Sixth Sunday of Pascha: Sunday of the Blind Man
John 9:1-38

By St. Theophylact, Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria

1–2. And as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from his birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?”

The Lord leaves the temple in order to dampen the anger of the Jews a little, and turns to the healing of the blind man. By this miracle He attempts to soften their stubborn disbelief, though they derived no benefit from it; at the same time, He shows them that He did not speak idly or boastfully when He said, “Before Abraham was, I am” (Jn. 8:58). Behold this miracle, the like of which has never been seen: others have restored the sight of blind men, but never of a man born blind. It is clear that Christ performed this miracle as God Who is before Abraham. To prove this to the Jews, He intentionally approached the blind man, and not vice-versa. When they see the Lord looking intently at the blind man, the disciples ask, “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” This question appears to be illogical. How could the man have sinned before he was born? The apostles, of course, did not accept the foolish notion that the soul commits sin in another world, before the body is formed, and is punished by being joined to the body. Being fishermen, they would never have heard of this teaching of the Greek philosophers. Their question, then, might appear foolish, but not to one who is attentive. The apostles heard Christ tell the paralytic, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (Jn. 5:14). Now they see the blind man and wonder, “The paralytic was punished because of his sins; but what do You say about this man? How could he have been punished for his sins? He was blind from birth. Did his parents sin? That also cannot be, for a child is not punished for his father’s sins.”
Thus their question was an expression of perplexity, which the Lord dispels by explaining, “Neither hath this man sinned, (how could he before he was born?) nor his parents.” Christ does not say simply, “His parents did not sin,” implying that they were without fault; He adds, that he was born blind. His parents did sin, but that was not the cause of his blindness. It would be unjust to charge the sins of parents to the children, who have done nothing wrong. God makes this clear through the words of the prophet Ezekiel (18:2): “Let this parable no longer be spoken, The fathers have eaten unripe grapes, and the children’s teeth shall be set on edge.” The Lord also gave this commandment, through Moses: “And the sons shall not be put to death for the fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Dt. 24:18). But some might object, “Yet it is written, I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, recompensing the sins of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation” (Ex. 20:5). It must be understood that this is not a universal decree applying to all men at all times, but only to those who came out of Egypt. Also, the meaning of the decree must be considered carefully. It does not say that the children are punished for the sins of their fathers, but rather that the sins of the fathers—meaning, the punishments for their sins—will be “recompensed” upon their children. This is because the children have committed the same sins as the fathers. The Lord did not want those who came out of Egypt to think that if they committed the same or worse sins than their fathers they would not be punished. Another way to put it is: “The sins of your fathers (that is, the penalty for their sins,) will come upon you also, because you did not become better than they, but have committed the same, and even worse.” Even when you see infants taken from this life, you must understand clearly that God cut their life short out of love for man. Had they lived, they would have become worse than their parents and filled their own souls, and the souls of many others, with wickedness. But all this is hidden in the abyss of God’s judgments. Let us now continue.

3–5. Jesus answered, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

Now another perplexity arises. One might ask, “How could Christ say this? Was it not unjust to deprive this man of his sight so that the works of God should be made manifest in him? Could not these works have been revealed some other way?” We would answer, “How have you been treated unjustly, O man?” “I have been robbed of light,” he replies. “But what harm did you suffer by being deprived of material light? Now you have received not only physical vision, but that incomparable blessing—the enlightenment of the eyes of your soul.” Thus the affliction was to the blind man’s benefit, and through his healing he came to know the true Sun of Righteousness. Therefore, the blind man was not wronged; he was blessed.

Now, understand this as well, every student of Divine Scripture: the conjunctions ἵνα and ὅπως (both translated in English as “that”) are often used to express the outcome, but not the intended result, of the action stated in the main clause. Thus David says, “Against Thee only have I sinned, … that Thou mightest be justified in Thy words” (Ps. 50:4). The word that introduces a result unintended by David. When David sinned, he did not do so with the purpose in mind of justifying God; but his sinning did result in God being justified. David proved himself unworthy of all that God had given him: he abused his royal power, committed murder and adultery, violated divine commandments, and showed contempt for God. Taking advantage of his kingship, David spurned the laws of the One Who made him king. Had he been a commoner, he would have been unable to commit the two great sins so easily. Once the Lord had examined and decided his case, the necessary consequence of David’s crimes was that God was justified and had prevailed over the king who was condemned. There are many places in the Epistles where such expressions are used. In Romans Paul writes, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest to the Greeks, for God hath showed it unto them, making His eternal power and Godhead . . . understood by the things that are made, . . . so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20). God did not give this knowledge to the Greeks in order to deprive them of any excuse when they sinned. He gave it to them so that they would not sin. When they did sin, their knowledge of the Creator manifest in His creation rendered them guilty without excuse. Likewise, in another place Paul says, “The law entered, that the offense might abound” (Rom. 5:20), although the law certainly was not given in order to make sin more prevalent, but just the opposite, to keep it in check. But because the recipients of the law did not want to restrain their sin, the law—defining what is a transgression—resulted in sin “abounding.” They considered their sins to be greater and more numerous because they sinned with full knowledge of the law.

