Faith vs. Facts

Posted by Roberta Grimes • September 29, 2018 • 61 Comments
Human Nature, Jesus, Slavery, Understanding Reality

It may not at first be obvious to you that the reason why righteous indignation is such a deadly plague in America now is the insidious influence of faith-based thinking.

Theories abound that the decline of Christianity may be behind the increase in political extremism in America, but they vary as to why. It is obvious that modern politics has about it some of the trappings of a religion! For example, America’s current President has by objective measures had one of the most successful starts to his first term in our history, but still his opponents view him pretty much the way Christians view the Antichrist. They are so certain that in opposing this President they are fighting evil that they believe they are working in the service of truth when they use against him emotional language based on bits taken out of context, and pictures of alarming events that happened before his administration began. In the Kavanaugh hearings, and no matter what your own position on the nominee might have been, you were watching centuries of this nation’s protections of fundamental rights being destroyed in the service of political beliefs. For an august publication like the Wall Street Journal, the morphing of American politics into a religion is so obvious that the newspaper actually refers to one political thinker as a “prophet.”

All of this might seem curious and alarming to those who recall when political ideas had to be expressed with at least some color of facts-based argument behind them, but it is wonderfully clarifying now. We can ever more clearly see that what lies at the root of the righteous indignation that is tearing America apart is the very vice – having faith without facts – that we always have thought of as a virtue!

Humankind has been trained for millennia to espouse beliefs that cannot be supported by facts. Without our ease with having faith alone, no religion on earth could have survived for long! But our recent divorcing of politics, too, from any need to rely on facts is alarming. The only way to solve any real-world problem is to carefully study all the facts, and then to devise a set of solutions that are tailored precisely to address those facts. If we espouse a purely beliefs-based politics, it will be impossible for this nation ever again to accomplish much of anything.

Our system of political decision-making always has been clumsy. As I have studied the history of race in America, I have come to see that all of our present racial problems can be traced to specific facts-free and entirely beliefs-based political decisions! If we had insisted from our nation’s founding that every political decision must be carefully researched and based in all the facts, it is likely that none of our present racial problems even would have gotten started. Political parties in America always have used minimal facts as window-dressing as they proposed what were purely beliefs-based solutions that often made our problems worse! So now we add righteous indignation to fire up what has always been a dysfunctional political system, and our nation slides into chaos.

 I have written about the abundant evidence that Christianity is wrong but Jesus is right, so we won’t rehash that here. Traditional Christianity is in rapid decline, and wonderfully now a movement that is based on the genuine teachings of Jesus is beginning to take its place. I will be using Christianity to illustrate the insidious influence of faith-based thinking, but Christianity’s habit of building its worldview around strictly enforced but unsupported beliefs is consistent across all religions.

If you hold to the hope that religious practice has to be on balance a good thing, then reading the list below might pain you. But if loving God means anything, it means being true to the genuine God and refusing to settle for lies and pap! As Jesus said, Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  So then, you will know them by their fruits” (MT 7:15-20). And what are the fruits of modern Christianity?

  • Dogmas. No major Christian denomination urges us to relate to God directly, even though the Jesus of the Gospels wants us to do precisely that. Instead, each of the more than forty thousand versions of Christianity requires us to believe just its own set of dogmas.
  • Enforcement of Ancient Beliefs. What is even worse than basing our relationship with God on dogmas is the fact that every significant Christian dogma is more than a thousand years old! In what other area of our lives do we limit ourselves to believing just what was believed back in the days when most people thought the earth was flat?
  • Demanding Adherence to a Slate of Beliefs. The dogmas of your particular sect of Christianity are not offered as a menu, but rather you must believe them all. Whatever might not appeal to you still must be taken and believed “on faith.”
  • Self-Righteousness. Many Christian denominations use their ability to make you feel self-righteous as a selling point! If you say particular words or do certain things, then you are “saved” and God loves you. Anyone who rejects the deal that your Christian denomination offers in God’s name can literally go to hell as far as you’re concerned.
  • Rejection of Those Outside Your Tribe. Tribalism is such an insidious problem that it is going to need a separate discussion, but suffice it to say that human beings are extremely tribal. And many of the forty-thousand-odd Christian tribes encourage their flocks to look down on non-Christians, and even on Christians who are not member of their own tribe.
  • Monstrous Deeds. To my mind, just the Crusades and the Inquisition should have been enough to strip Christianity of whatever franchise it might have had! Then add the recent news that the largest Christian denomination still refuses to condemn and aggressively end the sexual abuse of children in its care, and you see a profoundly immoral institution that has divorced itself from the genuine God.
  • Empty Promises. There is sufficient objective evidence now to demonstrate that there is nothing factual about Christianity’s enforced beliefs. In fact, following fear-based Christian dogmas actually makes it harder for people to grow spiritually!

You will notice that this list of poisonous fruit applies just as well to our political parties. They also are beliefs-based, facts-free, aggressively tribal, grimly self-righteous, and mostly devoid of the ability to produce whatever might be useful to humankind. That American politics has devolved into a beliefs-based system almost devoid of facts is incontrovertible. And knowing that is so liberating!

It is time for all Americans of good will to abandon not only traditional religions, but also traditional politics. Assume that whatever the political leaders are saying on both sides is empty dogmas, and begin to insist that in every case their proposals must be supported by facts. And not just window-dressing facts being used as political parties always have used a few well-chosen facts, but thorough and well-supported facts from which has been developed what can be demonstrated will be the best way to solve the problem at hand. For all of us to insist on, support, and police one unbiased source of information would be a wonderful first step!

I wish I could tell you there has been a time when American politics was sufficiently facts-based to be of any positive use. Sadly, though, what we see in modern politics is just a logical endpoint of the slow devolution over centuries of a dysfunctional and almost entirely faith-based system. Rather than being able to return to a better form of government, our insisting that governmental decisions now be based on facts will require that we invent something new. And thanks to the resilient framework of our precious Constitution, we can do exactly that!

America’s primary religion is dying just as its political process rots away. It is time now for us to say good riddance to institutions that never worked very well, and for all Americans of good will to create together a happier, stronger, more equal, and much more productive future….

Roberta Grimes
Latest posts by Roberta Grimes (see all)

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

61 thoughts on “Faith vs. Facts

  1. Roberta, Thank you for a brilliantly insightful review of the disintegration of our national politics, and the misuse of established religions that tend to make bad worse. A common report from the Near Death Experience is that God told them that the religions do not accurately reflect His truths. Your commentary ought be published as an Op Ed for the WSJ and NYT.

