, with different types of fallacies or argument writing styles and to further their personal opinion and most often disregard and deny the facts of the post-article, or change the original post-thread-article to a complete different discussion-thread.

Just let the post-thread die if it it does not work, with the post-reader or commenter.

3. Typically the opposing commenters, try to control or "Shanghai" the post thread narrative with other one-liner cryptic ambiguous comments. I have seen this happen many times and are totally disgusted with these "narcissistic low-life's" commenters. They Know Who They Are.

Should the OPP website have a penalty box ? I don't know ? We are all adults here, I hope ?

4. The intention of a post-article or opinion should be about the discussion, of intelligent idea's, opinions should are backed up with facts, URL's, quotations texts, pictures ect. Thats what t***hful facts are!

Opinions' are not true facts, they are just personal opinions'. Do you not agree ?

How should the discussion proceeds further ? What are twists and tangents of ideas that moves the discussion thread forward ? What are your thoughts?

The discussion should not be taken over by "Idealistic Hypocrites,". Readers should be very wary of the duplicity, of these frequent thread-posts commenters.

That my fellow OPP readers is not how a open a sincere, honest dialogue begin's between readers, writers and commenters or their personal opinions. Continue the post-thread and remain constant throughout discussion. Do you not agree ?




So I begin afresh, with this latest post-article. Remember respect me and I will will respect you.



This is my personal viewpoint and commentary to the post-article and cited URL sources.

"The Character of P**********l hopeful Hillary Clinton and her husband, seems very shifty, to the latest disclosed politically alleged criminal accusations, both Clintons seem evasive and guarded in their comments and and will not answer the Press-Media questions and the facts and allegations continue.

The Clinton present-day contrived political narrative and philanthropic monetary scandals are forcing all Americans to say to them selves, Is Hillary trustworthy ? Or are both Hillary and Bill hiding something ?

If Hillary is elected President, will it lead to the downfall of America ? Is this what America can expect from Hillary and Bill?

Or will it be more of the same usual shenanigans, from Hillary and Bill Clinton, during his Presidency and as Governor, with more years of scandals, as it continues to the present day and possibly in the future ?


The two statements below clearly reflect both Hillary and Bill Clinton's personal and political overt strategies and how they live their lives, in politics for the past 45 years. Hillary's lying to congress and Bill's lying to the federal judiciary for which Bill Clinton lost his law license and was one v**e shy for impeachment as President of the United States and left in disgrace.

Hillary's statement ""what difference does it make and Bill's statement on the definition of "what is-is." Both Clintons character, seems shifty, seems evasive and seems flawed. This is Hillary's and Bill's personal flawed, their hubris character. These are my two Viewpoints what is yours ?

This is their defining character trait, we shall see what happens in Federal court on January, 20 2015 and we shall see if the Clintons go to Prison or if Hillary is elected.

Hillary Clinton statement. "What difference at this point does it make?" The question asked to Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton, was why they didn’t even make a single phone call to the evacuees that were on the ground in B******i to verify whether or not this began from a protest.
Bill Clinton's, statement. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. The Question asked to President Clinton, was did you have sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Trial Date set for January 20, 2016 for Bill and Hillary Clinton under the (RICO) Racketeering and Corruption.
Case 9:15-cv-80388-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 1 of 59. In the United State District Court for the Southern District of Florida: Complaint Pursuant to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and other Causes of Action: Plaintiff sues the Defendants, as individuals operating a criminal enterprise, for violating Plaintiff’s statutory rights to obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for violating Plaintiff’s due process rights, vested property rights, constitutional rights, and for misappropriating property.

The Defendants have systematically and continuously, over the last ten (10) years and more, conducted a corrupt Case 9:15-cv-80388-XXXX Document
1. Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 1 of 59
2. Enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) Act, all of which acts are continuing in nature. As grounds therefore, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150324-filed%20Clinton%20RICO%20complaint.pdf


Let's have a open and honest discussion.


NEW YORK – The Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation’s explanation for why it was divided into three, legally separate tax-exempt organizations is “misleading and false,” according to a Wall Street analyst who has conducted an in-depth investigation.
1. http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/clinton-foundation-a-valid-irs-charity/

Charles Ortel, http://charlesortel.com says the public record appears to confirm that the Clinton Foundation’s various components were reported as one consolidated entity to the IRS, despite the foundation’s claim that appropriate changes were made when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.

WND reported Tuesday, http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/wall-street-analyst-shut-down-clinton-foundation/ based on Ortel’s findings, a prominent lawyer and a top government watchdog in the nation’s capital are calling for the Clinton Foundation to be shut down.