In light of all this, Jesus’ words here, “that the works of God should be made manifest”, do not supply the reason why the man was born blind, but state the consequence—good came from evil, to the glory of God. Let us suppose that a man builds a house but leaves one portion of it unfinished, for this reason: at a later time, if anyone should question if he were the builder, he could dispel any doubt on this score by completing the unfinished part to match perfectly with the original. In like manner, Jesus our God fashioned all the members of the blind man’s body except for the eyes, which He omitted. By healing them now, He completes the divine act of creating and demonstrates that He is the Creator. When He said, “that the glory of God should be made manifest,” He was referring to Himself, not the Father. The glory of the Father was obvious; it was His own glory, equal to the Father’s, that needed to be revealed. For He Who now appears as a man, in the beginning fashioned man. That He is speaking about Himself becomes clear from what follows: “I must work the works of Him that sent Me. I must reveal Myself by doing the very same works as the Father.” Note that He does not say, “I must do works similar to the Father’s,” but “ works identical to those done by the Father Who sent Me. I must do them while it is day, that is, during this present life, when men can choose to believe in Me. For the night cometh, when no man can work, that is, believe. In the age to come, it will be too late to believe.” Day means this present life, when we are able to work, as we do during the day. But, elsewhere in Scripture, Paul calls life night, because we cannot know in this life whether a man pursues virtue or wickedness—his thoughts and motives are hidden from us. Moreover, Paul calls this life night by comparison to the daylight of the age to come, in which the righteous will shine. Christ refers to the age to come as night, when no man can work; Paul calls this day, since the righteous will be illumined and the deeds of each revealed. In the age to come there will be no faith, but only obedience—voluntary or involuntary. “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world,” says Christ, “because I enlighten souls by My teaching and miracles. By healing the blind man’s eyes and giving them light, I shall enlighten the souls of many. I am Light, and I illumine both the senses and the spirit.”
6–7. When He had thus spoken, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said unto him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,” (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
When He had thus spoken—Jesus did not stop with words, but at once added the deed—He spat on the ground, and having made clay, He anointed the eyes of the blind man. By using the clay, the Lord showed that it was He Who formed Adam out of clay. Earlier He announced, in so many words, “I am He Who formed Adam,” offending His listeners; now He demonstrates with an irrefutable deed the truth of that proclamation. Jesus created eyes for the blind man out of clay, just as He had done for Adam. He did not merely fashion the eyes, or open them, but gave them vision. This proves that it was He Who breathed the soul into Adam. Without the soul being present to impart its divine energy, even a perfectly formed eye would see nothing. Christ used spittle to make him see, because He was about to send the blind man to the pool of Siloam and wanted to make clear that He, not the water of that spring, was the source of the miracle. Let us learn that He fashioned and opened the man’s eyes by the power which proceeds from His mouth; this is why He spat on the ground to make clay. Then, lest anyone imagine that the source of the miracle was the earth, He ordered the man to wash off the clay. Some say that the clay was not removed, but was fashioned into eyes.

Why does He command him to go to the pool of Siloam? First, that we may learn of the blind man’s faith and obedience. He did not reason, “If the clay and the spittle will give me eyes, why must I wash in the pool of Siloam?” Instead, he obeyed the One Who commanded. Second, with this order, the Lord confounds the Jews who wilfully rejected Him. It is likely that many saw Him anoint the man’s eyes with clay and paid close attention to what He was doing. As a result, no one could later dispute that the Lord had done these things. Third, by sending the blind man to the pool of Siloam, Christ shows that He is not an opponent of the Old Testament. And why does the Evangelist add the interpretation of the word “Siloam”? So that you might learn that the pool of Siloam is a figure of Christ, and that it was Christ Who healed the man there. Just as Christ is the spiritual Rock, so is He the spiritual Siloam. As the gush of the spring of Siloam was fearful in its strength, so too the advent of the Lord, hidden and unknown to the angels, overwhelmed all sin by its power.

8–11. The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, “I am he”. Therefore said they unto him, “How were thine eyes opened?” He answered and said, “A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.”

Staggered by this extraordinary miracle, the neighbors still did not believe. Yet the blind man’s arriving at the Pool of Siloam, his eyes smeared with mud, was ordained by the Lord for the express purpose of drawing the attention of many onlookers, who later would be unable to deny that they knew the man. But they disbelieved nevertheless. The Evangelist does not simply remark in passing that the man was a beggar: he does so to show that the Lord’s love for mankind was so inexpressibly great that He condescended to help the most abject of men. With tender solicitude He healed beggars, teaching us to care for the least of our brethren. Unashamed of his former affliction, unafraid of the crowd, the blind man boldly confesses, I am he, and proclaims his benefactor: A man that is called Jesus…. He calls the Lord a man because he knows nothing about Him. But what he does know (of the circumstances of the healing), he confesses to all. How did he know that his healer was Jesus? He had heard the Lord conversing with His disciples. When the disciples asked about the blind man, Christ repeated what He often told them, such as, “I must work the works of Him that sent Me” (v. 4), and, “I am the light of the world” (v. 5), and so forth. These were things that no one except the Lord taught, and from them the blind man understood that this was Jesus. That Christ had made clay and anointed his eyes, the blind man knew by feeling; of the spittle, he said nothing because he did not yet know about it. What he did not know, he did not mention, so truthful a man was he.

12–16. Then said they unto him, “Where is He?” He said, “I know not.” They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, “He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.” Therefore said some of the Pharisees, “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day.” Others said, “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” And there was a division among them.

After the Lord had healed or worked some other miracle, He would withdraw from that place to avoid ostentation. This is why the Jews ask the blind man, Where is He? He answers, I know not, for he is always truthful. They brought him to the Pharisees for closer and harsher questioning. The Evangelist emphasizes that it was the Sabbath day in order to reveal their evil intent as they grasp for allegations to make against Christ. By accusing the Lord of breaking the Sabbath, they hoped to divert attention from the miracle. They demand, “How did He open your eyes?” rather than simply asking, “How did you receive your sight?” compelling the blind man to admit that Jesus had made clay on the Sabbath. For they continuously accused the Lord of violating the Sabbath. But because he had already given this information to the people who were listening to him, he does not mention Jesus’ name, nor what the Lord said to him. He explains merely, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. It is likely that the people who brought the blind man had slandered the Lord by telling the Pharisees, “Look what Jesus is doing on the Sabbath.” Note the blind man’s boldness when speaking with the Pharisees. The Jews brought him to the Pharisees so that he would become frightened and deny the healing. But he cries out, “I do see!” Therefore said some of the Pharisees, not all of them, but the most insolent, This man is not of God. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?

Behold how the attitude of many of them softens as a result of the miracles. They are Pharisees and rulers, yet they begin to be won over by this sign, and to take Christ’s side, so that there was a division among them. The division appeared earlier in the crowd, when some of the people said, He deceiveth the people, while others said, He is a good man (see Jn. 7:12, 43).” But now the division arises between the rulers, and many Pharisees take issue with their fellows and speak in Christ’s defense. Although they took His side, they did so weakly, and without conviction. Hear what they say: “How can a man that is a sinner do such things?” See how feeble is their resistance, how cunning His accusers! Rather than say, “This man is not of God, because He heals on the Sabbath,” the crafty Pharisees object, He keepeth not the Sabbath day. Not once do they mention the good deed, but only the violation of the Sabbath. Note this as well: the rulers are more reluctant than the people to admit the good Christ did. From the start a difference of opinion is evident among the common folk, with many supporting Christ. Only later did this praiseworthy division appear among the rulers. I call it “praiseworthy,” because there are good separations and justifiable schisms. The Lord says, “I came to send a sword on the earth (see Mt. 10:34).” The sword means the salutary divergence of opinion that may arise when true reverence for God is at stake.