    In the context of scientific behavioral research, Fred Kerlinger (past away) authored perhaps the best single text, Foundations of Behavioral Research (1973). Kerlinger’s text (which incidentally I used, knew him too, and he cited some of my own research) summarized the writings of the philosopher Charles Pierce as providing four methods by which we determine truth.
    “1. Tenacity: The first is the method of tenacity whereby truth is what is known to the individual or group. It simply is true (Huitt, 1998, April). There is no verification and no questioning. Validity of statement is mostly due to tradition and belief. It had been considered true since time immemorial. It worked with the mindset that it worked for their grand-parents, their parents and it should work for them too. Eg. Black cat crossing the road is bad and 13 is an unlucky number.
    2. Authority: The second is the method of authority in which truth is established through a trusted source such as God, tradition, or public sanction. Here, question is asked but not what and why but who said that? Information is considered valid due to authority of source. But one authority cannot be considered authority for all. It depends on situation and the type of knowledge sought.
    3. Intuition: The third is the apriori method or the method of intuition. Here, questions are raised from all corners and it is solved with the help of intellect. It is much superior that tenancy or authority. It is not systematic so maybe not possible to forecast.
    4. Science: The fourth method is the scientific method which attempts to define a process for defining truth that produces results verifiable by others and is self-correcting. …”

    The first three methods are what politics and religion rely on. The 4th method, science, is rarely used well, as it is difficult to do well, cost lots of time and money–and most importantly, often produces results that either falsify popular rhetoric or concludes that we simply lack good answers.

    As you say, it will help our society to recognize what’s going on and why, and your commentary scored a bulls eye on that.

    1. Dear Jack, you posted this right away and it made my morning!! Love your discussion about the kinds of truth: I hadn’t thought about it in those terms, and of course you’re right (or you might say that Mr. Pierce is right). On this scale, the scientific method seems to be the critical piece, and certainly it’s far more useful than the other three in helping us to make any kind of decision! Of course the scientific method, too, is subject to human hacking and distortion, which actually is what has happened over the past century: the scientific gatekeepers decided in the early 20th century that what they called the “fundamental scientific dogma” would be “materialism.” Good grief! They turned what should be an open-minded pursuit of the truth into just another religion (atheism, in this case). How lunatic is that?

      But I think we can solve this one. Since in the area of government we are generally looking for evidence about what works and what doesn’t work in solving specific human problems, in most instances the plain old tried-and-true system of gathering and analyzing raw data should be most of what we will need to do. You have made my wheels turn, Jack. Thank you for that!!

    1. Thank you, dear Kaye! I’m delighted that this resonates with you. A few people have suggested that I make these ideas into a book. What do you think, The Fun of Fixing Everything? Or The Fun of Playing Nice? It’s a thought!

  2. “And thanks to the resilient framework of our precious Constitution, we can do exactly that! ”

    Theoretically, yes, Roberta.

    But the access to changing the Constitution via Amendment rests with the very people that you rightly call to task.

    By ‘the very people’ I mean Congress, and then the States, but more basically I mean “us” – all of us – since we the people put our political leaders in there to serve our various self-defined self-interests.

    It would be quite interesting to hear specifics on what you would like to put in the Constitution to fix our current impasse.

    1. Very good point, Mike! And this is why I oppose holding another Constitutional convention, no matter how well-intended it might be: we won’t have much control over the outcome. Actually, the Constitution as it stands would work just fine, if only we would return to following its actual wording! Federal powers are meant to be few and limited, while the states’ and citizens’ powers are meant to be predominant and plenary, and the problem seems to be primarily that the people have trustingly allowed the federal government to absorb far too much power. With power, of course, come thievery and corruption! But still, the Constitution stands. It has been bent, but it is undamaged. The United States is the only nation on earth that possesses such a resilient governmental framework for the protection of the basic human rights of its citizens. I think, too, that the problem lies more with our political parties than it lies with the government itself; so I think that by reining in the parties we can move power back into the hands of the people. We’ll talk about how we might do that next week….

  3. Pleased to see the commentary about the US Constitution. When the Constitution was formed after the Articles of Confederation proved to be impractical for managing a newly unified country, the population was, on the face of it, mainly unsophisticated farmers and small time merchants (e.g., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin). However, in the light of history, the framers were highly educated and displayed evidence of capability in the range of genius. I’ve come to believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution definitely reflect divine guidance. Thus, I agree with Roberta that, however well intended, any new convention should be avoided.

    And I cannot let go Roberta’s comment about the adoption of materialism by academia. As she has mentioned before, during the period when materialism was being set in concrete as the “true” paradigm for science, no less than the founder of quantum theory, Max Plank, stated clearly that the material (atomic level entities) studied lacked the solidity that appears in human perception, but had an essence that was immaterial, and guided by an unseen intelligence. Until I studied the NDE reports, I too unthinkingly accepted materialism, and thought what Plank was saying was just silly. Now, I see that Plank was right all along. (If anyone might be interested in why materialism needs to be replaced to advance science, I have posted two papers about this topic on the NDERF web site).

    1. Thank you for your further thoughts, dear Jack! I have studied the Founders extensively, especially Thomas Jefferson (My Thomas), and it astonishes me to see what giants these men were! They were rich and well-educated, the aristocracy of these colonies, and their ancestry lay in a place where people at their level passed their privilege down through the generations. They had no contemporary model at all for this new vision they all seemed to share!

      Thomas Jefferson’s extensive youthful letters and commonplace-book entries show that he was determined to build a new world where there would be no aristocracy beyond the yeoman farmers he loved. Citizen legislators would step away from the plow for a few years to serve in Congress, then get right back to the plow. He inherited slaves, but he hated slavery and even came up with a plan for ending slavery soon after the Revolutionary War ended… he would have done it, too, if his treasured wife hadn’t died in 1782 and thereby wrecked his life.

      And George Washington was in the same mold! Jefferson and their contemporaries all admired and even revered him, and as the war was ending the army tried to make him the king of these newly-independent colonies. Again, a kingdom was these people’s only model for how to govern a country. It really was what many of the officers wanted, that security of having a good king in place. So that one decision of Washington’s – to renounce the throne, and even to shame them for suggesting it – may be the single biggest event that made the miracle that is America even possible!

      That all of this has been the work of Spirit seems impossible now to deny. Not the Christian God, of course, since the guy with a beard and thunderbolts does not exist, but rather the perfect Spirit that Jesus told us is what God truly is.

      And yes, our hero, Dr. Planck, and his fellow pioneering quantum physicists did discover that there is no matter and all is energy. Albert Einstein said it too, later in his life, and I have been told by some young scientists that actually everyone knows by now that there is no such thing as solid matter. But as our friend Dr. Planck said, science advances by deaths! Pretty soon now, there will be that one more death that makes the whole scaffolding of scientific lies fall down….

  4. Thanks for all this. My history is rusty and I don’t have reliable sources handy to refresh as of this writing, but didn’t one of the original framers warn against the rise of political parties (although considered it inevitable)?

    1. Oh yes, Mike! Pretty much all of the major Founders were against the rise of political parties. But here was one area where what they always had experienced and therefore was the process they knew very quickly overcame their ideals and even their common sense. Almost immediately they were fighting among themselves about the details of how this new country should be organized. Central government, big cities, and a centrai bank (Hamilton)? Or a largely rural and agrarian economy and as simple and equal a nation as possible (Jefferson)? Their political fighting became so bitter so quickly that as we know, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (whom he had started out very much loving and admiring) were so affected by the political battling of their supporters that they broke their friendship when Jefferson defeated Adams for the presidency and they didn’t speak for years. Fortunately, of course, in old age they were coming to appreciate the extraordinary roles they both had played when young, and they became again devoted friends. They both died on July 4, 1826, Jefferson in the morning and Adams in the afternoon, and Adams’s last words were, “Thomas Jefferson still survives.” (I think he said this because Jefferson had just appeared to him as a deathbed visitor, but I guess we’ll never know for sure!)