In Ortrl's second report, released Monday, Ortel documents, what he believes is systematic financial fraud, warranting a criminal investigation. In his first report, http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/wall-street-analyst-uncovers-clinton-foundation-fraud/

Ortel found what he characterizes as an elaborate system devised by the Clintons to enrich themselves through schemes such as skimming tens of millions of dollars from U.N. levies imposed on airline travelers. http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/clinton-foundation-scheme-defrauds-air-travelers/

Ortel’s second report points out the Clinton Foundation website notes https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-health-access-initiative the original Clinton Health Access Initiative, CHAI, began in 2002, one year after the Clinton Foundation was created, “to address the HIV/AIDS crisis in the developing world and strengthen health care systems there.”

The website further specifies: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports:

“The Clinton Global Initiative [founded in 2005] was separately incorporated during fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 at the request of the Obama administration while Secretary Clinton was in office. As a result, CGI filed separate Form 990s with the IRS during that time. In 2013, when Secretary Clinton left office, CGI returned to the Clinton Foundation.”

The website continues to make clear the result was that CGI and CHAI were separated into two distinct tax-exempt organizations: “The Clinton Health Access Initiative (formerly the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative) became a separately incorporated entity in fiscal year 2010 and remains so today.

Under FASB and GAAP rules, the Clinton Foundation is required to consolidate CHAI’s finances into its audited financial report given the relationship between the two entities.”


The statement from the Clinton Foundation website suggests the following:


The Clinton Foundation was originally constituted as one corporate structure that included both CGI and CHAI as program initiatives.

In 2010, after Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation supposedly was broken into three distinct tax-exempt organizations, each with its own separate corporate structure and each with it’s own separate financial reporting regulatory requirements to file three distinct IRS Form 990s.

This structure in which CGI and CHAI were separated from the Clinton Foundation supposedly remained in place from 2010 through February 1, 2013, when Hillary Clinton submitted to President Obama her letter of resignation as secretary of state.

The last sentence in the above quotation from the Clinton Foundation is confusing in that it suggests that while CGI and CHAI were supposedly broken into separate corporate entities with each required to its own IRS Form 990, the financial reports of CGI and CHAI continued from 2010 through 2013 to be reported in the Clinton Foundation’s consolidated financial statements, as if the three were still one entity.

Then, after Feb. 1, 2013, the “Clinton Foundation” supposedly collapsed into two corporate structures, namely:

(1) the Clinton Foundation plus CGI and

(2) CHAI, each with separate corporate structures, with supposedly a requirement for the Clinton Foundation and CGI to file one IRS Form 990 while CHAI filed its own IRS Form 990, evidently with all three entities continuing to be reported in the Clinton Foundation’s consolidated financial statements, as if the three were yet one entity.


Shifting tax-exempt purposes


While the Clinton Foundation’s IRS determination letter dating back to the foundation’s creation in 2001 is not archived on the Clinton Foundation website, the Clinton Foundation’s 2002 IRS Form 990, Part III filing lists the organization’s “primary exempt purpose” in narrowly defined terms. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton-foundation-2002-financial-report.pdf

It specifies that the Clinton Foundation was created “to design, construct, and initially endow a P**********l archival depository to house and preserve the books, correspondence, documents, papers, pictures, and other memorabilia of President Clinton.”

The Clinton Foundation’s 2003 IRS Form 990, Part III filing https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/2003_IRS.pdf had the identical language describing the organization’s “primary exempt purpose” with no additional language included to explain the “primary exempt purpose” of CGI, as distinct from funding relevant to establishing the Clinton p**********l library.

The change in language was noted in the Clinton Foundation’s 2003 IRS Form 990, Part III filing, when the organization’s “primary exempt purpose” was rewritten as follows:

President Clinton established the William J. Clinton Foundation (the foundation’s original name in 2001) with the dual missions of constructing and endowing the Clinton P**********l Center and Park in Little Rock, Arkansas and continuing the work of his presidency to strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.

To advance the mission the foundation has developed programs and partnerships in the following areas: economic empowerment; health security with an emphasis on HIV/AIDS; racial, ethnic and religious reconciliation; leadership development and citizen service.

The Clinton Foundation website does not document whether it filed any organizational amendment with the IRS to notify the IRS of the creation of CHAI. Nor is there any indication the Clinton Foundation asked for or obtained a new determination letter from the IRS http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Exempt-Organizations-Reporting-Changes-to-IRS specifying the change in the organization’s “primary exempt purpose.”

In 2005, when CGI was created, the Clinton Foundation’s 2005 https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/2005_Audit.pdf and 2006 IRS Form 990, Part III filing had the identical language to the organization’s 2003 and 2004 IRS Form 990, Part III filing. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/2006_Audit.pdf

In the period 2010-2013, when the Clinton Foundation broke into three separate entities – the Clinton Foundation, CGI and CHAI – the organization filed only a consolidated IRS Form 990. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/cf_audited_financials_2009-2010.pdf

With a broadly restated Part I summary of the organization’s “mission or most significant activities” defined as follows: “The William J. Clinton Foundation works to strengthen the capacity of people in the U.S. and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.”