17–19. They say unto the blind man again, “What sayest thou of Him, that He hath opened thine eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.” But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, “Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? How then doth he now see?”

Which of the two groups of Pharisees asked the blind man, “What sayest thou of Him?” The one inclined to judge Christ fairly. Having posed the question, “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” they now bring forward the beneficiary of the Lord’s power, in defense of Christ and as a living refutation of the Lord’s slanderers. This faction of the Pharisees did not demand, “What do you have to say about that lawbreaker who dared to make clay on the Sabbath?” Instead, they speak kindly to the blind man, even mentioning the miracle. They admit that He hath opened thine eyes, as if to encourage him to speak openly on Christ’s behalf. They actually prompt him to declare that Jesus opened his eyes. “After what Jesus did for you,” they say, “you ought to proclaim Him to all.” Therefore, the blind man confesses Christ as far as his knowledge of Him permits, stating that his benefactor is not a sinner but is from God. He affirms that Jesus is a prophet, while the evil contingent of Pharisees continues to insist that this man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. To them, Christ was a violator of the Sabbath because He applied clay with one finger. Never mind that they, with their whole hand, loosed their animals on the Sabbath and led them to water! These hard and obstinate men call for the blind man’s parents, meaning to bully them into denying their son’s blindness. Unable to silence the grateful blind man, they try instead to intimidate his parents and impugn the miracle. They interrogate them angrily, but with the utmost cunning. They do not say, “Is this your son, who was once blind?” but instead, who ye say was born blind. The implication is that the parents spread the story that he was blind, when in fact he was not. O wretched Pharisees, what father would spread such a lie about his own child? From two sides the Pharisees hedge in the parents and press them to repudiate their son: they make an insinuation, who ye say was born blind; then they demand, How then doth he now see? The Pharisees pretend that the very fact the blind man could see is evidence that the parents were lying earlier when they said he was born blind. “Either he cannot see now, or he was never blind. But obviously he sees now—so you are liars!”

20–23. His parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind. But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.” These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that He was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Therefore said his parents, “He is of age; ask him.”

The Pharisees had put three questions to the parents of the blind man: “Is he your son? Was he born blind? And how did he gain his sight?” To the first two they assert: “He is our son, and he was born blind.” Concerning how he was healed they are silent, because they do not know. Without doubt this took place for the greater confirmation of the truth; for the man who received the benefit of the miracle, and was the most credible of all the witnesses, said exactly the same. Then the parents add, “He is of age; he is not an infant, or so immature as not to understand how he was healed.” “These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews.” They were still weak in faith and more faint-hearted than their son, who proved to be a steadfast witness to the truth. As a reward, God also illumined the eyes of his mind.

24–29. Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, “Give God the glory: we know that this man is a sinner.” He answered and said, “Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.” Then said they to him again, “What did He to thee? How opened He thine eyes?” He answered them, “I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? Will ye also be His disciples?” Then they reviled him, and said, “Thou art His disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence He is.”

At the parents’ suggestion, the insolent Pharisees had the blind man brought to them again, not for further questioning, but to intimidate him into denying his Healer. Their words, “Give God the glory”, mean, “Confess that Jesus did nothing to you—by not attributing anything good to Jesus, you give glory to God.” We know, they say, that this man is a sinner. Why, then, O Pharisees, did you not accuse Him when He challenged you, Which of you convinceth Me of sin (Jn. 8:46)? But the blind man answers them, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not; that is, “It is not mine to decide this now, nor even to consider it. Of one thing I am certain: He did work a miracle for me. Ponder this single fact, and it will dispel your perplexity.” By asking him again, What did He to thee? they attack the Saviour for anointing with clay on the Sabbath. The blind man understood that they were not interested in his answer, but only wanted to revile Jesus, and so he rebuked them, saying: “I no longer wish to speak with you. I answered you many times and ye did not hear.” Then he added these words, which cut them to the quick: Will ye also be His disciples? By this he lets it be known that he wants to become Christ’s disciple. Teasing and jesting with them, he speaks calmly, not in the least cowed by their rage. They answer with insult, Thou art His disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. Again they lie. Had they been Moses’ disciples, they would also have been Christ’s, as the Lord told them: “Had ye believed in Moses, ye would have believed Me” (Jn. 5:46). They did not say, “We have heard,” but, we know that God spake unto Moses. It was their forebears who told them this, yet they claim to have certain knowledge of what they had learned only by hearing. When, however, they see with their own eyes Christ working miracles, and hear Him speaking divine words from heaven, they called Him an imposter (see Jn. 7:12). Do you see how malice leads to madness?

30–33. The man answered and said unto them, “Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence He is, and yet He hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, He could do nothing.”

“You Jews reject the One Who healed me,” he says, “ because you know not from whence He is. But the very fact that He is not among those you deem illustrious makes it even more remarkable that He can do such things. Clearly, He has some greater power and needs no help from man.” Then the blind man answers those who had said earlier, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles (v. 16)? turning their own words against them: “We all know,” he says, “that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth.” Note that he not only declares the Lord to be free of sin, but indicates that He is highly pleasing to God and that all that He does is of God, by saying, If any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth. Knowing well that the Pharisees were intent on covering up the miracle, the blind man, with full understanding, proclaims the beneficent deed: “If He were not of God, He could not have worked such a miracle, unlike any other since the world began.” Others had opened the eyes of those who had lost their sight because of disease, but never of someone blind from birth. What occurred here is without precedent. Clearly, the worker of this miracle has greater power than any man.

Some, applying cold and formal logic, have expressed this doubt: “How can the blind man say that God heareth not sinners? As the Lover of man, God most certainly hears those who pray that their sins be forgiven.” It is unnecessary to respond to this, except to point out that the words, God heareth not sinners, mean that God does not grant sinners the power to work miracles; for the Spirit of God does not “dwell in a body that is subject unto sin” (Wis. 1:4). But God does hear the prayers of those who with heartfelt repentance ask forgiveness of their sins; but He hears them as penitents, not as sinners. As soon as they ask forgiveness, they move from the rank of sinners to that of penitents. It is, therefore, certainly true that God heareth not sinners; neither does He give to sinners the grace to work miracles. When unrepentant sinners ask Him for this power, they are grasping for something that does not belong to them. How could God heed those whom He rejects? Consider how the blind man said, If any man be a worshipper of God, then added, and doeth His will. Many are God-fearing, but fail to do the will of God. One must fear God and do His will. Both faith and works are necessary; or, as Paul says, faith and a good conscience (see I Tim. 1:5); or, to express it in the most exalted terms, divine vision and active virtue (θεωρία καὶ πράξις). Faith truly comes alive only when accompanied by God-pleasing deeds. These foster a good conscience, just as wicked deeds an evil conscience. Likewise, works are enlivened by faith. Apart from one another, both are dead. As it is written in another place, “Faith without works is dead” (Jam. 2:20)—and so are works without faith. Behold how truth bestows on a beggar, unused to public debate, the power to confess Christ boldly and to rebuke the high and mighty among the Jews! Great is the power of truth; so restricted and feeble is falsehood.