  5. Yes! Thank you!! Jesus wasn’t Christian! And he did not come to start another religion. He said all The Law and the Prophets sum up to Love God, Love One Another. That is my religion 🙏🙏💜💜

    1. You are so right, Becki! And what is amazing to me is that He said all of this in the Gospels, and more! But few Christians actually read the Gospels, so they have little understanding of what He said.

      He told us emphatically NOT to package His teachings with Judaism, the current prevailing religion, but to keep them separate: “But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved” (MT 9:16-17). “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old” (MT 13:52).

      And He tells us God is not a cranky old man with a beard and thunderbolts, but rather God is perfectly loving Spirit: “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth” (JN 4:24). “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (JN 6:63).

      He even tells us flat-out that God doesn’t judge us, which fact by itself entirely negates the whole idea that Jesus came to die for our sins! And He tells us He doesn’t judge us either: “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (JN 5:22-23). “If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world” (JN 12:47). (And for Christians now saying “Aha! He says He came to save the world!” what He tells us throughout the Gospels is that He came to save the world from religions. To Becki’s point, the last thing He was trying to do was start yet another one!)

      Very few Christians ever read the Gospels, and they are cheerfully willing to modify those perfect Gospel teachings with bits from the Old Testament and from the balance of the New Testament, just because the Council of Nicaea in 325 said as it was assembling its Biblical canon that it was being inspired by God. Who on earth were they to claim such a thing? What they were doing was creating a religion, and they assembled their Bible to support their new religion, even modifying the precious Gospels themselves. The Bible they assembled could not possibly be the work of a perfectly loving and internally consistent God, nor even of a sane and rational God.

      Christianity is wrong, but Jesus is right. And after 2000 years, Jesus is working hard in the world to persuade us of that fact. After all that He has done for us, who are we to deny Him the right to give us new revelation?

  6. I agree with you, Roberta, on the problems with the old, orthodox Christianity and it’s dogmas, But, I was a bit surprised to see you bringing partisan politics into the fray. Since you opened the door, I feel welcome to walk through the open doorway just a little bit.

    The opposition to President Trump is not built on raw, prejudiced emotion, but reason and evidence. I won’t go into a political harangue here, but stick to one point. You brought up the need to respect “facts.” I agree, but unfortunately, we have an administration in Washington D. C. that doesn’t. The President himself has been documented to be an habitual liar. No room to list them all and they weren’t statements taken out of context.

    Also, the Administration earlier in the year came out with the asinine statement that “alternative facts” are as valid as commonly agreed upon facts. Then, just a few months ago, the President’s lead personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, spews out the wackadoodle comment “truth isn’t truth.” The President didn’t object and even Trump’s staunchest supporters in congress couldn’t back up that absurdity.

    The constitution leaves open to interpretation the exact role and limits of the Federal government. As you point out, the founding fathers argued among themselves over this and we still are today. We have to remember, the U.S. was only 13 states back then, life a 100 times or more simpler than modern times and a mostly rural population. The complexities of modern life require a more robust role of the Federal government. That’s constitutional as reiterated by the “provide for the common good” and the inter-state commerce clause giving the Feds control over that in the constitution.

    As for constitutional changes, I’d say two are needed right off the bat. Get rid of the antiquated Electoral College system to elect the President and go to the popular vote, Number two, make it a requirement that 60 votes are needed in the senate to approve a Supreme Court nominee. That would require the two parties to compromise and not sent some extremist on the right or left to the Supreme Court.

    Well, I’ve said my “two cents worth” and will leave it at that. I also agree that a more civil public dialogue is desperately needed in the U.S. Let’s hope there’s some movement in that direction soon.

    What’s keeps me in balance and upbeat in these tumultuous times is knowing that politics, partisan or otherwise, doesn’t exist in the afterlife. Wow, won’t that be a major relief!

    1. Dear Michael, I carefully did not express my own political viewpoint because it doesn’t matter. I posted only links to articles written by others, and posted them just to make a set of points. I haven’t brought up political arguments, so I wish you hadn’t felt the need to express yours! I am in fact as apolitical as anyone you can imagine, but I only note that it is good to have a President who understands economics for a change. People I know who have been unable to find a job are now employed, and for those saving for retirement the stock market is roaring. I love seeing minorities doing better economically, although of course we still have a long way to go!

      As to your two proposed Constitutional changes:

      1) The electoral college is the single biggest reason why we are not now in the midst of a civil war. Those of us who live in fly-over country will not accept domination by a few states on the coasts, especially when those states have gone so far to the left as to have fallen off the planet altogether. I think you may not realize how much cold rage there now is in the whole middle of the country because the people who are the angriest are very quiet about it. But I see it. And I have come to think that if the electoral college goes, there probably goes the country. I think, too, that you should realize that one-man-one-vote will not necessarily get you a Democratic President. There are many Republicans in places like California, New York, and Massachusetts who simply don’t bother to vote; but if it becomes a matter of popular votes, they certainly will vote. I have seen an analysis that said that Trump would have won the popular vote if the election had been fought in the blue states as well. Who knows?

      2) It was my understanding that it was Harry Reid who got rid of the need for 60 votes for judges, not Paul Ryan or any other Republican. His decision to get rid of it was short-sighted, but I cannot imagine that the Republicans will now bring it back!

      Actually, I don’t agree that a larger country requires a more robust federal government. On the contrary! This country has become far too populous and varied to be governed by a bunch of Washington insiders. The Framers wanted nearly all but international-level powers to be exercised by the states individually, and in a country the size of this one that would work MUCH better than the present mess! I am working on my post for next weekend, when I will be proposing that we actually begin to follow the Constitution more closely. Given that you now have established your political position, dear Michael, I will be eager to hear what you will have to say about my proposal ;-)!

  7. “Those of us who live in fly-over country will not accept domination by a few states on the coasts, especially when those states have gone so far to the left as to have fallen off the planet altogether.”

    Roberta, well said, but it’s even worse than that. Hillary won the popular vote by 2.87 million votes and California by 4.27 million votes. Meaning she actually LOST the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes.

    IOW, the popular vote would not be domination by a ‘few states’, it’s domination by ONE state. And that state is by far the looniest of the left (I know, I lived there for 38 years in Oakland, along with SF and Berkeley, the leftist of the left.)

    Mike S.

    1. Interesting point, Mike! I don’t know if I have yet mentioned it here, but apparently DJT was selected to be the President by upper-level beings not now in bodies: I have seen mentions of this from as far back as 2011, but I was first made aware of it in the fall of 2015. This was before he even had announced his candidacy! I was told through a very good medium that the powers almost never interfere in human affairs, but it was going to be so important that he and not Clinton be the next President that they were putting their fingers on the scales. They also said that he would serve two terms. Make of that what you will (or won’t!), but the beings who said this are the same beings who are leading the effort to raise the consciousness of this planet. Watching him go on and announce and then be elected was a strange and shivery feeling, I must say!