In other words, the public record appears to confirm that for IRS financial reporting requirements, the Clinton Foundation various components were reported as one consolidated entity in IRS Form 990 filings continuously from the inception of CHAI in 2002 and of CGI in 2005.


That is despite the corporate reorganizations described on the website that occurred when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.


Ortel documented that on Dec. 31, 2009, the Clinton Foundation filed with the IRS an application to form a new tax-exempt organization called Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc. that he terms “New CHAI” to distinguish it from the initiative formed within the Clinton Foundation in 2002, which he terms “Old CHAI.”

Ortel reported, however, that after extensive research on the Clinton Foundation website and various government websites, he was only able to find for the document dated Dec. 31, 2009, “an incomplete version of the application lacking attachments that should have amplified answers to key questions.”

In March 2010, the IRS apparently issued a new determination letter approving New CHAI as a separate, tax-exempt organization.

The documents on the Clinton Foundation website are confusing regarding the precise nature of the corporate structure of the Clinton Foundation various entities and their IRS Form 990 reporting requirements.

A “Dear Reader” letter on the Clinton Foundation website authored by the Chief Financial Officer Andrew Kessel accompanying the “Independent Auditor’s Report and Consolidated Financial Statements, Dec. 31, 2012, 2013,” for the renamed Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation notes on page 8, “In January 2010, CHAI became a separate nonprofit organization.”

The 2012 IRS Form 990 lists the Part I “organization mission or most significant activities” in another restated version, stating: “Works to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth and help communities address the effects of c*****e c****e.”


Clinton Library fund, morphs to combating AIDS


There is no record that any of these changing mission statements, other than the original mission statement to create and fund a Clinton p**********l library, was ever completely explained to the IRS or ever formally filed under IRS guidelines for reporting changes, including changing the name of the tax-exempt organization. http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Exempt-Organizations-Reporting-Changes-to-IRS

Moreover, there is no record the IRS issued new determination letters as the various Clinton Foundation mission statements evolved from theoriginal narrowly defined purpose of creating and funding the Clinton p**********l library to more lofty purposes, including combating HIV/AIDS globally.

“The biggest question concerning construction and architecture of legally-mandated financial reports for 2010 that remains uncorrected in the public domain is a simple one, namely:

How did New CHAI step into the shoes of Old CHAI during 2010, if not as a successor organization? “ Ortel asked in his second report.

Ortel noted that the headquarters’ address, telephone number and fax machine number for New CHAI remained precisely the same as for Old CHAI after the Clinton Foundation announced corporate reorganizations of 2010 and 2013.


“To date, the true rationale for creating New CHAI has not yet been fully or fairly explained in any public disclosures made by the Clinton Foundation,” Ortel charged. “To consider why an application was made to create New CHAI, one must investigate some history going back to 2002.”


Recalling that the original “mission statement” of the Clinton Foundation as articulated in the organization’s 2002 IRS Form 990 filing was narrowly defined around the purposes of the Clinton p**********l library, Ortel commented:

“The legal status that Old CHAI may have had as a tax-exempt organization, at any time, is not clear, based on preliminary review of that organization’s evolution and of the Clinton Foundation’s widely reported efforts to arrest the HIV/AIDS p******c.”

Put simply, Ortel questioned how it is that a foundation granted federal tax-exempt status by the IRS for creating a p**********l library in Little Rock, Arkansas, should suddenly come to have federal tax-exempt authorization for combating HIV/AIDS in numerous foreign nations?

Ortel is also questioning whether or not the Clinton Foundation management and directors followed the legally prescribed state and federal regulations and procedures specified to apply for and obtain federal tax-exempt status to combat HIV/AIDS.

[/b]Or did Bill Clinton simply confer upon his foundations federal tax-exempt status because he decided fighting HIV/AIDS sounded like a good idea, likely to have sufficient emotional appeal to discourage or discredit critics?[/b]


CHAI: Nelson Mandela suggestion


Ortel traced the origin of the idea to create CHAI to a conversation Bill Clinton had with Nelson Mandela that Clinton relates starting on page 179 of his 2007 bestselling book “Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the World.”

There, Clinton wrote: “After Nelson Mandela and I closed the World AIDS conference in Barcelona in [July] 2002, Prime Minister Denzil Douglas of St. Kitts and Nevis asked me to help the Caribbean nations establish and fund systems for the prevention, care, and treatment of HIV/AIDS.

I agreed to do what I could, but with limited staffing in Harlem and Little Rock and an already crowded list of commitments, I needed some help. I called Ira Magaziner, who had spearheaded our efforts in healthcare and e-commerce in the White House, and asked him to organize and lead the project.”