34–38. They answered and said unto him, “Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?” And they cast him out. Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said unto him, “Dost thou believe in the Son of God?” He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I might believe in Him?” And Jesus said unto him, “Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee.” And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshipped Him.

As long as they still had hope the blind man would say something of use to them, the Pharisees called on him and questioned him more than once. But when they realized by his answers that he did not think as they did, but took the side of truth, they despised and rejected him as one born in sins. Quite foolishly do they refer to his blindness, thinking that he had been condemned before he was born and was punished with blindness at birth. This is nonsense. These sons of falsehood expelled from the temple the confessor of truth, but it was to his benefit. Cast out of the temple, he was at once found by the master of the temple. Apparently dishonored for Christ’s sake, he was honored by the knowledge of the Son of God. Jesus found him, the Evangelist says, implying that He had come for just this purpose—to console the blind man, as the judge of a contest consoles an athlete after the agony of his exertion by placing on his head the crown of victory. The Lord inquires, “Dost thou believe in the Son of God?” Why does He ask this? After such a vigorous dispute with the Pharisees, after the bold words he had spoken, can there be any doubt that he believes? The Lord asks the question, not because He is uncertain whether the man believes, but in order to reveal Himself to him. For the blind man had never seen Christ, even after his healing. How could he have, when he was straightway harried by the Jews, as if by vicious dogs? The Lord asks this question now, so that the blind man’s response—“And who is He, this Son of God?”—would provide the opportune moment to reveal Himself. At the same time the Lord shows that He highly honors the faith of the blind man. “The people reviled Me greatly, but their words mean nothing to Me,” He says. “One thing matters, that you believe.” The blind man’s question, “Who is He, Lord, this Son of God?” reveals his ardent desire. The Lord answered, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. He does not say, “It is I Who healed you and said to you, ‘Go, wash.’” He begins enigmatically, Thou hast … seen Him; then He continues more openly, and it is He that talketh with thee. The Lord first said to him, Thou … hast seen Him, to remind the blind man of the healing and to help him recognize that he had received his sight from the One Who now stood before him. And the blind man at once believes, showing his fervent and true faith by falling prostrate before Him, thus confirming his own word by his deed and giving glory to Jesus as God. For according to the law, worship must be rendered to God alone (see Dt. 6:13).

Understand also the spiritual meaning of this miracle. Every man is blind from birth, as a result of being brought into existence by coition, and being yoked thereby to corruption. From the moment we were punished with mortality and our race was condemned to increase by a passionate means of conception, a thick cloud covered our noetic eyes, like a cloak of flesh, as the Scriptures say (see Gen. 1:21). The Gentiles are “blind from birth” in another sense: they made gods of what is subject to birth and corruption, and consequently were blinded, as Paul says, “and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21). Just as blind were the Persian magi, who wasted their lives with horoscopes and astrological predictions. The blind man whom Jesus saw (Jn. 9:1) therefore represents all men, and the Gentiles in particular. He was unable to see his Creator, so God Himself, the Dayspring from on high, through His tender mercy visited him (Lk. 1:28). How did Jesus “see the blind man”? As He passed by (Jn. 9:1), which means, not while the Lord was in heaven, but when He came among us by His Incarnation. Humbling Himself and accepting limitation, He bent down from heaven, as the Prophet David says, “to see all the sons of men” (see Ps. 13:3; 32:13). Although He came, first and foremost, “to the lost sheep of the sons of Israel” (Mt. 10:5-6; 15:24), He also “passed by” and saw the Gentiles; for the secondary purpose of His coming was to visit “the people which sat in the darkness” (Mt. 4:16) of complete ignorance. And how does He heal their blindness? By spitting on the ground and making clay. If it helps you to believe, consider how God the Word descended upon the holy Virgin like a rain-drop falling upon the ground (see Ps. 71:6), and anointed the eyes of the mind with clay made from spittle and the earth. This clay is the one Christ in two natures—the divine nature, symbolized by the rain-drop and the spittle, and the human nature, symbolized by the earth from which came the body of the Lord. Do men receive healing merely by believing? Certainly not: they must first go to Siloam, which is the spring of Baptism, to be baptized into Him Who sends them there, namely, Christ. For as many of us as have been baptized spiritually have been baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27).

After a man has been baptized, temptations will beset him. “He shall be brought before governors and kings” (Mt. 10:18), as it were, because of his allegiance to Christ Who healed him. He must then hold steadfastly to his confession, never denying it out of fear, but willing to be denounced and excommunicated, as it is written, “Ye shall be hated by all nations for My name’s sake” (Mt. 24:9), and, “They shall put you out of the synagogues” (Jn. 16:12). Even if this confessor is cast out by men who hate the truth, and driven from their temples and the places of honor, (meaning, he is deprived of wealth and glory,) Jesus will find him. Then he who was abused by his enemies will be highly honored by Christ. The Lord will bestow upon him knowledge and a more exact faith, and the confessor will fall prostrate and worship Christ, Who appears as a man but is also the Son of God. For there are not two sons—one, the Son of God, and another, the son of Mary (this is the blasphemous doctrine of Nestorius)—but one and the same Son, of both God and man. See how the Lord answered the blind man when he asked, “Who is the Son of God, that I might believe in Him?” Thou hast both seen Him, Christ says, and it is He that talketh with thee. Who gave this answer? Was it not the Son born of Mary? But this Son of Mary is also the Son of God, not two different persons. Therefore the holy Mary is truly the Theotokos, the Birthgiver of God, who bore the Son of God made flesh. He is undivided, and the two are One—Christ the Lord.