  8. One more point…

    Michael A. says, “The opposition to President Trump is not built on raw, prejudiced emotion, but reason and evidence. ”

    I nearly spit out my coffee reading that. That he actually believes the lunatic, hysterical left is rational is laughable.

    Running Republicans out of restaurants is rational?

    Heck, shooting them at a baseball game?

    Screaming at Kavanaugh’s hearing and getting dragged out, one after the other?

    That’s reason to some people, I suppose, but normal people think you’re just nuts because you can’t accept the fact that you lost an election you were sure you were going to win, and then dominant the nation forever (which you would have).

    Also, Roberta, thanks for the comments on our booming economy, I mean Trump’s economy, I mean Obama’s economy. LOL

    And just today Trump renegotiated NAFTA to the benefit of American workers, while still helping Mexico (and maybe Canada).

    1. Thank you, Mike! I just hope we won’t continue to debate left-right politics here. Let’s not play that bogus game! The fact is that our political parties try to present us with a choice, but their leaders are Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee. A pox on both their houses! In fact, most “normals” want a safer, healthier, more prosperous, more just, and more egalitarian nation. That is what we all want! And for the reasons I have been outlining here – most specifically the fact that political decisions ignore real fact-finding – federal rule by either party is always disastrous. It is time for us at last to give up on political parties altogether and think again about how might be the best way to govern our beloved nation!

  9. “…apparently DJT was selected to be the President by upper-level beings not now in bodies…”

    Wow, now that’s what I call a real Electoral College victory…


    1. I know. I was dumbfounded. I went to bed that night assuming the upper-level beings had been wrong… but when I checked first thing in the morning, I was stunned to see that they had worked their magic during the night. Amazing.

  10. “…give up on political parties altogether and think again about how might be the best way to govern our beloved nation!”

    I am, as they say, all ears…


  11. Just finished all the letters above…, that could turn very quickly
    Into something we don’t want to see here.
    I have to say, even one hour before the election ended, people thought
    Hillary Clinton is going to win. I had now Idea thad Upper Beings did work on it. Actually I was stunned when Roberta mention it.
    But in the morning after, I thought how can that be, that has to be Divine Intervention.
    It was like the ” Parting of the Sea…or” God makes a Way where there is None!” I consciously tell people now :”I don’t want to be a part of the
    problem…I want to be a part of the solution.
    We can do it….Love and Peace to all the good Souls writing here!

    1. Thank you, dear Heidi! No, we won’t be talking about politics here except as we talk about religion here: as sources of counterproductive negativity that humanity will need to surmount if we are ever to unite in love and brotherhood. If we are ever to bring the Kingdom of God on earth!

      Dear friends, if you believe intensely that one or the other side of the political divide in America is right, I am not asking you to switch sides. I ask you only to think as Heidi is thinking now: your fighting for your side of a battle that is so rife with negativity only will make everything worse. Let those who cannot get past blind hatred continue to fight! We who can see more clearly must move beyond all negative emotions now and seek to rise above the fray. We want to be – we must be – not part of the problem, but part of the real and permanent solution.

      Our vision is a simple one. We know now that every human being is part of the same force that continuously manifests this universe. Yes, and that especially includes those who are on the opposite side of every political divide. The only real power that exists is love! People who know the Gospels understand that Jesus made a point of eating with tax collectors, and He insisted that we must turn the other cheek. As always and in all things, Jesus is right. The only power that exists is the power that we who understand the truth must learn to wield to the exclusion of every negative emotion: it is the infinite and perfect power of love.

  12. I don’t want to get into a political polemic here, but will briefly respond to a few of the reactions to my post.

    I agree with you, Roberta, with the last paragraph you wrote here love and understanding are the ultimate answers, if only more world leaders, including the present one in the White House, believed and acted as such.

    It’s unfair to equate all liberals with a small few who are rude and belligerent and get lots of publicity. Just as it’s unfair to say all conservatives are like the White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis that are belligerent, crude and loud.

    There is much opposition to changing the electoral college system, so I suspect it will be in place for some time to come. There are good arguments for and against it. Right now, though, it’s three or four “swing states” in the mid-east of the country that decide the Presidential race. All the other states are firmly in either the blue or red category.

    I don’t want to see all Democrats elected President or for other congressional offices. We need checks and balances and it’s bad if one party dominates for too long. And there are differences in the two major political parties and they are not going away for the foreseeable future. Too much big money is involved on both sides. Some channelers are saying that these “upper level beings” that are out-of-body are influencing for a midterm adjustment for more checks and balances. We’ll see.

    The 60 vote rule for approving Supreme Court nominees in the Senate is not in the constitution. It is left up to whichever party has the majority in the Senate to decide. I’d like to see it added to the constitution.

    The new trade deal with Canada and Mexico appears to be just an update to the old NAFTA deal rather than any revolutionary changes, the experts say after analyzing it. It was due to happen. A few workers might see better wages in the auto industry, but most workers will see little difference. We’ll see how it shakes out. A big sweetheart deal was handed the pharmaceutical industry that will hurt consumers of certain medically needed high priced drugs.

    The economy is up-swinging, all right, but it’s built on the momentum that Obama started by pulling us out of a deep recession in 2008. Many economists tells us to get prepared for a crash at some point, as it’s getting overheated. Plus, the tax cuts to the corporations didn’t filter down to higher wages and benefits for the majority of workers, as wages have stagnated. The banking regulations put in place in 2009 to help prevent another financial meltdown have been rescinded, which is another area of concern.

    There also concern about the deregulation of environmental protections that have resulted in high profits for some companies. but will cause ecological and public health problems down the road.

    The present administration’s pushing aside the development of alternative energies in favor of expanding big oil is still another concern. The wave of the future is alternative energy and China, Germany and other Western European countries are going full steam ahead in this area. In the future, when Trump is out of office, the U,S. will find itself sliding into a 2nd rate country and we’ll be playing catch-up.

    When A.I. robots start replacing all the factory and retail jobs it will be a major shock to society. I don’t see either major party preparing for that one.

    Anyhow, that’s all I’m going to say for now.

    Peace, love and prosperity to you all!

    1. Dear Michael, you have just spouted a whole slate of entirely one-sided propaganda that is at this point all that the mainstream media gives to us. I don’t blame you for choosing to watch CNN and read The New York Times, but if that is all that you watch and read, you will severely limit your understanding! Most of what you say here is just Democratic talking points. I read more broadly, and I could refute much of what you say with facts (including those Luddite fears about AI destroying our lives), but this website is going to remain one place where we DON’T have this kind of pointless political fighting going on!

      Effectively, dear Michael, I guess you have just made my point. What is urgently needed in this country is an entirely unbiased source of information! What the Democrats say. What the Republicans say. What the experts say. All carefully curated so there is at least ONE source of easily accessible information that Americans can visit, where they can see all sides and hear from various experts and then decide what THEY want to believe.

