The Scopes Trial, held in 1925, the year of my birth, and coincidentally, Werner Heisenberg’s publication of the uncertainty principle, the forerunner of quantum mechanics, published in September 1925, the month and year of my birth, all connecting with the time and place of my birth at 4:21 p.m., September 17, 1925 in Houston Texas, making me Aquarius rising.  


By coincidence, immediately after I posted “Intelligent Design” on the Tea Party blog, I turned on the History Channel. Surprisingly, the Scopes Trial was being aired.  It was like my post was predestined.  In the Scopes trial, two big time lawyers, Clarence Darrow for the defense and William Jennings Bryan, three time presidential candidate for the Democrats, for the prosecution, Scopes was on trial for teaching in public school that we humans evolved from monkeys. The folks called it the Scopes Monkey Trial. It was seen as the trial of the century. It was modernists who said religion was consistent with evolution and fundamentalists who maintained that “the Word of God” (The Bible) trumped all human knowledge. Amazing! The judge forbid any scientific knowledge from being presented at the trial, which left Darrow to attack religious fundamentalism, and his friend, religious fundamentalist Bryan.  It didn’t help the fundamentalists any that Bryan died shortly after the trial. They blamed it on Darrow. Familiar?


Isn’t it interesting that after I posted “Intelligent Design” that I viewed the Scopes Trial?  It’s as if I’m being directed by voices of the past. With knowledge of the Scopes Trial, now that I’m directed by voices from the past, I must tell you that both the modernist and fundamentalist views were wrong. Neither position lines up with Intelligent Design, nor the message in the Bible.


God did not create a perfect universe.  God decided to create the time-space universe and man—and change. Genesis 1:26—“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion . . . ,” our physical image or our spiritual image?  Modernists and fundamentalists, with opposing views, using the world is flat idea instead of their spiritual selves to make judgments (monkeys don’t possess human spiritual values) how could that be a matter of opinion? Spiritually, we did not evolve from monkeys. It is ridiculous to argue that. It was monkey see, monkey do. We are animals physically, obviously evolved from monkeys, humans spiritually, with no connection to monkeys. But these people were acting, ironically, like monkeys. If we start with such a ridiculous idea, then everything we read in the Bible is wrongly interpreted. And boy! Was that ever true in what William Jennings Bryan said at the trial.  Bryan knew to the year when the world began, I think some 22,000 years ago.  It’s scary. In a world that is technologically rapidly advancing, hundreds of millions of the faithful believe the Scriptures trump all human knowledge.


Is it any wonder that religious zealots would think America is the Great Satin?  Is it any wonder that the pope would send Christian Crusaders to the Holy Land to take it back from Islam? Think of the suffering and death man’s foolish interpretations of the Scriptures have caused.  It is unbelievable. “After our likeness,” says the Bible.  God created man with reason and the ability to self-govern. The faithful allow themselves to become mindless herd animals.


Fundamental to life is control of the situation we find ourselves in—so to speak, small fish finding a way to keep from being eaten by big fish. Making man in our image involves Higher Law, which happens to be the background of the American Constitution, if we but knew it.  We’ve been brainwashed. If you knew the story of my life, you would know that your control of the situation requires that you look within for your answers.  You would know, if you look within, your power to control is far greater than you thought.


For the good of all, the people in control make war; the winner has God on his side. It’s insane.  An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?  For God’s sake, God didn’t create man to make war. The Bible is the moral story of man, the good and the evil. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches that we are our brother’s keeper; that we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  Who could disagree? This is making man in our unique spiritual image.  I AM THAT I AM—the Supreme Consciousness—included, my conscious awareness, as limited by me, Jesus: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God.” The kingdom of God is distinguished from the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of God is internal in each of us, if we but knew it.  We are consistently being misdirected.


Astrologers tell us about the Age of Pisces, when people would be extremely responsive to the feelings of others, when they would unconsciously absorb the ideas and mental outlook of those around them, when they would desperately want to do the right thing, but as a rule would not have strong wills, when they would be influenced by external factors. With the Age of Pisces came Jesus. Jesus told Peter that before the cock crowed Peter would deny him three times.  It fits with what we read in astrology books, and in the Bible, with regard to seeking first the kingdom of God.


Astrologers tell us the Age of Pisces is ending, being replaced by the Age of Aquarius, and that Aquarians are born under the sign of brotherhood, whose symbol is the water-bearer who spills out the life-force of mankind: spiritual energy—who are stubborn in belief, who operate as equals among equals, who are not dependent on others.  This has a lot of similarity with what Jesus preached, if you are open minded, but not if you have been brainwashed by the orthordoxy.


Fox News: “Now that they're freshmen in a GOP-run House, the political movement's candidates are running smack into the traditions, partisan divisions and powerful competing interests that make it so hard to redirect the government,” exactly what I’ve been writing.   


Jesus said in earth as it is in heaven. We read in Cosmos and Psyche astonishingly consistent correspondence between planetary alignments and the archetypal patterns of human history. Astrologers talk about our signs as being archetypically, from the standpoint of the original pattern of man, how we feel as we go through life, how we naturally uplift people, what our spiritual mission is.


We’ve not wanted information that rocks the boat. We are now developing a new image, a growth image, forced by the rapidly changing world. Join us, my representatives, or be left at the switch.  We will replace you.


Pluto, known as a generational planet, is now unfavorably aligned with Saturn, the learning planet, and until November 2012, a month prior to the Mayan calendar’s end of the world prediction.


When a lesson from a prior life was not learned, one can experience inexplicable guilt. Saturn, the source of many self-imposed restrictions,   known by the placement of Saturn in the chart, Saturn in my 9th House means I have serious interest in religion—philosophically. I base my philosophy on what I believe to be right, not on what is acceptable. That’s Aquarian.


A new world order, an innovative, entrepreneurial world is already emerging, a world, according to astrologer Jeanne Avery, with Aquarius rising, which is my rising sign. My emerging world began in 1925.  I may bring back information that has been lost to civilization for centuries, says Avery. I can be very avant-garde, can be the forerunner in setting style, discovering new methods, can show the rest of humanity the way, says Jeanne Avery. I know where the fruit grows and where the spotlight can hit.


Jesus, Avery, and I say, “Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works . . .”(Mt. 5:15, 16).  I’m inclined to believe that all these coincidences in my life are not by coincidence.  Why would all my dreams have come true?  I’m doing as I’m ordered to do.









Views: 11


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage,


YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service