39–41. And Jesus said, “For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might become blind.” And some of the Pharisees which were with Him heard these words, and said unto Him, “Are we blind also?” Jesus said unto them, “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”

The Lord saw that the Pharisees harmed themselves by rejecting the benefit of this miracle, and therefore deserved greater condemnation. Appraising events by their outcome, He declares, “For judgment I am come,” meaning, “for the greater condemnation and punishment of My enemies, that they which see not might see; and that they which see, such as the Pharisees, might become blind in the eyes of their soul.” Behold, the man blind from birth sees both spiritually and physically, while those who think they see are blind noetically. In this verse, the Lord speaks of two kinds of vision and two kinds of blindness, but the Pharisees, who are always fixated on the material world, think He means only a material affliction. Are we blind also? they ask, fearing only physical blindness. The Lord desires to show them that it is better to be blind physically than to lack faith, saying, “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin. If blindness were your natural condition, you would have some excuse for being ill with unbelief. But you insist that you can see; furthermore, you are eyewitnesses of the miraculous healing of the blind man. Because you suffer from self-inflicted unbelief, you deserve no forgiveness. Your sin remains unabsolved, and you will undergo greater punishment, because you refuse to acknowledge the truth even after seeing such wonders.” The words, “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin,” may also be understood as follows. “You seem afraid only of physical blindness, but I warn you of spiritual blindness. If ye were blind, that is, ignorant of the Scriptures, ye should have no sin; that is, you would be sinning in ignorance. But since you say that you see, and consider yourselves wise and learned in the law, you condemn yourselves and have the greater sin, because you sin deliberately, with knowledge.”

Related posts:

1. In Celebration of the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord, the Winter Pascha
2. Morning Prayers of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the East
3. Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Keeping It In the Family: Senator Feinstein’s Husband Stands to Make Millions from USPS Contract

written by Daniel Jackson

Senator Dianne Feinstein has long been accused of corruption and unethical behavior in Congress. From going after the Second Amendment to making tens of millions of dollars through her husband’s companies, Feinstein seems to take unbridled glee in being one of the most corrupt members of Congress today.

Recently, a new wave of accusations has been levied at Feinstein, this time focusing on a deal that started in 2011 when the Post Office awarded the CBRE Group Inc. a contract to be the sole marketer of USPS properties. Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, just so happens to be the Chairman of the Board of the CBRE Group.

That’s right, the United States Post Office, apparently facing a deficit of billions of dollars, has earmarked for disposal over 600 taxpayer funded properties; and a company whose Chairman is the husband of a powerful California Senator stands to reap the benefit.
Currently they have at least 42 different properties listed on their official website.

The notorious debunking website, Snopes, recently decided to look at this issue and they found that although the number of properties listed as of now is a little less than the 52 that was originally quoted, it is in fact true that despite the fact that Feinstein claims to have nothing to do with the USPS deal, she and her husband stand to make a substantial profit off their sell.

Facing a deficit of billions of dollars, the United States Postal Service (USPS) has floated a number of proposals to reduce the deficit, including selling off hundreds of post office properties in order to gain cash flow and reduce expenses. According to the Postal Services 2012 report to Congress, more than 600 buildings nationwide have been “earmarked for disposal,” and the USPS Properties for Sale web site currently lists 41 buildings for sale across the U.S. in addition to 11 land parcels.

In 2011, the CB Richard Ellis Group, (now CBRE Group, Inc.), the world’s largest commercial real estate services firm, was awarded anaexclusive contract to market USPC facilities, which CBRE touted by announcing: “Historically, USPC has worked with multiple real estate service providers. The new contract enables USPC to consolidate these activities with one service provider.

This award has been the subject of some controversy, as CBRE’s Chairman of the Board is Ricahrd C. Blum, the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein, who represents the state of California in the U.S. Senate.

Snopes then went on to quote a San Francisco Chronicle article that quoted Feinstein’s office as saying that she has nothing to do with her husband’s work. (In other words: nothing to see here, move right along)

As for accusations of a conflict of interest and suspicions that Feinstein may have influenced the awarding of the contract to her husband’s firm, Feinstein’s office strongly denies the charges.

“Sen. Feinstein is not involved with and does not discuss any of her husband’s business decisions with him. Her husband’s holdings are his separate personal property. Sen. Feinstein’s assets are held in a blind trust. That arrangement has been in place since before she came to the Senate in 1992,” said Brian Weiss, Feinstein’s communications director. In 2012, Feinstein voted for an amendment to a postal reform bill that would have temporarily halted post office closings. The amendment was defeated in the House.

Regardless of claims by Feinstein’s “communication director,” the fact of the matter is her husband (and Feinstein herself by default) stands to make tens of millions of dollars off the sale of taxpayer-purchased USPS offices.

Feinstein is no stranger to corruption charges. Many have claimed that since her marriage to Blum in 1980 she has used her position of power within government to make ridiculous amounts of money.

A Roots Action post outlines some of her shady past:

Shortly after San Francisco’s then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein married private equity financier Richard C. Blum in 1980, those who knew them called theirs “a marriage of the public and private sectors.”

Although Feinstein lost a gubernatorial bid to Republican Pete Wilson, she soon took his seat in the U.S. Senate. Working across the aisle, her power rapidly grew along with her husband’s diversified investments and their mutual wealth.

• As Chair and ranking member of the Military Construction and Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein appears to have steered contracts to companies controlled by her husband. Blum has profited handsomely from military contracts.

• In 2009, Senator Feinstein introduced legislation to provide $25 billion in taxpayer money to the FDIC after it gave Blum’s CBRE real estate company a contract to sell foreclosed properties at unusually high rates.

• As a Regent of the University of California, Blum appears to have profited from contracts with the UC-run nuclear weapons laboratory at Los Alamos.

• In the summer of 2012, the U.S. Postal Service awarded Blum’s CBRE company the exclusive contract to sell its portfolio of public properties. Feinstein’s office denies any influence in the awarding of the contract.

Clearly her corruption extends much further than the sale of USPS buildings.

It is extremely important to remember that as Feinstein continues her crusade against private gun ownership in America, she is also on a different type of crusade, one that involves making an absurd amount of money off the backs of the very Americans she is attempting to disarm.

Daniel Jackson is a seasoned journalist with a passion for exposing corruption and the lies of the global elite. DJ has a passion for truth and liberty that is shown through his extensive reporting on numerous globally significant topics not normally covered by the corporate controlled media. He is is a writer, researcher and editor for The Daily Sheeple where this article first appeared.