In his second report, Ortel commented: “While clearly a laudable proposition, arresting lethal devastation of the scourge of HIV/AIDS was certainly not a legally authorized tax-exempt purpose of the Clinton Foundation by July 2002, according to public records that should tell the complete story regarding a public charity.”


Ortel noted that according to Bill Clinton, the launch internationally of the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS initiative was swift and aggressive.

Clinton picked up the narrative at the end of page 179, continuing onto page 180 of “Giving”:


Initially, the plan we developed called for assembling volunteers to work with governments that asked for our help to increase care and treatment, beginning in the Caribbean.

As we were getting organized, I asked wealthier nations to commit the funds necessary to upgrade and expand developing nations’ health services and to fund the purchase of generic drugs.

The foundation’s expenses were covered by private citizens’ donations from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and other nations.”

In his second report, Ortel continued: “Though there are numerous press releases and other accounts of extensive global activity by the Clinton Foundation fighting HIV/AIDS from July 2002 onward, companion financial disclosures filed for 2002 and 2003 do not explicitly document related inflows and outflows of the HIV/AIDS initiatives.

“Filings from 2004 through 2009 start to disclose some aspects of these activities but certainly do not constitute complete, full, and fair disclosure,” Ortel said.

“Moreover, Clinton Foundation filings from 2002 through 2009 do not explain how Ira Magaziner and his for-profit business interests may have been compensated, or precisely how Magaziner and the Clinton Foundation may have collaborated anywhere in the world, at any time.”

Ortel concluded that the available public record strongly suggests Clinton impulsively seized the Mandela suggestion to morph the Clinton Foundation, granted tax-exempt status by the IRS to build the Clinton p**********l library, into a new special purpose – to heal HIV/AIDS in the Third World.

Ortel, a frequent guest on television and radio, and a contributor to the Washington Times and others, began his Wall Street career in June 1980 with Dillon, Read, & Co., followed by the Bridgeford Group and the Chart Group.

His international investment expertise frequently involves complex legal and financial structures in many different countries. He is currently managing director of Newport Value Partners LLC, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/investing-volatility-tense-geopolitical-environment-185800664.html which provides independent investment research to professional investors. He is a graduate of the Horace Mann School, Yale College and the Harvard Business School.

In an article published Aug. 4, 2009, demonstrating the financial analysis for which Ortel is perhaps best known on Wall Street, Forbes magazine noted http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/04/ge-immelt-sec-earnings-business-beltway-ge.html he first broadcast his concerns about General Electric’s earnings quality in 2008, when the stock was trading above $30 a share. A year later, GE’s market value had plunge by about $200 billion, to $13 a share.




Below are factual articles that show the the process Hillary Clintons and her husband, character, shifty, seems evasive and flawed. It also exposes the political-personal dynamics of not being able to separate American politics and Non-profit foundations and charitable donations for their personal monitory expenses. It comes down to two publicly made statements.

Hillary Clinton's statement. "The fact is we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go k**l some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

Ron Johnson pushed Hillary Clinton today on why they didn’t even make a single phone call to the evacuees that were on the ground in B******i to verify whether or not this began from a protest.

Hillary danced and dodged a little, before finally getting angry and yelling. Well it matters because you lied about it being a protest saying it was caused by a Muhammad video and then we arrested that guy who made the video and threw him in jail. That’s why it matters.

Bill Clinton's, statement. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0Two
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."
--Timothy Noah



1. http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/clinton-foundation-made-shifty-split-when-hillary-joined-obama/
2. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-federal-court-reopens-state-department-foia-lawsuit-because-of-newly-discovered-evidence-of-clinton-records/
3. http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/clinton-aids-charity-was-shut-down-in-massachusetts/
4. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/05/20/oh-just-some-more-donor-disclosure-problems-for-the-clinton-foundation-n2001663
5. http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/smoking-gun-hillary-knew-of-b******i-attack-10-days-in-advance/
6. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/05/22/clinton-foundations-admits-failing-to-disclose-26-million-in-payments-n2002604?
7. http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/b******i-bombshell-clinton-state-department-official-reveals-alleged-details-document-review/
8. http://www.tpnn.com/2015/05/27/boom-clinton-foundation-hit-with-racketeering-lawsuit/
9. http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/how-bill-clinton-duped-state-dept-ethics-cops/
10. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/03/25/friendly-reminder-there-was-no-inspector-general-at-state-when-hillary-was-there-n1976105
11. http://patriotupdate.com/2015/06/ex-charity-exec-who-helped-expose-500g-clinton-foundation-donation-faces-legal-threats/
12. http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/big-4-firm-let-clintons-skim-millions-from-aids-charity/
13. http://clashdaily.com/2015/04/heres-the-campaign-slogan-and-picture-hillary-wants-banned-from-the-internet-lets-share-the-hell-out-of-it/#
14. Clinton Foundation Made Shifty Split When Hillary Clinton Joined Obama. How did charity to build library become global AIDS effort?
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/clinton-foundation-made-shifty-split-when-hillary-joined-obama/
15. http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150324-filed%20Clinton%20RICO%20complaint.pdf

Did you learn anything about Atheists and the different garden varieties. ? LOL

So are you telling me to take their crap, or let sleeping dogs lie.