      And I’m on it. Stay tuned….

  13. Just an observation after Michael A.’s post and your reply, Roberta:

    Political views are the result of our particular values, which are, of course, extremely important to us as individuals and members of our chosen (or born-into) ‘tribe’.

    Politics is the way we express our values and try to implement them in the real world. Somebody has to set the rules and that’s how we’ve organized human life, fighting over who rules. It’s just reality.

    At the heart of my understanding of this material world (not the Afterlife, or the quantum universe etc) is the belief that each of us acts always always always in our own perceived self-interest. Evolution, specifically human evolution, demands that be our reality.

    But of course, we don’t have to talk Politics, ‘everywhere’ and this your house, Roberta, so we won’t.


    1. Mike, as a wise man once said, “It all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” I don’t think that “political views” are at all the result of our particular “values,” but rather they are mostly the result of drummed-up and generally fear-based emotions that spur both sides to the counter-productive righteous indignation that is now tearing this nation apart! I have very good friends who are Republicans, and very good friends who are Democrats. I could not any more hold a dinner party and invite both sides! But I can tell you that they all share the same “values.” When it comes to values, you couldn’t get a piece of paper between them.

      As I have been saying here, politics is in fact the source of most of our nation’s problems. I have spent most of the past three years studying the history of race in this country, and what I have found is that every racial problem we now have can be traced back to horrible political decisions. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. You are right in saying that politics is about who has power, but since that is true isn’t it reason enough now for us to ditch politics altogether? Power is given to the PEOPLE by the Constitution. And it is only when the American people reclaim the power that is and always has been their own that anything in this nation ever can improve. Now is when that has to begin!

  14. Roberta, As you already know, I sent you email. I am looking forward to your next blog post. I share your experience about values vs. politics. I get the feeling from my friends on both sides of the “aisle” that their values are decidedly the same but they have decided on different paths to defend them. If we don’t talk politics, we’re all pretty congenial. But as for dinner parties, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, don’t want to have dinner with anyone who would break bread with me!

  15. Ya gotta love Groucho ;-).

    Dear Mike, as I finished that post this afternoon I came to see that what you and I had talked about would be better left to the following one. Thank you for your inspiration, and stay tuned!

  16. “But I can tell you that they all share the same “values.”

    Just a quick illustration of actual real-world values, and how people (take out party and partisan labels) are either on or not on the same page:

    * Abortion (it gets rid of an unwanted ‘mass of tissue’ or kills a baby).

    * Size and role of the Federal Gov’t (which you addressed above, beautifully).

    * How to look at the Constitution itself – a flexible changing document depending on what we want at this moment or a guide that means what it says (with a way to change it).

    * The welfare state, and encouraging it or not.

    * Respect for our military and our police.

    * Our borders – open to virtually all who can get here one way or another or open to those who apply through the longstanding process that has allowed millions to immigrate here, legally.

    * And now the latest one, per the Kavanaugh situation – a person is presumed innocent unless/until proven guilty. Who wants to keep that guiding principle intact and who wants to jettison it by whatever means necessary.

    To me, these are profound, predictable differences that are expressed, in this material world, in various ways by an individual, one of which is affiliation with a political party, with all their faults. We do tend to ‘freely assemble’ with like-minded folks.

    Just a thought…


  17. Dear Mike, every one of your “values” examples is in fact a ginned-up political issue that could be easily resolved if it were not useful to one or the other of our political parties in keeping us distracted, divided, and angry. Let’s use abortion as an example, but the same sort of analysis could be applied to all of those that you name:

    You would think, based upon the fury surrounding the political parties’ approach to it, that abortion is a bright-line and impossible-to-resolve issue that obsesses and splits this nation! But it needn’t be that, since it could be resolved pretty easily to nearly everyone’s satisfaction. Polls now show that most Americans favor the option of legal first-trimester abortion, while far fewer think it should be legal thereafter. For reasons I won’t go into here, I am ardently pro-life, but even I would accept legal first-term abortions! So if those who are worried about keeping abortion legal would simply go to each state government and advocate for state-level laws that make abortion legal in at least the first trimester, stressing in more conservative states that they are trying to create peace by putting this issue behind us, I am confident that nearly all states would go for that deal. Some would go for more – in California, abortion would become state-level legal maybe even up to the age of two (I’m kidding!), and in those more liberal states there would be clinics where women from other states could have their late-term abortions with little fuss. Presto! No issue. Done. Especially since pregnancy doesn’t just happen to people (like cancer), if an unwanted pregnancy happens it can be gotten rid of right away; if a mind changes later, then women can opt for a handy late-term-abortion package-trip to sunny California with travel expenses paid by the Planned Parenthood Charitable Trust.

    Roe v. Wade is an appalling example of unconstitutional judge-made law, and it should be – and obviously most people believe that it will be – overturned as soon as a less sloppy Supreme Court is in place. So why are abortion advocates not rushing to put this abortion safety net into place now? Because fighting over the manufactured issue of abortion is a very useful way for politicians to keep us distracted and divided with their ginned-up righteous indignation ploy!

    Political fighting is quite literally the WORST way for us to make governmental decisions! And we can get past it. We can all together refuse to play these horrible political games, and when we do that we will be able to solve every one of what the politicians find value in making us believe are intractable “values” problems!

  18. Dear Roberta – I will try to keep this short. Of the two issues you addressed, the need for FACTS upon which to base our decisions and the corrupting, wrong-leading influence of RELIGION, there are no differences between us. Nevertheless, I ask two questions:
    • Don’t the character issues of our current President matter? Issues that involve facts, honesty, respectful treatment of other people (especially the disenfranchised and women), marital fidelity, financial integrity, temperament; balance; and on and on. To that question specifically, what has your spiritual guide, Thomas, said about the character of Donald Trump and Thomas’ view his current administration? Parenthetically, I could not think of a starker contrast in characters than between your Thomas and Donald Trump.
    • In one of your responses to a comment, you indicated that “higher powers” had put their “thumb on the scales” to bring about Trump’s election. If in fact they have, have you heard from them for what purpose was it done?” I have read other psychics on what they have “received” the purpose of his election to be, but I will hold for now what I’ve read.

    Thanks in advance for your feedback! -Tim

    1. Hello Tim! To answer your questions as best I can:

      1) Thomas seems actually to be stronger than ever on the need for Mr. Trump to be our current President. There is a particular reason why Thomas feels this way that you will find readily understandable, but that I cannot yet discuss; I will talk about it here as soon as I am free to do that. Where character is concerned, I do not know the man personally, but I do know people who have known him for a long time and very well; and they tell me he is actually nothing like his public image. And when I think about the “character” of prior Presidents who have served in my lifetime – JFK and especially LBJ come first to mind – I think we may even be able to posit a theory that DJT is in reasonable company.