Source: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2013/06/keeping-it-in-family-senator-feinsteins.html

Related articles

• Keeping It In the Family: Senator Feinstein’s Husband Stands to Make Millions from USPS Contract
• Senator Feinstein’s Husband Stands to Make Millions from USPS Contract
• Keeping It In the Family: Senator Feinstein’s Husband Stands to Make Millions from USPS Contract
• Gun-Grabber Meistress, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Fingered in Corruption Scam of Taxpayer Money: Snopes (TRUE)
• Keeping It In the Family: Senator Feinstein’s Husband Stands to Make Millions from USPS Contract
• Keeping It In the Family: Senator Feinstein’s Husband Stands to Make Millions from USPS Contract -

No related posts.

The usual, opportunistic rush to blame, regulate, inveigh, and demonize is in full swing in the wake of the horrible, evil massacre in Newtown CT.

I will have no part in it.

Yesterday’s horror is incomprehensible for every parent in America. Their grief is harrowing.

The dead and the talking heads themselves are dishonored by their filling the public airwaves with endless talk of gun control and government solutions; all of which diminish our freedoms and directly contradict the intent of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is not the time for political noise. Rather, it is a time for compassion and introspection.

All those who are polluting the public airwaves with the usual talking points about gun control and government solutions dishonor the dead and themselves. This is not a time for political noise. It’s a time for compassion and reflection.

There’s nothing more we can offer than heartfelt prayer for all the families, the school staff, and the innocent children who were murdered, injured, and outraged by a psychotic man devoid of respect for life.

One of the most moving stories of heroism involved the music teacher who hid her students in a closet and prayed with them in whispers to keep them calm.

Faith has come under fire so frequently in the schools. Yet, under fire, it is faith that sustains eternally. One must remember at such times that God allows evil things to happen that good may come of it; just as from a dunghill the best of good things sometimes sprout.

Consider:

Had someone on staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School been armed, the massacre might not have happened there. You may recall that the shooter in Aurora CO considered other theatres in the area that were playing The Dark Knight Rises before he settled on the one where he committed the heinous massacre of some many innocent people.  It appears he chose that particular theatre because it was the only one that did not allow even patrons with valid Colorado concealed weapons permits to bring their weapons into the theatre.

Matt. 2: 16-20 (Douay-Rheims) 16Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. 17Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: 18A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. 19But when Herod was dead, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph in Egypt, 20Saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel. For they are dead that sought the life of the child.

Matt. 5:41-45 (D-R) 41And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, 42 Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. 43You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. 44But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: 45That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

Psalm 33:18 (LXX) The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart, and He will save the humble of spirit.

***

Source: USA Today

The names and birth dates of the victims:
Charlotte Bacon (2/22/06), 6 years old, female
Daniel Barden (9/25/05), 7 years old, male
Rachel Davino (7/17/83), Staff member, 29 years old, female
Olivia Engel (7/18/06), 6 years old, female
Josephine Gay (12/11/05), 7 years old, female
Ana M. Marquez-Greene (4/4/06), 6 years old, female
Dylan Hockley (3/8/06), 6 years old, male
Dawn Hochsprung (6/28/65), Principal, 47 years old, female
Madeleine F. Hsu (7/10/06), 6 years old, female
Catherine V. Hubbard (6/8/06), 6 years old, female
Chase Kowalski (10/31/05), 7 years old, male
Nancy Lanza, 52 years old, female (mother of shooter Adam Lanza)
Jesse Lewis (6/30/06), 6 years old, male
James Mattioli (03/22/06), 6 years old, male
Grace McDonnell (11/4/05), 7 years old, female
Anne Marie Murphy (7/25/60), Staff member, 52 years old, female
Emilie Parker (05/12/06), 6 years old, female
Jack Pinto (05/05/06), 6 years old, male
Noah Pozner (11/20/06), 6 years old, male
Caroline Previdi (9/07/06), 6 years old, female
Jessica Rekos (5/10/06), 6 years old, female
Avielle Richman (11/17/06) 6 years old, female
Lauren Rousseau (June 1982), Staff member, 30 years old, female
Mary Sherlach (2/11/56), Staff member, 56 years old, female
Victoria Soto (11/04/85), Staff member, 27 years old, female
Benjamin Wheeler (09/12/06), 6 years old, male
Allison N. Wyatt (07/03/06), 6 years old, female

***

Let us remember in our prayers: the slain, their families, the school staff, the shooter, his mother, and all of us who were affected by this massacre.

Related articles

• Windsor family holds candlelight tribute to Newtown massacre victims
• Praying for the families and children of Newtown, Conn.
• The Newtown Massacre and Bad Press

No related posts.

Let us hope and pray he wins this election. As for me, I am hopeful that he will and he just might do it in a landslide. Let’s hope I am right about the landslide idea; that will give him more of a mandate to carry out more of his professed agenda. A landslide will also carry enough Republican Senate candidates to victory to smooth the way for his agenda.

Our American Exceptionalism is at Stake

One of the greatest benefits of a Romney/Ryan win will be a sensible emphasis on job creation by making it easier to small businesses to grow and, therefore, employ a lot of people.  Another benefit will be a strong push to enforce the complete Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution), which include, among other rights: Amendment I, (freedom of religion), Amendment II (the right to keep and bear arms); Amendment IV (right to be secure in our person, houses, papers and effects). And, finally, there are two additional amendments that I think are in need of enforcement: Amendment IX (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people); and Amendment X (powers not delegated to the Federal Government, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States. All 10 Amendments are important but the above enumerated amendments stick out in my mind as the ones most in need of defending today. I am convinced that a President Romney will defend those amendments. I believe these are all parts of the centerpiece of Mitt Romney’s agenda for America, and I believe following these policies will save the American exceptionalism that we have always taken for granted.

Please dear God Almighty; allow us, the citizens of America to escape the clutches of Pres. Obama and his atheistic, Moslem-loving, Marxist-socialist policies. I pray Thee, dear Lord, enlighten our minds with the light of Thy knowledge, and lead us in the path of Thy commandments; by the intercessions of Thine all-immaculate Mother, our Lady  the Theotokos and Ever-virgin Mary, and of all Thy Saints, for blessed art Thou unto all ages of ages. Amen.