I gave t***hful and well intentioned post threads articles. As you said I wanted nothing move than to the thread post forward,

My intention has always to move a post forward. I have now seen certain individuals on this post and this thread, be repeat offenders on this OPP Site.

Once bitten twice shy, now I'm not going into who started it first, and yes it should be a simply exchange of philosophies.

Point taken and noted, But you have to admit their narcissistic behavior abounds. The question is could they ever be civil ? Freedom of choice and Free Will,

God Bless

You see America Only, they the Liberal Atheist attack trolls, can't take it when It's on a level playing field. Or when someone shoves it back in their face.

The Liberal Atheist attack trolls, Modus operandi is just to troll and make comments, they hardly ever post-articles. And they never commit to but one-liner chicken-s**t comments. Thats who they are obtuse assholes, If you met them in person they would never say these things, they hide behind a keyboard and computer screen,

Atheism has been exposed on the OPP forum. Praise God. Amen.

You'll never get a t***hful answer from them, They really are some pretty despicable people.

At least with my efforts I now know the different types of Atheists are, and what they espouse, to become. The OPP website also knows.

Mustard seeds, America Only, Mustard seeds !

Most of the time they talk Chicken-S**t "Nothingism" they are unadulterated Chicken-S**t. Thats all they will achieve in life, Chicken-S**t status, nothing more.

They couldn't have a adult conversation on this website, if you paid them.

No Worries, when they take their last breath, they'll know the answer, to life's most famous question "Is there a God"

Ive turned the tables, many you should start defending Atheism

y the way this was a well thought out reply, Your probably not even going to consider reading my thoughts on Atheism.

Thats how closed minded and opinionated and self absorbed with your self.

Delusional. table another hit off the Bong and take another hit of LSD and a shot of wispy and walk off a long pier, and deny the existence of Gravity.

[quote=Marcus Johnson]I am an Atheist.

Hey, Hey every body, Yuc, Yuc, Yuc, I'm Marcus, and "I am an Atheist." in a hillbilly drawl from the Mid-West before a crowded hall of Athiests. But I can't explain what it is ? All I know, is I deny the existence of God or any other deities. Don't ask me what I think ? But I'll tell you about Christianity and that Jesus never was, or existed. Yuc, Yuc, Yuc

You certainly have given many examples and definition and problems with Morality, Christianity, with Religions and with God. This belief is almost fanatical ? You have no problem dictating this thought process to anyone on the OPP site.

Are we even remotely figuring out the real Marcus Johnson ? Ho hum, "master of his own universe" ?

Your little universe, your personal sentiments, are not based on rational of facts and merit of an issue. But you have decided the question and the non-existence of God ?

Why not decide and question the existence of Atheism ? Yuc, Yuc, Yuc

This needs to be a two way street Marcus. Can't have it all your own way. If you can question me, my belief in God and my belief in religion, then why can't I question your existence of Atheism ? Never thought of that tactic did you.

See below for the different examples of Yuc, Yuc, Yuc Atheists.




Obviously you always want to control the argument, and the post thread, I see the defensive chess move. A non-comitment by you, Chicken-s**t.

I guess as a liberal Atheist, you can't think to hard, might had a brain aneurism or a gastric bi-pass.

Don't ya want to come out and play Marcus, guess you have to hide in your comfortable facade of one liners. . . Come on man you say your so intelligent and successful. Make a bold move !!!

So I'll make it a little easier for you. Ho-hum, why do I have to talk to him ?
I'll try and define your Atheism with out your consent. Defining Atheism by deductive reasoning, this should be fun and humorous ! ! !




1. Strong Atheism: denies the existence of God or any other deities based solely using the scientific method. Since, God cannot be proven using science. The strong atheist concludes that God doesn’t exist.

So far you provide no evidence that God does not exist, Marcus ?
Definitely problematic Marcus on your part. "Science, we don't need no stinking science" ? What line was this said, hint a classic comedy 70's Movie, Marcus ?

Marcus since you don't want to talk about the sciences, We have to conclude that you not, a Strong Atheist ?




2. Weak Atheism: denies the existence of God or any other deities, but you don't claim, religious relativism, or do you allow for the belief of God, which could be true for any person ? Kinda like, "live and let live," Atheism. LOL

Am I getting warmer Marcus ? I kinda see you teetering here Marcus ? You could be an amalgamation of these varying types of Atheists ? A shopping cart Atheist ? LOL an Oxy-Moron of many Atheists, a juxtaposes of paradoxes !




3. Assured Atheists: denies the existence of God or any other deities. They are the only ones who claim to know anything. But what do they know ?