      2) The primary reason for DJT’s spiritual selection that I was given in the fall of 2015 was that this nation is going to suffer an EMP attack so the hardening of our electricity infrastructure is urgent. The beings who talked about putting their fingers on the scales said that Mr. Trump will harden the infrastructure in time, but Mrs. Clinton would have done nothing about it. What I personally took away from learning this has been a vast sense of relief that even despite everything, we still have the protection of Spirit! (Now I am aware of Thomas’s own particular reason for wanting Mr. Trump in office, and that is similarly very important.)

      Tim, we must get past politics. Every major political decision that I have studied actually has done more harm than good! Bad political decisions are the entire reason why we still have racial problems now, and figuring that out has sealed the deal for me. Unless we can move past politics and demand of our leaders full and completely objective facts upon which directly responsive governmental decisions can be based, this nation is going literally nowhere :-(.

  19. Roberta – Thanks for replying.
    Regarding #1: Please know that I’m aware many (most?) of our prior Presidents were far from being “choir boys.” You forgot Richard M. Nixon in your infamy “line up” ;-). That said, if Mr. Trump is really a much nicer person than what his public image would indicate, then someone needs fired because his detractors and supporters alike would use terms like “aggressive, attacking, blunt, harsh, bully, crude, etc.” to describe him. The only difference would be one group would view these qualities as non-PC assets while the other would see them as gross character flaws.

    Regarding #2: Interesting! I’ve never heard that theory before, but so be it. Other psychics I’ve read have received a common message something to the effect that Trump’s extremism (though brash and upsetting) will actually lead us to a better place by exposing our nation’s divisions, prejudices, and lack of love. That, in turn, will supposedly lead us to reach out to each other and realize that “we’re all in this together” so stop our polarized fighting and realize our Oneness. That sounds great and I hope it comes to pass, but I’ll have to see it to believe it.

    Lastly, regarding your view that “Bad political decisions are the entire reason why we still have racial problems now.” If by politics you mean human nature, then I can agree, given I see the two as inseparable. If there has been one constant on this earth plane, it has been the “us vs. them” theme. Though we are not born with this “virus” as shown in little children and their acceptance and non-judgmentalness of each other, politics/human nature does a dandy job teaching it to us. Can incarnate spirits learn Oneness this side of eternity? One can only hope.

    Thanks and Peace! -Tim

    1. Sorry, Tim! Nixon belongs there too. And I think that both Bush II and Obama were also rather severely truth-challenged, but their presidencies are too recent for us to have any perspective on them. And when you go back farther, OMG, some of our former presidents were appalling!

      To be frank, “nice” would not be my first requirement for someone chosen to lead the United States. This is the toughest job on earth! So… Bold. Strong. Courageous. Resolutely non-political. Experienced in management. Educated in economics. Imbued with a love for this country and what it stands for. Doing what is right for Americans as he is able to see it, and never mind the political fallout. Um, what else? Actually, it seems to me that given the literal insanity being displayed by the far left in opposition to him right from the day he was inaugurated, probably no one who was less “aggressive, attacking, blunt, harsh, bully, crude, etc.” than he is would have stood a chance!

      I think those other psychics you’ve mentioned are probably right as well. This country had been circling the drain economically and socially, its federal government and its politics had become ever more profoundly dysfunctional, and from what I know DJT actually is going to improve a lot of that. I don’t like the huge budget deficits, but he can’t do everything at once!

      When I say politics, I mean two power-mad major parties battling to make what are entirely ideology-based and facts-free decisions that directly affect the lives of people who cannot fight back. And then more absolutely facts-free, purely ideology-based political battling makes things worse. So still more damage is done by politicians trying to fix that damage. And so on and on. Ever since the ink was still drying on the Constitution, the federal government has done everything wrong in the area of race! And every racial problem we have now can be traced back to all these political blunders. I am heartsick over it. I believe now that the Founders were right after all: until we can abolish political parties, this nation can go nowhere that is good for all Americans!

  20. “…human nature does a dandy job teaching it to us.”

    Exactly, Tim. It’s called xenophobia and it’s built into us by our evolutionary development, ie ‘protect, defend, and advance the tribe or we all die.’ That’s the bedrock and very definition of human nature, which btw, has each human’s self-interest as its base.

    Little kids may (or may not) be as accepting of differences as you say, but they are just puppies/kittens who have limited knowledge of the world they just came into so their attention is absorbed by exploring the world around them.

    Advance a few years and those kids can be brutal to each other, teasing, name-calling, et al.

    Advance another few years and you’re in puberty, with the raging hormones thing, especially testosterone and you have ‘mean girls’ and macho-posturing, always on trigger to be violent boys.

    Like I say, all perfectly predicted by evolution.

    I do believe that we (ie scientists) are on the cusp of literally being able to reprogram human nature, along with curing all disease, including old age, so we’ll live forever.

    Homo Sapiens is about to give way (within a few decades, imo) to what I like to call Homo Kurzwelians (hope that reference makes sense lol).

    As far the litany of bad presidents, let’s not forget the rapist, and abuser of women, B.J. Clinton.


    1. Dear Mike, we are going to be two for two in these recent comments of yours: I agree with nothing that you say in either this post or the next (well, except for your adding Bill Clinton to our list of infamous Presidents). You have bought into the materialist dogmas of benighted modern science, and therefore you are as much in the weeds as they are… but take heart, since I have got to correct you here just so others will not be misled, and in the process, I am happy to be helping you, too!

      The greatest scientists, of course, have long known that there is no such thing as solid matter:

      Albert Einstein said: “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”

      And Max Plank said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” This statement by Dr. Plank in 1931 announced what was the greatest discovery of the 20th century!

      Building upon their work, open-minded researchers have found abundant and consistent evidence that what we experience as human consciousness is the base creative force, and that our minds are part of that base creative force which continuously manifests this universe. Since time and space are just matter-related illusions, our minds always have existed and always will exist.

      And what may be even more illuminating is the fact that consciousness vibrates in a range from the lowest (which is fear and other negative emotions) to the highest (which is perfect love). We come to earth for brief lives very much as people who want to strengthen their bodies will go to a gym: we come here to experience and push against negativity. In our real lives (what we now mistakenly call the afterlife), there is no negativity that we can push against.

      So, dear Mike, EVERYTHING that you say in this post about human nature is entirely wrong. Our bodies do evolve, yes, but our minds are eternal. If you want to learn more, there are many earlier blog posts on this website that should help you better understand what is actually going on.

      And NO, scientists will never learn how to reprogram human nature. Since the mind does not originate in the brain, their obsession with studying the brain makes them essentially the same as primitive tribesmen huddling in wonder around a radio and trying to figure out how the radio’s tubes make the voice of Frank Sinatra.

      And where your “live forever” idea is concerned, we already live eternally… and we live a great deal better and happier lives after our brief time in this gym is done and we are at last free of these material bodies!

      Our entire crisis of humanity now stems from the fact that part of the package we come here equipped with is amnesia about who and what we really are. But because humanity’s vibration has become so low that we risk the destruction of the planet, those not now in bodies are working to get the truth out here sufficiently that more people will begin to choose love over fear. THAT is what is coming next, dear Mike ;-)!