Related articles

• Mormonism and American Exceptionalism
• George Will predicts 321-217 Romney landslide
• Will Predicts EC Landslide for Romney

Related posts:

1. Romney for President
2. The Right Change

This article originally appeared on Patrick J. Buchanan – Official Website.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

So wrote John Jay in Federalist No. 2, wherein he describes Americans as a “band of brethren united to each other by the strongest ties.”

That “band of brethren united” no longer exists.

No longer are we “descended from the same ancestors.”

Indeed, as we are daily instructed, it is our “diversity” — our citizens can trace their ancestors to every member state of the United Nations — that “is our strength.” And this diversity makes us a stronger, better country than the America of Eisenhower and JFK.

No longer do we speak the same language. To tens of millions, Spanish is their language. Millions more do not use English in their homes. Nor are their children taught in English in the schools.

As for “professing the same religion,” the Christianity of Jay and the Founding Fathers has been purged from all public institutions. One in 5 Americans profess no religious faith. The mainline Protestant churches — the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian — have been losing congregants for a half-century. Secularism is the religion of the elites. It alone is promulgated in public schools.

Are we attached to “the same principles of government”?

Half the nation believes it is the duty of government to feed, house, educate and medicate the population and endlessly extract from the well-to-do whatever is required to make everybody more equal.

Egalitarianism has triumphed over freedom. Hierarchy, the natural concomitant of freedom, is seen as undemocratic.

Are we similar “in our manners and customs”? Are we agreed upon what is good or even tolerable in music, literature, art?

Do we all seek to live by the same moral code? Abortion, a felony in the 1950s, is now a constitutional right. Homosexual marriage, an absurdity not long ago, is the civil rights cause du jour.

Dissent from the intolerant new orthodoxy and you are a bigot, a hater, a homophobe, an enemy of women’s rights.

Recent wars — Vietnam, Iraq — have seen us not “fighting side by side” but fighting side against side.

Racially, morally, politically, culturally, socially, the America of Jay and the Federalist Papers is ancient history. Less and less do we have in common. And to listen to cable TV is to realize that Americans do not even like one another. If America did not exist as a nation, would these 50 disparate states surrender their sovereignty and independence to enter such a union as the United States of 2012?

Nor are we unique in sensing that we are no longer one. Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders maneuver to break free of the nations that contain their peoples. All over the world, peoples are disaggregating along the lines of creed, culture, tribe and faith.

What has this to do with the election of 2012? Everything.

For if America is to endure as a nation, her peoples are going to need the freedom to live differently and the space to live apart, according to their irreconcilable beliefs. Yet should Barack Obama win, the centralization of power and control will continue beyond the point of no return.

His replacement of any retiring Supreme Court justice with another judicial activist — a Sonia Sotomayor, an Elena Kagan — would negate a half-century of conservative labors and mean that abortion on demand — like slavery, a moral abomination to scores of millions — is forever law in all 50 states.

President Obama speaks now of a budget deal in which Democrats agree to $2.50 in spending cuts if the Republicans agree to $1 in tax increases. But given the character of his party — for whom Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, Head Start, earned income tax credits and Pell Grants are holy icons — any deal Obama cuts with Republicans in return for higher taxes will be like the deal Ronald Reagan eternally regretted.

The tax hikes become permanent; the budget cuts are never made.

In the first debate, Mitt Romney said that in crafting a budget that consumes a fourth of the economy, he would ask one question: “Is the program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?”

If a President Romney held to that rule, it would spell an end to any new wars of choice and all foreign aid and grants to global redistributionsts — such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It would entail a review of all U.S. alliances dating back to the Cold War, which have U.S. troops on every continent and in a hundred countries.

Obama offers more of the stalemate America has gone through for the past two years.

Romney alone offers a possibility of hope and change.

Source: Patrick J. Buchanan – Official Website

Related articles

• Romney for president
• Patrick Buchanan: No Apologies Needed, Mitt – OpEd
• Patrick Buchanan: Stay Out Of The Syrian Maelstrom – OpEd
• Romney Campaign on Obama’s BS’er Remark: It Shows the ‘President is Enormously Frustrated’

Related posts:

1. Rush Limbaugh: Thank You Mr. President
2. Is Obama Destroying America?
3. Globalism vs. Americanism

This Rasmussen poll of likely voters taken yesterday is comforting for several reasons.

1. As my headline says, the Rasmussen poll shows Romney is gaining ground in the presidential race despite the pitiful efforts of Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign.
2. The Rasmussen poll is a poll of likely voters rather than simply a poll of registered voters.
3. Registered voter polls tend to over sample Democrats and other more progressive liberal groups; oftentimes egregiously so. This is in part because a higher percentage of progressives are younger and uneducated and, therefore, are less likely to vote.
4. Past performance shows Rasmussen polls are better predictors of election results than the less specific registered voter polls.

I see no reason why the latest Rasmussen polls should be any less likely to correctly predict the outcome of this year’s elections than they have been in the past.

Rejoice conservatives. There is hope that we may yet prevail, despite the pitiful efforts of Romney’s John McCain-esque, politically correct campaign. While Romney is a down east liberal Republican in the style of Governor  Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) , he is shade less liberal than Senator John McCain (R-AZ).

The RASMUSSEN Reports poll, taken yesterday, that shows Romney pulling ahead of Obama.

Related articles

• Mitt Romney Continues to Lead Obama in Latest Rasmussen Poll
• Shhh! Top-secret Rasmussen poll shows Romney still up by 2
• Rasmussen Colorado poll: Romney 47, Obama 45
• Rasmussen New Hampshire poll: Romney 48, Obama 45
• Rasmussen Reports: Romney 47%; Obama 45%

Related posts:

1. Poll Reveals Trauma of Joblessness in U.S.
2. November election results will vindicate or undercut Obama

Members of Congress Are the Bandits; “We the People” Are the Fools

Did you miss the horrendous story 60 Minutes broke last Sunday. If you missed it, it will be well worth your time to see  it here and now. The story shows that some members of Congress, including House leadership on both sides of the isle, are apparently engaging in insider trading. Said another way, the members of Congress are making out like bandits and “we the people” are the suckers they are stealing from by their insider trading. Insider trading by you and me would land us in prison for a long time, but it is merely another perk for members of Congress.

Kudos to CBS for this story

I know CBS NEWS has not been known for doing much hard news in the past, except for stories that cast conservatism and conservatives in a bad light, but they claim that is changing, and I, for one, am inclined to take them at their word until they prove otherwise. This video is an example of hard news that take no prisoners on the progressive or the conservative sides of the political spectrum. Kudos to the CBS show 60 Minutes for this story.

This 60 Minutes story was probably sparked by a book that touches on this subject. The book is Throw Them All Out by Peter Schweizer. Click the book title Throw Them All Out and get your own copy. The cost at the time of this writing was $15.60. (Fair warning, I will make a  shekel of two if you buy using this link to Throw Them All Out.)

Book Description:

One of the biggest scandals in American politics is waiting to explode: the full story of the inside game in Washington shows how the permanent political class enriches itself at the expense of the rest of us. Insider trading is illegal on Wall Street, yet it is routine among members of Congress. Normal individuals cannot get in on IPOs at the initial asking price, but politicians can and do routinely. The Obama administration has been able to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to its supporters, ensuring yet more campaign donations. An entire class of investors now makes all of its profits based on influence and access in Washington. Peter Schweizer has doggedly researched through mountains of financial records, tracking complicated deals and stock trades back to the timing of briefings, votes on bills, and every other point of leverage for politicians in Washington. The result is a manifesto for revolution: the Permanent Political Class must go.

We must stamp this kind of behavior. This book will provoke you and all freedom-loving Americans.

If You Haven’t Seen This Video Yet, You Need to See It Now

If you haven’t seen it yet, see it here and now. You may want to download the transcription of the show on the CBS News website here instead to read later or to read along as you watch the video.

CBS NEWS VIDEO

Should “We the People” Throw Them All Out?

There is a reason that no one should be able to use non-public information to make money with stock transactions: Such a practice creates an unlevel playing field and strips markets of credibility and fairness. There is an even better reason members of Congress should not be allowed to do so: It interferes with their ability to do their job, which is presumably to represent “we the people,” rather than represent their own selfish interests.

You would expect this sort of self-dealing from people like a Muammar Gaddafi, not members of the U.S. Congress. What makes it even worse is that this is a problem that is simple to solve. Members of Congress should do what the President does – have their assets in blind trusts so they have no ability to influence the investments they own. I hasten to add such a blind trust should be monitored by regulators to see to it that it does not engage in financial shenanigans for the benefit of its Congressional owner. Commonsense and Christian morality dictates this course of action. But since commonsense Christian morality obviously don’t work for many in the U.S. Congress, I suppose yet another law would be in order.

What do you think? Should trading on inside information be just another Congressional perk? Or do you see it my way; as common criminal activity that should be severely punished. Share your view here.

Related articles

• “Honest Graft” – How Our Representatives enrich themselves through Congressional Insider Trading (theleagueofaggressiveprogressives.wordpress.com)
• Your Take: Congressional Insider Trading (bargaineering.com)
• Connecticut Doctor Gets 5 Years Prison for Insider Trading and Over $10 Million in Fines – You Have To Be A Member of Congress To Pull Something Like This Off… (ducknetweb.blogspot.com)
• OUTRAGE OF THE MONTH: Insider Trading In Congress (businessinsider.com)

Related posts:

1. Congress Took a Sharp Turn to the Right Today

First, here is the Steve Jobs 2005 Stanford commencement speech that has been much ballyhooed in recent days by TV’s talking heads. It is a very good speech.

I think it goes without saying that Steve Jobs was a pioneer in a league above and beyond all others as a computer communications innovator and marketer. I have admired him from afar for a long time and expect that he and his expertise will be sorely missed for sometime.

Though he made a lot of people happy with his products, I wasn’t one of them. I have yet to buy my first Apple product. Not that I haven’t wanted to buy one or two; I have, but, for a lot of reasons, I could never convince myself to buy even one of his severely overpriced products. One of these days when I have money to burn I will gladly buy an Apple something or other. I’ll have a really big pile of money before it comes to that though.

But, that’s me and then there is the rest of the world and it is the rest of the world Steve Jobs was keen on satisfying and selling, and he did a wonderful job of doing both. Add to that all the jobs he created for people and you have a wonderful force for good.  Most of the good he did came as a result of his creation of economic wealth and enjoyment for many people. He did more to spread the wealth by creating jobs for people willing to work than has been done by all  governments put together since the beginning of time.

Yes, he was a champion of the world in his field of endeavor. I sure hope he worked hard, as well, on securing his place in the sweet by-and-by. What a waste for him it would be if his by-and-by isn’t even better and more comforting than was his life.

Thanks for all the good you did in the brief time you were here, and now, Steven, I pray you will enter and rest in peace where all the saints repose. Amen.

Related articles

• Steve Wozniak on Steve Jobs [VIDEOS] (mashable.com)
• Rest in Peace Steve Jobs (shopify.com)
• Remembering Steve Jobs (greatfinds.icrossing.com)

No related posts.

The War on Terror Is a War America Must Win

My two cents worth

As the anniversary of 9/11 approaches it is appropriate that “America’s War on Terror” is the subject of the latest Hillsdale College First Principles on First Fridays free webcast. No caring, patriotic American should allow this free webcast lecture, or any of others in this series, to pass them by, if at all possible.  Your fellow American patriots hope you will attend.

Now here follows your invitation from Hillsdale College:

Join Us on Friday, September 9, for Another Free Webcast!

HillsdaleFirstFridays.com

Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship will offer a FREE, live webcast of its next “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture.

“America’s War on Terror”

Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess, Jr.

Director, Defense Intelligence Agency

Friday, September 9, 2011 · 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM EDT

Register Today!

About the Lecture

A decade after September 11, 2001, what have we learned and what changes have we made within the intelligence community to strengthen the nation’s defense intelligence efforts? With attention to the role intelligence has played in the global conflict, this presentation will salute those who help keep our country safe.

Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess, Jr., is Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command. In a career spanning nearly 40 years, he has received numerous awards and decorations, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, and the NATO Medal. Commissioned in Military Intelligence through the Auburn University ROTC Program, he earned a Master of Science degree in Education from the University of Southern California and a Master of Military Arts and Science from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

Funding for this month’s First Principles on First Fridays program has been provided by Mrs. Walter R. Buerger.

About the First Principles Series

This monthly lecture series, launched in December 2008, addresses significant and timely political, historical, and economic topics from a constitutional perspective. Past speakers have included David Horowitz, Brian Kennedy, Paul Rahe, John Bolton, Thomas G. West, and Larry P. Arnn.  A video archive of past First Principles lectures is available here.

Related posts:

1. Free Six-Week U.S. Constitution Course offered by Hillsdale College Starting September 15th
2. To Lose a War