In the end it doesn't matter what you believe ? What matters is what's actually is true ? T***h for you and t***h for me is relative, an example would be gravity, I believe in gravity, but you do not.

So then we are back at the sciences again ? I would then ask you to walk off a tall pier, to explain gravity. Do you see the dilemma your paradox." I Could ask you to walk off a tall building. Splat, but my God, would not condone that.

Am I zeroing in Marcus ? Since you come across as all knowing, this probably is you ?

Marcus do you find that God and Religion, is factually ludicrous and obscene, to your Atheist dogma ? Does it bother you that I and others believe in God and religion, and my church is tax exempt ? In your post comment, it seems that it does bother you?




4. New Atheists – the New Breed of Atheism: denies the existence of God or any other deities, draw on emotionalism and alarmism with a “take no prisoners” appeal.

Judging from your rhetoric Marcus, your new atheists dogma appears to be angling, for an all-out jihad, against God and religion. This my observation as I see your vehement reactions, when'd expressing your opinions about God especially Christian doctrine. I know it bothers you, kinda like a tick on your dick. OOOH, k**l it Marcus. Good thing your not a Buddhist. LOL

Richard Dawkins concludes: “I think there’s something very evil about faith ?
Lions. Tigers and bears, Oh My !!! Christian doctrine in not dangerous, or are we the scum of the earth Marcus.

Marcus, is this your rational with Atheism ? It's a disbelief not-grounded in a rational examination of how the world is ? But your belief in a non-rational sensibilities, or how you feel the world, or as how it should be "Your-T***h." Is this what your ascribing to, this "New Breed of Atheism." ?

Are we now coming closer to the t***h Marcus ? Since we can't talk the rational of science, to explain the existence of God. What is your approach to your defining your belief and Atheism-dogma ?

Is it "intellectualism a superiority" over religious believers ? Marcus you can't even explain your feelings, sentiments and personal preferences in defining your Atheism-dogma ? Then how can you preach against my personal belief in God and Religion. ?

And saying I'm an Atheism, is not an answer. It's an obstructionist viewpoint, as I pointed out in the beginning of the post feed.




5. Naturalist Atheist: falls with-in the New Atheists: denies the existence of God or any other deities.

Typical they criticized the morality of God and the Bible for promoting: s***ery, r****m, subjugation of women, war, murder, disease, pestilence, famine and natural calamities like earthquakes, storms, title-waves ect. How could God allow this ?

This is the natural conclusion of what Darwinism and Totalitarian leaders like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and other Socialists ascribed to, in the 20th century. They the socialists pursued with a vengeance, denies the existence of God.

Was it man that k**led those millions with a gun, starvation, and medical experiments, or was it God. No Marcus It's man's inhumanity against Inhumanity. So it was with Cain and Able. "Fredom-of-Choice, and Free-Will"[/u][/i]

This is also your viewpoint as you comment on the OPP website posts ?

Marcus are you convinced that happiness is found in the sacred quest of self-discovery, or through Maslow’s theory of self-actualization and “free expression” and “choice ?

Does this mirror your viewpoint, Naturalist-New-Atheism Marcus and what you believe ?




6. Practical Atheists: denies the existence of God or any other deities. They are unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything.

In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - "Positively assert a universal negative."

Marcus, your not this kind of Atheist, as a matter-of-fact, you can't even figure out the OPP website tag's, you even asked me for help in a private message. You don't know everything or jack-s**t.




Marcus their is a reason for this line of Atheistic questioning, because you will not define your viewpoint and or will you back up your comments with facts, information and give an opinions, on what type of atheist you are.

Which leads me to follow the next course of questioning or "Pro Se" ?

Have I sparked any interest in you Marcus. Or do I have to continue to goad you ? You continually spout facts and information about Christianity, but in all reality you are just bigoted anti-God and anti-Religon, hating-one-liner, "Liberal-Attack-Troll."




Care to play the "God versus Atheist game." The Chess pieces are there and move the discussion forward, or do we play the one-liner-attack troll-game.

So now Marcus, which one are you ? Are you Strong Atheism Atheist ? NOT.
You can't using verifiable scientific method, logic and factual information to explain Atheism. Marcus you blew me off with these factual assertions.

No, your probably a combination amalgamation Atheist. Your a new progressive "Feel-Good" Atheist. You pick and choose on a whim and say opinions as you go along posting your comments.

This is your new aged "Atheistic-Moralism" Most probably, it is "Selfish-Ism's." The new man-made-religion of: Me, Me, Me, or the I, I, I's, of America and the world. This "Selfish-Ism's," is ever-more pronounced, ever more distinguishable in our culture. The new man made "Selfish-Ism's," has now, taken hold over the American society. Yuc, Yuc, Yuc. It's no wonder that the younger generation are all screwed up with morals.

As religion morality decreases, morality in Government decreases, and morality decreases in society.

Think long and hard on that statement, and the fall of empires and government.

Read "Hosea" in the old testament and the Prophet's prediction on the northern kingdom of Israel and the destruction by Assyria.

It had all to do with morality. We see a comparison with present day United States morality decreases in our society. I'm not the harbinger, or am I predicting the future, take a look at the similarities.




Hey, Hey every body, Yuc, Yuc, Yuc, I'm Marcus, and "I am an Atheist." in a hillbilly drawl from the Mid-West before a crowded hall of Athiests. But I can't explain what it is ? All I know, is I deny the existence of God or any other deities. Don't ask me what I think ? But I'll tell you about Christianity and that Jesus never was, or existed. Yuc, Yuc, Yuc

Now Marcus which one are you a Strong Atheism Atheist ? Using verifiable scientific method. Marcus you blew me off with these factual assertions.

Or are you a "Assured theists"

Or are you a Weak Atheism Atheist ? Religious relativism. Often confused with agnosticism

Or are you a "practical atheists"

Or are you a New Atheists – the New Breed of Atheism.

Their is a reason for this line of questioning, because you will not define your viewpoint and or back up your comments with facts, information and give an opinion on what type of atheist you are.

Which leads me to follow the next course of questioning or Pro Se?

Sparked any interest Marcus. You spout facts and information, but in all reality you are just bigoted and anti-God and anti-Religon.

Care to play the game, and move the discussion forward, or do we play the one-liner-attack troll-game.



Atheism -

There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man.

Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute t***h and thus no universal moral standard of conduct.

Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable t***h is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Strong Atheism
Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything.

However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know.

Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know?

If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism
Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance.

Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know? In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity. Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below.

The existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions: "How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"


New Atheists – A New Breed of Atheism
They’ve been labeled, the New Atheists. If you’re like me, you’ve noticed this not wholly pleasant, anti-God movement everywhere. Whereas atheists of yore were noted for rational argument through civil discourse, today’s atheists draw on emotionalism and alarmism with a “take no prisoners” appeal.

Judging from their rhetoric, the new atheists appear to be angling for an all-out jihad against God and religion.

To awaken the masses from their slumber, Christopher Hitchens asks, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?”

Convinced that religion is a virulent v***s that results in child abuse, Richard Dawkins concludes: “I think there’s something very evil about faith.” And any reasonable person paying attention knows that something’s got to be done.

For Sam Harris, whose books have been published in 10 languages, it’s for scientists to destroy religion.

The sudden resurgence of anti-God sentiment has caused some to wonder why religious belief is generating such strong hostilities these days.

New Atheists – Passionate Dialogue

A few weeks ago, I was engaged in an online dialogue with some religious skeptics. Under discussion were the usual: the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, evidence for the resurrection, and so on. For the most part, the participants were civil, without the animus characterized by the new atheist celebs.

After one of the forums was gaveled, a reader remarked on the intensity of the discussion. It suggested something of real importance; maybe something of utmost importance. Just what, he couldn’t say.

I responded that it was the outrageous claims of a carpenter’s son. For a first century Jew, claiming e******y with God and forgiving sins were grounds for blasphemy punishable by death.

Even in our enlightened day, such behavior would be grounds for committal to a mental institution or dismissal as a megalomaniac or outright fraud. But with Jesus, there is the confounding issue of his teachings.

As C.S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, even among critics, the teachings of Jesus reflect the highest standard of morality known to man.

Because of their supreme quality, Jesus’ imperatives are best explained not as products of a deluded or duplicitous mind, but of an intellectually competent person who actually believed what he claimed to be true.

And there lies the rub.

New Atheists – A Problem of Cosmic Authority

If Jesus was right about his divinity, then man is not a morally autonomous happenstance, he’s a special creation, a being that will one day stand before his Creator.

It is what Thomas Nagel, NYU law professor and self-described new atheist, coined the “cosmic authority problem”:

It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God...I hope there is no God...I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and is responsible for...the overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.

Note that Nagel’s disbelief is not grounded in a rational examination of how the world is, but by the non-rational sensibility of how he feels the world should be. In this regard, Thomas Nagel is not alone.

Folks like Nagel take p***e in being members of the “smart set”—the intellectual caste trusting in the omniscience of human reason.

But press them ever so slightly and beneath the patina of intellectualism, you will find the non-cognitive: feelings, sentiments and personal preferences. “Dave” (not his real name) is a case in point.

In an online exchange, I was surprised that Dave shamelessly accepted features of naturalism that lacked validation, or even a means of validation, while rejecting theism for those very reasons. When this inconsistency was pointed out.

Dave responded, quite unapologetically, that at least his belief system didn’t require him to go to church, worship, pay tithes, or obey a rigid set of rules. When push came to shove, it was personal sentiments, not rational merit, that decided the question of God for Dave.

New Atheists – The Naturalist’s Fallacy

Typical of the new atheists, Dave criticized the morality of the Bible for promoting things like s***ery, r****m, the subjugation of women, and condemning children to hell who have never heard of Jesus (never mind some seriously flawed hermeneutics here).

He went on to contrast biblical morality—as has Richard Dawkins and other noted skeptics—against the golden rule.

Without realizing it, Dave fell headlong into the naturalistic fallacy: In a world created by colliding particles and shaped by natural se******n, there is no right or wrong, only existence.

If everything is a product of matter in motion, the “Will to Power,” not the golden rule, is the only life principle. It’s the natural conclusion of Darwinism that the totalitarian leaders of the last century pursued with a vengeance.

That’s not to deny that religion has been a source of violence. But the casualties caused by Christians over 20 centuries dissolve in the shadow of those caused, in just one century, by atheistic regimes.

So despite what the new firebrands of atheism suggest, the real danger of religion is not that it promotes violence, but that it takes away hope. Let me explain.

New Atheists – Pop Psychology Meets Madison Avenue

In 1945, Abraham Maslow published his famed hierarchy of human needs. According to Maslow’s ranking, physiological, safety and social needs were on the bottom rung, with self-actualization or, as it was more commonly referred to, “finding oneself,” at the top.

Despite the lack of evidence for Maslow’s theory, self-actualization became the Holy Grail, and “free expression” and “choice” the seductive marketing hooks, for a navel-gazing public.

It didn’t take long for Madison Avenue to pick up pop psychology and promise self-discovery to all who affirmed self, followed their instincts and carried American Express.

But Jesus said that our deepest need is not in finding self, but in knowing God—by denying self, following Christ, and carrying one’s cross. He went on to insist that salvation—whether from existential ennui or righteous judgment—is not attainable by human effort, but only by a divine gift.

What a blow to our personal autonomy! What an affront to our self esteem!

For those convinced that happiness is found in the sacred quest of self-discovery, nothing could be more threatening. To those trusting in the perfectibility of man and his environment, Jesus is the supreme bogeyman.

New Atheists – Salvation through Science

As the new atheists like to remind us, we inhabit a planet scarred by poverty, disease, crime, pollution, and violence. Without God, these problems are left to man and his ingenuity to solve.

Over the last 200 years, man has been phenomenally successful in harnessing nature through the application of materialistic science. This has led to unbridled confidence that man, through science, will one day overcome the health, social, and environmental obstacles to a utopian existence.

But as new atheist Sam Harris warns in his Huffington Post article, “Science Must Destroy Religion,” “the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.” Harris’s warning is clear. If science is our savior, then anything that impedes it is a threat to our future hope.

For instance, religious doctrines about the sanctity of human life are hindrances to the scientist who seeks cures through research on embryonic stem cells, the mentally incapacitated, the terminally ill, or prisoners.

The same goes for the social researcher who believes that population control is essential for socio-economic health. Revealed religion is also at odds with the investigator who believes that the gnawing questions of our existence will be answered in the quest for extraterrestrial life.

To those whose ultimate hope is in the limitless potential of man through science, religion is a danger more menacing than the Black Plague or runaway g****l w*****g. Consequently, Harris frets that “Iron Age beliefs—about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc.—continue to impede medical research and distort public policy.”

To meet the threat, Harris urges the scientific community to blast “the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.”

Once religion and faith are vanquished by reason and science, Sam Harris envisions that the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu [will] be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

Mr. Harris and the other new atheists would be wise not to bet the farm on this hope. According to an Authority I trust, the church will not only prevail over all who would rout it; it will advance . . . even against the gates of Hell.

Started out as a Navy Corpsman, attached to a Marine infantry battalion and west PAC deployment, Assigned on two Naval Ships and deployed on two PAC deployments. Independent Navy Corpsman on one of the ships.

Worked for the Federal government as a certified Nursing assistant, Certified as a Bronchoscopy Technician, was State certified as a LPN, received, my bachelors diploma in Nursing Sciences.

Does that answer your doubt badboob.

The website forum needs to know who you are first, then we can get around to discussing fact, information and further the discussion thread that pertain to the post-thread.

"More on the Failure of Religion." I said that the failure was due to to societal changes, and gave examples.

Do you dispute these assertions, If so then we can have a discussion.

If not, what is your factual information as to the reason for Failure of Religion ?

Please be succinct, I don't want you to boor me to death.

The website forum needs to know who you are first, then we can get around to discussing fact, information and further the discussion thread that pertain to the post-thread.

"More on the Failure of Religion." I said that the failure was due to to societal changes, and gave examples.

Do you dispute these assertions, If so then we can have a discussion.

If not, what is your factual information as to the reason for Failure of Religion ?

Please be succinct, I don't want you to boor me to death.