      1. Oh, and we are not xenophobic by nature. Nor are we racist, but we are EXTREMELY tribal. There is a period in our lives below the age of six when scientists tell us (See? They are good for some things!) that our minds are in download mode. One of the things we are learning during that early, very productive time is what our tribes look like. And when we take advantage of that time to teach little children that all of humanity is one glorious tribe, all forms of racism and xenophobia magically will disappear!

  21. Re abortion:

    This is what a first trimester, ie 12 week, baby looks like:

    There is no way I would ever consent to killing that baby for the sake of peace with abortion advocates.

    If you simply listen to them, the feminist advocates would not accept that compromise either – they demand complete abortion-on-demand up to the moment of delivery. IOW, NO interference by the father, the State, the doctor(s), or anybody else with the mother’s decision to kill her baby.

    This is not politics, this is basic morality. Advocates demand the right to kill babies way past 12 weeks, they will never compromise.

    Abortion is the motivating factor in the current madness about Kavanaugh’s nomination.

    Remember the ‘Handmade’s Tale’ costumes worn a short-time ago when the initial hearings were taking place?

    I’ve believed for a long time that the gut-wrenching abortion issue will never be settled unless and until medical technology finds the perfect contraceptive – never fails, never has to be thought about. Maybe genetically engineer all infants to be essentially sterile until they choose to be capable of reproduction when they reach adulthood.

    Any that’s my hope.

  22. Dear Mike, picture this. You are out in your fishing boat, minding your own business, when you happen upon an isolated island where 400 children are marooned without food or clean water (they were on a cruise ship that sank after putting them off… doesn’t matter why they are there). Some of these children are so weak that they are dying; and the others are not far behind them. Now, you want to save all 400 children, but if you put more than maybe 50 on that little boat at once, you risk sinking it. Do you:

    1) Take none of them, but try to get back to shore soon enough to bring back help to save as many as you can?

    2) Take 100, knowing you are putting the stability of that boat at such risk that you must move slowly and you will probably not be able to get help in time to save the rest?

    3) Take 50, since those are saved for certain and you still can get back to shore in a reasonable time to send help to the rest of them soon enough to save many of them?

    To my mind, #3 is the only possible right answer.

    Mike, your statement that you are willing to let all babies in utero risk dying for many years more simply because you cannot at once save them all appalls me. This is not between you and “abortion advocates”! This is about saving human lives. Screw the abortion advocates! In the fight to bring justice to the least of these, they are just buzzing gnats. We must work now to do what is possible now, and work to do as time passes what we will be able to do later. Within another generation, communication between the living and those that we used to think were dead is going to be so good that everyone will fully understand that life begins at conception, and as soon as that happens it will be easy to get all abortions banned. Meanwhile, we will have saved the lives of millions!

    My daughters hate that I say this, but it is true: abortion is a situation perfectly analogous to what slavery was 200 years ago. It pits the rights of the strong against the rights of the weak. The day is coming when everyone who advocated for abortion now will be seen by their progeny the way the descendants of slaveholders now see their ancestors, but that day is not quite yet.

  23. “Mike, your statement that you are willing to let all babies in utero risk dying for many years more simply because you cannot at once save them all appalls me. ”

    Roberta, it should appall you – if I’d said that. But I didn’t.

    The compromise you mentioned earlier was that we should have people go to their individual state legislatures and lobby for how ‘they’ want abortion to be acceptable or not, in ‘their’ state.

    Well, that’s exactly what you would have if Roe v. Wade is overturned. California and the other blue states would have unrestricted abortion-on-demand and the red states would have varying degrees of control, including for some, a complete ban from the moment of conception.

    Is it your opinion that the Pro-Abortion movement would go along with dumping Roe v. Wade so they can have free abortion in a few states? What do you think the fight against Kavanaugh going on right now is about? Not some woman coming forward after 36 years with a sexual assault charge; nope, their fear is Justice K will be the nail in the coffin of Roe.

    Put bluntly, pro-abortion people are not about to accept your reasonable compromise (and it is, or would be, if you moved the timeline back, say to when the baby is just a blob).

    IOW, you seem to believe that these people can be reasoned with. Have you seen their behavior in the halls of the Senate, in all these days of the BK hearings? The shouting, screaming, threatening lunacy? Doxxing Republicans, including a threat upon their children. Chasing them out of restaurants. Oh yes, and shooting Scalise and brutally assaulting Rand Paul. The list of violence goes on.

    The simple reason these people, fellow Americans, are so driven to such craziness is because they DON’T believe in the soul – they are complete materialists, that’s why they fight so hard – this is the only life, in their estimation, so they fight for every bit of self-interest they have. If that includes destroying a good man like Justice K (he will be!) so be it, and if you or I get in their way, they will smash us too.

    Gee, we’re on the same side here! You may have a more expansive view of the Left but I lived among them (and in fact was one of them for awhile) in Oakland for 38 years (now safely in Arizona) and follow them closely even today.

    They are extremists. Look at how they have destroyed BK’s life, his wife, his kids, his good name. They have NO compassion for you and me. I wish I could believe differently but…

    The American Left is like the so-called Palestinians v. Israel. They don’t want peace with Israel, and their own state, they want ALL of Israel ‘from the river to the sea’.

    Anyway, thanks for your site, your posts, and your replies to me.


    1. Why would the other side want Trump to become president? What has he done that is so fabulous that upper level beings wanted him? I know you said you do not want to get into a political discussion, but you brought it up above. I also found the comment you said about CNN to be rude and not necessary. The economy was improving over the last few years and Trump does not know a thing about economics. He spreads hate and fear. Have you been paying attention at all.? Also, republicans are the ones who are not moving away from religion at all. All of their views about religion are intense. Also, I would have thought that someone like you would know that souls do not inhabit the body until later on. Abortion is a personal issues and I do not believe there is punishment for it. I am not subscribing you your newsletter anymore. I now know where you stand when you claim the upper beings wanted a sexual predator with no respect for women in the WH.

      1. I promise that in future, for the sake of those who come here to learn and to share openly, we will delete every nakedly political comment as we automatically delete spam comments. I have approved this one only because it is such a classic example of closed-minded group-think.

        I am sorry, Susan, but everything you have posted here is just political talking-points with no attempt ever made to ground them in facts. I listen to all sides, so I could share evidence that would refute your talking-points, but then I would be violating my own rules and i might have to ban myself! What I wish for you is that you will open your mind and your heart to the possibility that there may be more for you to learn, and that sharing in group-hates – and especially in the group-hate being directed against this President – is destructive of everything for which you are fighting.

        Just FYI, thanks to the insane Kavanaugh group-hate of this past week, Rasmussen now has Donald Trump at 51% approval, which I believe is close to his record high and is higher than Obama was at this stage of his Presidency. There is apparently a backlash building, too, among many women who love their husbands and sons and don’t want to see them similarly demonized; and Mr. Trump’s approval rating among African-Americans has gone from 23% to 35% in just the past year. All this talking-point-fueled, group-hate-driven insanity of the Democratic party since Mr. Trump’s election seems to be literally destroying that party! Please, dear Susan and everyone who thinks like Susan, stop and consider that the angrier and more self-righteous you get – the more you express your righteous indignation – the more of America’s broad middle you lose. So please stop it now.

        p.s. – This thread of comments contains two answers as to why upper-level beings chose Donald Trump to be the President now, and i have seen reports of this phenomenon going back to at least 2011. The first answer: We need this disruption so we can right our ship of state and return to our founding principles. The second answer: He will harden the electrical grid in time to protect us from a coming EMP attack, while Clinton would have ignored that threat.

        p.p.s. – “Souls do not inhabit the body until later on” is simply wrong, based upon all the evidence. We are told pretty consistently that most earth-bodies have been assigned to their future inhabitants even before they are conceived.

    2. A good man does not sexually assault women and yes, I DO believe them. As a victim myself, I was dragged through the mud. They wanted to know what I was wearing , if I was drunk etc. How dare you assume all women lie. They did not lie about Trump either. People with views like you are the reason women don’t report their rapes. They would not understand unless it happened to them OR how about some female in your family? T his entire post is absolutely disgusting. Someone was told above to lay off of CNN, but why don’t you try laying off Fox news. Again, right wingers ARE the religious fanatics . They are the ones trying to force their archaic religious beliefs on you. By the way, you labeled all on the left crazy people. Nice way to lump them all together. I am a former republican by the way.

      1. Susan, you amaze me. Your whole tribe amazes me. As a “former Republican,” is it your stealth intention to destroy the Democratic party? (OMG, is that what is really going on??) You have just given us a hate-filled rant that is responsive only to the demons in your mind, and that has nothing to do with what I posted. I find the way you are behaving here fascinating, and also horrifying. Is it possible that a grown woman actually thinks and behaves this way?

        Dear Susan, your having been sexually assaulted, while personally tragic, means nothing in the Kavanaugh hearing.

        I never said “all women lie,” and nor would I, being a woman myself.

        I never “labeled all on the left crazy people.”

        You have given me the opportunity, though, to point out that for some women to use sexual harassment as a political lie has a long and dishonorable history in the American South. As a grotesque coincidence, as the Kavanaugh mess was unfolding, the woman who more than 60 years ago told a lie about 14-year-old Emmett Till that got an innocent child tortured and murdered has finally – to clear her conscience in old age – admitted that she made the whole thing up.

        (Please, everyone, Google Emmett Till and look at his beautiful, innocent face. Please look at him in the open coffin that his mother insisted upon, and please once again resolve that his death will not have been in vain.)

        Many innocent men were lynched during the Jim Crow period because they were targeted by white men and fingered by white women as an excuse for their men to murder them. When I see all these Believe the Women signs waving now, I am frankly horrified! Is our national memory really so short? Did all those men who became “strange fruit” die in vain? Yes, Susan, for women to tell sexual lies for political reason has a long and tragic history in this country. Own that fact, because it is a fact! Unless you will own that fact, you are dishonoring all the men those lying women murdered.

    3. No more politics, Mike S! I have given you your final say, but please from now on stick just to rational and nonpolitical arguments. I will be grateful.

  24. Of course, Roberta.

    You basically said all that I would have said re politics, in your replies to Susan. And much better, and at considerable length. So thank you!

    Just note though that I’m sticking with you and Susan is banning you from her mind, with lots of hostility.

    Maybe you have hope that you will be able to convince people like Susan that she should accept the ‘facts based’ theory that you are in the process of divulging here in the near future. I don’t want to be too harsh on her or anyone, but it sure seems that she has a rather closed mind about the ‘other’ side (ie Trump, you, me).

    The perfect illustration of your Righteous Indignation, no?

    So no more politics, but I do want to clarify my thoughts on the material world and the spiritual (or whatever one wants to call it) world because I think you’ve misinterpreted things I said above re the consequences of science and technology in the near future.

    But I’ll leave that for another post. 🙂

  25. Mike, as the shaman in the movie Avatar said, “It is hard to fill a cup that is already full.” I don’t expect to change the mind of someone who is so leadenly cemented in her narrow worldview, but still I will reach out in love and try. That is my responsibility, and my joy!

  26. And good for you!

    But I’m afraid your task is not with the random Susan or two; rather it’s with her whole ‘tribe’ (as you rightly noted above), which is half the U.S. population, tens of millions of fellow citizens.

    They and we simply do not see ‘this’ reality (the material world, not Heaven) the same way. Can they be reasoned with?

    Re-read Susan’s very passionate words. And your thoughtful response. Now multiply Susan by 100 million Americans.

    Can you broker agreement based on ‘facts’ and rationality to those of our fellows (including many in our own families and circle of friends and acquaintances) who so clearly allow emotion to rule their lives?

    And remember, as much as you rightly call to task the Christians on our side who are limited in their perception of Truth, most folks on the other side simply don’t believe in ‘any’ non-material existence. In fact many of them are downright hostile to the very idea of an Afterlife.

    So this, they:

    * Don’t agree on the nature of the material world
    * Don’t agree on the nature of the spiritual world (or deny it altogether) .
    * Will scream and yell, throw things, hold their breath till they turn blue, disown you, condemn you, call you names, physically attack you if they can get away with it (ie, in a mob, eg Antifa), and on and on…

    All to shut us up. They don’t want our conversation, let alone our disagreement/debate – they want to SHUT US UP.

  27. Just one more illustration that Susan is not alone. This is a tweet in response to the BK voting yesterday from Nancy Lee Grahn, who is an actress (General Hospital) with 127K followers. This particular tweet has gone viral, for good reason (and not in a way complementary to her):

    “Just pulled my car over & screamed gutturally for a good 2 min & then cried for 10 more. A Latino woman driving by stopped & asked me to open my door and then hugged me. She said ” I know. “ I would like to extend the same to you here. I know.”

    The epitome of rationality, right?

    She shows her Righteous Indignation, maxed out by screaming and crying, and then, to Virtue Signal, she, a white woman, has to mention the race of the woman who literally pulled over to console her.

    There’s our/your challenge. These are our fellow Americans; there aren’t enough psychotherapists in the country to help them with their anguish, but we have to live with them.

  28. “How dare you assume all women lie. They did not lie about Trump either. ”

    Although I doubt she’ll see it…

    Susan, now do:

    * Karen Monahan vs Keith Ellison

    * Juanita Broaddrick vs Bill Clinton
    * Kathleen Willey vs Bill Clinton
    * Paula Jones vs Bill Clinton
    * Leslie Millwee vs Bill Clinton

    Women NEVER LIE, right?

  29. Sorry, Roberta. I really didn’t think this was politics, rather challenging my fellow Americans who have a different worldview. But it does go to the idea that pretty much everything is politics, at least in contemporary America.

    (Also doing a bit to defend you from Susan’s screed – not that you didn’t already handle that yourself!)

    But, of course, no more from me. 🙂

    1. The only way this nation ever will change the conversation and move it in a more positive and loving direction will be, in fact, to change the conversation! My next blog post went up today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *