Wednesday, November 23, 2011


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Cleaned birds released - 22 November 2011

9/11 truth movement

I hope the 9/11 truth movement wises up quickly. We need to go to the second stage of investigations/revelations.

Some shadowy group/force is using extremely advanced, super-secret weapons for some kind of goal (probably having to do with geopolitical control) and is willing to kill thousands of totally innocent people in a horrible way.

We need to find out who... but must of all: WE NEED THOSE TECHNOLOGIES FOR GOOD!

Time to Retake Politics From the One Percent in Both Political Parties
Monday 28 November 2011
by: Dean Baker, Truthout

Time to Retake Politics From the One Percent in Both Political Parties
Monday 28 November 2011
by: Dean Baker, Truthout

Neoconservatives Planned Regime Change Throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 Years Ago
Posted on November 28, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog

Congress to Vote Next Week on EXPLICITLY Creating a Police State

If You Thought Police Brutality Was Bad … Wait Until You See What Congress Wants to Do Next Week
Washington’s Blog
Sunday, November 27, 2011
The police brutality against peaceful protesters in Berkeley, Davis, Oakland and elsewhere is bad enough.
But next week, Congress will vote on explicitly creating a police state.

Russian Scholar Warns Of 'Secret' U.S. Climate Change Weapon

The Strange Attraction of Gale Crater

9 Ways The Bankster Occupied U.S. Government Is Waging War Against America
November 26, 2011

Special: Plunder - The Crime of Our Time

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy
The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality
Naomi Wolf, Friday 25 November 2011


Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 [Hardcover]
Judy Wood (Author), Eric Larsen (Foreword)


The global economy is heading for a massive amount of trouble in the months ahead. Right now we are seeing the beginning of a credit crunch that is shaping up to be very reminiscent of what we saw back in 2008. Investors and big corporations are pulling huge amounts of money out of European banks and nobody wants to lend to those banks right now. We could potentially see dozens of "Lehman Brothers moments" in Europe in 2012. Meanwhile, bond yields on sovereign debt are jumping through the roof all over Europe. That means that European nations that are already drowning in debt are going to find it much more expensive to continue funding that debt. It would be a huge understatement to say that there is "financial chaos" in Europe right now. The European financial system is in so much trouble that it is hard to describe. The instant that they stop receiving bailout money, Greece is going to default. Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Spain and quite a few other European nations are also on the verge of massive financial problems. When the financial dominoes start to fall, the U.S. financial system is going to be dramatically affected as well, because U.S. banks have a huge amount of exposure to European debt. The other day, I noted that investor Jim Rogers is saying that the coming global financial collapse "is going to be worse" than 2008. Sadly, it looks like he is right on the money. We are in a lot of trouble my friends, and things are going to get really, really ugly.



The Sad Truth To Why Most People May Not Wake Up!

Psychopaths Rule The World

TEDxBrussels - Mikko H. Hypponen - Defending the Net

Legalized Corruption of Government Exposed by Abramoff

The lobbyist's playbook: Jack Abramoff - 'How he asserted his influence in Congress for years'

Want your mind BLOWN Watch this video OBAMA ANSWERS to the VATICAN -.mp4

THIS BILL makes the PATRIOT Act look like the Bill of Rights.

S. 1253 will allow indefinite military detention of American civilians without charge or trial

November 26, 2011

By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie

Will we allow horrors like this to happen to Americans In the United States?

A sinister bill has quietly been introduced, so expansive in scope and dangerous in nature that it makes the PATRIOT Act look like the Bill of Rights.

This bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, or S. 1253, has received tragically sparse coverage and I must admit that I was not aware of it until a reader emailed me about it.

If you think the PATRIOT Act is bad, just wait until you check out sections 1031, 1032, 1033, and 1036 of this horrific bill.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 1st of this year, addressed to the Chairman of the Committee, the “Honorable” Patrick Leahy, and Ranking Member of the Committee, the “Honorable” Charles Grassley which strongly decried the bill.

The title of the four page letter itself reveals the truly dangerous nature of this legislation, “Judiciary Committee Should Assert Its Jurisdiction Over Those Aspects of the Detention Authority Provisions in S. 1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Sections 1031, 1032, and 1036), That Affect Civilians Who Are Otherwise Outside of Military Control, Including Civilians Within the United States Itself.”

If these provisions are enacted, it would give the federal government the explicit power to imprison civilians, including American citizens, indefinitely with no charges or trial.

This would include individuals apprehended both inside and outside of the United States, meaning that this could give the federal government the ability to openly detain American citizens for their entire lives without so much as a single charge.

While the federal government already murders American citizens abroad based upon the decision of an unlegislated secret death panel within the National Security Council, this would be the first time since 1950 that Congress has explicitly authorized indefinite detention of Americans without charges or a trial.

This provision includes people who had absolutely no role in the attacks of September 11th, 2001, or any hostilities whatsoever and would mandate military detention of certain civilians.

This includes civilians arrested within the United States who would otherwise be outside of military control while also transferring all responsibilities to the Department of Defense.

Instead of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, National Security Division, or the United States Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Marshals Service and/or the state attorneys general handling the prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal and custodial authority, the Department of Defense would handle it all.

That means that all control would be taken out of the hands of civilians and put into the brutal grip of the American military, essentially this would mean a military takeover of our so-called justice system.

All they would have to do is classify you as a terrorist, no need for actual charges or participation in hostilities; you could be locked up indefinitely for any reason or no reason at all if the Department of Defense saw fit under this NDAA.

This is so fundamentally un-American, the ACLU can’t help but right that the provisions are “inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution and in the country’s adherence to the rule of law.”

These provisions of the NDAA are so radical that they actually remove much of the protections American citizens have had since 1878 under the Posse Comitatus Act and the Non-Detention Act of 1971.

Section 1031 of S. 1253 would be the first time in more than 60 years that our so-called representatives in Washington would allow indefinite detention of American citizens with no charges or trial without Congressional authorization.

Since 1971 the Non-Detention Act has stipulated, “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress,” but S. 1253 could make this a thing of the past.

The ACLU points out that while Subsection 1031(c) of S. 1253 claims that it does not apply to lawful residents of the United States or citizens “on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution,” glaring loopholes remain.

If the government’s track record is any indicator, we can expect these loopholes to be exploited at every possible opportunity.

Just as the federal government has used the PATRIOT Act’s so-called “Sneak-and-Peek,” or delayed notice, warrants for over 1,600 drug cases and only 15 cases of terrorism in 2006-2009, we can expect the government to use S. 1253 for detaining people for completely illegitimate reasons.

These loopholes allow suspects to be imprisoned without charge or trial, especially citizens or lawful residents who are suspected of some sort of wrongdoing outside of the United States.

The most unsettling aspect is that the deciding factor in determining if an individual can be detained indefinitely is not any proof of guilt, but instead entirely by officials in the Executive Branch, which, according to the ACLU would be “following some future agency regulations.”

This, just like the unlegislated death panel that resulted in the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son, leaves it up to the Executive without any guidelines whatsoever.

It is quite shocking how much the federal government is attempting to push us towards a dictatorship with no legal protection whatsoever from being locked up with no hope of a fair trial or even charges.

Indeed the legislation would allow American citizens to be imprisoned “until the end of hostilities” under 2001′s Authorization for Use of Military Force, or S.J. Res. 23.

Yet this represents no concrete time frame whatsoever and Section 1031 would allow American citizens and non-citizen civilians who had no role in 9/11 or any other hostilities whatsoever to be detained who would otherwise not be detainable under the laws of war.

Section 1032 puts civilians who would otherwise not be subject to military control into military detention, thus removing the protections of the Posse Comitatus act.

Like Section 1031, this would include indefinite imprisonment of civilians apprehended inside of the United States, Section 1032 does not authorize the military to detain civilians without charge or trial, it in fact it mandates it.

The protection against the government using the military for law enforcement activities within the United States under Posse Comitatus would be eliminated under Section 1032 and the ACLU points out that, “all state and federal law enforcement would be preempted by the military.”

Previously the state and local law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice had the primary responsibility to enforce anti-terrorism laws within the United States.

The NDAA would, in the case of many civilian suspects, remove federal state and local law enforcement from the process of investigation, arrest, criminal prosecution and imprisonment and hand said powers over to the military.

The ACLU “strongly urges” the Senate’s Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings on sections 1031, 1032, and 1036 and assert their jurisdiction to mark up these sections before the NDAA makes it to the Senate floor.

They say that the Judiciary Committee should assert their jurisdiction over these provisions in order to prevent civilian law enforcement against civilians who would otherwise be out of the purview of the military to fall into the hands of the military.

The ACLU’s letter does not, however, cover Section 1033 which Human Rights Watch claims would apply to the many detainees already being held for years without trial who have been cleared for release.

In a form letter with the subject, “Stop Militarization of Law Enforcement” they write that Section 1033 would, “force the administration, for example, to continue to hold a Guantanamo detainee simply because they were from a country of an accused terrorist.”

I highly recommend that you send out this form letter along with a note written by yourself to all of your supposed representatives, along with as many phone calls as you can afford to make it clear that you do not support the United States being turned into a total militarized police state.

While we are already in dire straights in terms of civil rights in this country, codifying indefinite military detention into law is one of the most dangerous developments since the introduction of the PATRIOT Act.

If you even remotely care about the principles of freedom, liberty and justice which this nation is supposed to stand for, you will do us all a favor and stand up against this wholly unacceptable legislation that could represent the end of America as we know it.

More at -


Wash Post: Kyl, aka "Walking Napalm," Killed Super Committee's Ability To Make Deal
Posted by Jim Nintzel on Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post places the blame for the Super Committee's failure squarely on Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl:

So when the Arizonan was named as one of six Republicans on the debt supercommittee, Democrats feared the worst — and they got what they feared.

It exaggerates little to say that Kyl thwarted agreement almost singlehandedly.

While some Republicans on the panel — notably Reps. Dave Camp and Fred Upton — were, with House Speaker John Boehner’s blessing, prepared to strike a deal, Kyl rallied resistance with his usual table-pounding tirades.

The tragedy here is that Kyl, who has announced his retirement at the end of his term, could have risen above political pressures to strike an agreement to right the nation’s finances for a generation.

Boehner’s House Republicans, aware that voters will hold them to account for inaction, were willing to deal.

But Kyl’s Senate Republicans, hoping voters will evict the Democratic majority in the Senate, had no such incentive.
The conclusion:

“Walking napalm” is how one Democratic aide involved in the supercommittee described Kyl this week. And if the senator makes some mistakes as he burns down the village — well, that’s just a cost of doing business.

Earlier this year, when Kyl was leading an effort to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, he claimed on the Senate floor that abortion is “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.”

The actual number is 3 percent.

An aide to Kyl explained: “His remark was not intended to be a factual statement.”

As Kyl leaves the Senate, he will be remembered as a lawmaker who intended to be not factual but destructive.


We Are The 99% - But Are We?

By Michael Albert Monday, November 21, 2011

One of the most celebrated features of the recent occupation movements has been the slogan, “We are the 99%.” Participants effusively love the slogan, but I have mixed feelings.

Occupation critics bemoan absent demands. I say, patience.

Occupation critics question ubiquitous moralism. I say, would you prefer being immoral, amoral, or moral?

But when occupiers and critics alike say, we love the creative innovation embodied in the 99% slogan, I worry.

Does saying we are the 99% obscure more than it reveals.

Will it ultimately misdirect more than focus the movement?

Could it even distort movement priorities and practices?

Yes, saying we are the 99% aggressively pinpoints a very small group who have overwhelming power and wealth in society.

They are owners.
They are capitalists.
They are on top.

And there is policy related benefit, too.

Mainstream corrections for economic crisis seek for the 1% to wind up even more securely in power than they were before the crisis.

Mainstream policy makers want to get back to business as usual, which not only gave us the crisis in the first place, but also constantly gives us grotesque divisions of wealth, income, and power.

We obviously do not want to get back to business as usual, and saying we are the 99% excellently orients us toward instead redistributing wealth and power.

Even so, I would prefer that we call the 1% capitalists.
Calling them capitalists pinpoints that they own the economy.

It highlights that you can’t retain owners but not have owners on top.

To get rid of 1% dominating 99% requires replacing capitalism.

But putting this quibbling aside, virtually every occupier knows the 1% are on top by virtue of owning productive property.

Most people watching and learning from the occupations also know this, or can come to know it, and the 1% label won’t obstruct that from happening.

So saying we are the 99% still stands tall as a slogan which widely communicates previously subterranean sentiments.

Now comes the controversy.

What about managers?

What about doctors?

What about lawyers and engineers?

What about financial officers?

What about people who earn five six, ten, twenty, and even fifty or more times what the typical worker earns, but who do not own the means of production, do not work harder, do not labor under worse conditions, and do not work more intensely?

In short, what about people who have jobs that are highly empowering and convey very substantial and sometimes incredible wealth and status inaccessible to those below?

A 99er may reply: They are just at the top of our team, but they are still on our team, aren’t they?

They can be fired. They get wages and have to conflict with the 1% to increase their wages. They are upset about the crisis.

So isn’t it good if they come to our encampments and pitch in?
Isn’t it good if they march in our parades and protest along with us?

What’s the problem?

The problem arises when we think of the whole 99% as all being the same type economic actor.
In fact there are differences, some of which matter not only to our lives, but to our activism.

But to highlight the differences will diminish our inclusiveness, replies the 99er.

It doesn’t have to, is my response.
I even think the opposite may be true.

About 20% - 25% of all economic actors have a relative monopoly on empowering tasks.
About 75% - 80% end up doing jobs composed of only disempowering tasks.
The former group, due to their work, become more confident, more knowledgeable about their conditions and workplaces, and more socially practiced and capable.
The latter group, due to their different work, become less confident, less knowledgeable about their conditions and workplaces, and less socially practiced and capable.
The former have way more power than the latter and parlay that power into more income as well.

Okay, all that seems true, the 99er agrees, but if the 20% - 25% side with us in pursuing our agendas, isn’t that good?

Yes. But there are two other possibilities we should not ignore. First, they can side with the owners at the top. Second, they can have their own agenda, different from ours, that they pursue.

Both these possibilities are not only possible, but quite likely for many highly empowered employees, even as some will also side with more typical workers.

Okay, says the 99er, but I still don’t see the problem with the slogan. If we want the doctors, lawyers, engineers and others to side with us, why isn’t having one name for us all - 99ers - a good step toward that goal?

Why isn’t welcoming the top 20% - 25% under our one large umbrella good?

It is, in some ways.

And certainly the opposite approach, treating the empowered employees as enemies, would virtually ensure their absence from our encampments, marches, and protests.

But here is my heresy.

I believe there is a very strong dynamic by which if we don’t give some serious attention to the differences between the roughly 20% - let’s call them the coordinator class - and the disempowered roughly 80% - and we can call them the working class - the former coordinators will wind up dominating the latter workers, transforming working class aspirations for classlessness into coordinator class agendas for coordinator rule.

Without going into endless detail here - the point is that the coordinators have a monopoly on empowering work.

They are not smarter.

They are not more industrious.

They are not more worthy.

Rather, they are elevated by their backgrounds, luck, better schooling, and mostly by their position in the division of labor.

The workers are subordinated by their backgrounds, luck, worse schooling, and mostly by their position in the division of labor.

All this can and must change.

A successful movement needs to attend to it all, not least by fighting to change the division of labor.

For example, what preferences characterize our movements?

What do our movements celebrate?

How do our movements feel to participants?

What do our movements provide participants?

Who do our movements appeal to?

Who makes our movement decisions?

Which people will feel comfortable in and empowered by our movements?

And finally, what do our movements fight for?

If we ask these questions about race or gender issues, the implications are clear.

We know that we are not all one race.

We know we are not all one gender.

We know we need movements that address race and gender inequalities and hierarchies.

To attain that focus, of course we don’t argue that white people are the enemy. We don’t argue that men are the enemy.

However, we do recognize that there are real privileges to deal with.

We carefully ensure that our movements elevate women and people of color to positions of influence and that our movements reject culture, styles, habits, values, and assumptions not only associated with dominant groups ruling, but off-putting to subordinate groups.

Don’t we need to translate that thinking to issues of class?

Should we settle for having a movement against the 1% and even a movement that calls itself anti capitalist, which nonetheless has a culture, style, habits, values, and assumptions, and, even more so, organization and leadership that takes for granted continued rule by the coordinator class, rather than fighting to eliminate all class division?

I worry that if we don’t even mention this class distinction, if we actively bury it under an all-inclusive 99% label applied to everyone who isn’t a capitalist, we will open the door to not addressing the problems of class inside our own organizing.

Inside our movements, it is certainly important that we address issues of private ownership of property.

Otherwise we will not deal with the dynamics of capitalist rule.

But it is also important that we address issues of asymmetrical access to economic power.

Otherwise we will not deal with the dynamics of coordinator rule.

It is obviously important that we not have a bunch of capitalists deciding our agendas.

It is also important that we not have only coordinator class members doing so.

It is important that we not adopt styles and approaches comfortable for the 1%, or the 20% - 25%, but uncomfortable for the 75% - 80%.

The 99er may reply, oh, that is all just outdated orthodox marxist rhetoric that would divisively diminish our potentials.

The thing is, it isn’t. And ironically, the opposite is true.

Treating the economy as if there are just two important classes - whether we call them owners and workers or we call them the 1% and the 99% - is itself, in fact, the tired old marxist approach.

To lump everyone who isn’t capitalist into one category - whether we call that category worker or 99er - masks a critically important difference among non capitalists, and obscuring this difference was, indeed, a main problem of marxism because using its two class approach invariably generated old marxist economies in which the (unmentioned) coordinator class ruled over the (celebrated) working class.

But the 99er may reply, okay, fair enough, regarding the long run.

But we aren’t about to win a new economy tomorrow or next week.

And, for now, we need to welcome as many new participants as possible, don’t we?

Yes, we do. But the participants we mostly need to welcome and elevate to defining our movements, are working class people.

Use the analogy to racism, again.

We need an anti racist movement, and we certainly need to welcome white participants into it - but only if they are against racism and are prepared, albeit even if only imperfectly and sometimes with reluctance, to not exploit their privileges.

We can’t welcome white people into an anti racist movement in ways that lead to adopting approaches, language, and habits that put off people of color from participating.

By analogy, do we want to welcome doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, and even managers into a movement fighting against class rule?

Yes, by all means, of course we do, but only if they are on the side of working people, and only if they are ready, albeit even if only imperfectly and sometimes with reluctance, to understand and try to overcome their privileges.

We need doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, and even managers who are ready to respect working class attitudes and culture and choices.

Who are ready to accept working class leadership.

Who are ready to try to spread currently monopolized knowledge, not hoard it.

Who are ready to listen, not just lecture.

But what about students, says the 99er?

The same thing applies, doesn’t it?

If a student who hopes to be doctor or lawyer also hopes to put their education and training at the disposal of working people, including trying to break down the obstacles to more people being empowered, that’s wonderful.

Welcome aboard.

But if a student who hopes to be a doctor or lawyer also hopes to become as wealthy as possible and identifies as an elite, and sees the resolution of the current economic crisis, for example, in a return to business as usual, that’s another matter, isn’t it?

Sure it is hard, in practice, to deal with such differences and distinctions in ways that avoid recrimination, guilt tripping, and all the rest that we all know can creep in. But with patience, it can be done.

Let me give one more example.

Suppose, down the road, a time comes for issuing demands.

Will coordinator class occupiers be okay with proposals that redistribute power and wealth not only from the top 1%, but also from the top 20% - 25%? Will doctors be okay with proposals from nurses that eat into doctors prerogatives?

Will engineers be okay with proposals from workers that eat into engineer’s prerogatives?

What about professors supporting students, even when it eats into professors prerogatives?
And though it is harder to navigate the details, what about would-be doctors, engineers, professors, and managers?

If we want a movement that seeks self management, doesn’t that mean we do not want a class division that gives a monopoly on empowering work to a few and then elevates those few coordinators above workers?

If we want a movement that welcomes and empowers working people, doesn’t that mean it must be guided by working class needs and desires?

For coordinator class members who will be okay with activism that benefits mainly workers, their involvement will certainly be highly beneficial to movements seeking real change.

But for coordinator class members who won’t be okay with workers gains reducing coordinator advantages, their involvement could interfere with seeking classlessness and could become a serious barrier to retaining working class participants - just as the involvement of racists and sexists can be a barrier to retaining people of color and women participants.

My worry is that if we adopt slogans that place a big onus on even admitting that there are class differences within the 99%, much less on calmly and supportively delineating those differences and finding respectful ways to address them, then the obstacles and barriers we face could grow to be insurmountable.

My worry with the slogan we are the 99% is that maybe we need to find a way to talk about ourselves which welcomes participation, by all means, but which also admits differences that need to be addressed.

The desire to address and deal with differences by eliminating elite positions in a new economy is evident in our movements’ attention to self management and participation.

This is what our attention to process is ultimately about, getting rid of hierarchies of power and influence.

So, without becoming sectarian, without becoming judgmental, without becoming personalistic - can we pay attention to class differences which, if they instead go unmentioned, will get in the way of self management and participation?

I think we can, and that we need to.


Beginning to deepen our understanding of this universal law

By Yogi Baba Prem Tom Beal Vedavisharada, CYI, C.ay,

While the term Karma is unique to India its basic principles are found throughout the world. As an example: the golden rule in Christianity, “Do onto others as you would

have them do onto you.”

This is karma, what you put out will return to you.

But is that all there is to karma?

Karma comes from the Sanskrit word Kri, which literally means to work.

This is important because in western society karma has become an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth mentality.

This is not what is really meant by karma.

Often people will read that karma is cause and effect.

This is where we will start our study of karma.

Cause and effect is often considered to be literally: do an improper action; have an improper action done to you. While this can be true, it is more important to

remember that we are the sum total of our actions.

In other words, think an angry thought become an angry thought.

This illustrates the more serious implications of karma.

You (ego) are the sum total of your thoughts.

Your perceptions are the sum total of your thoughts.

You respond based on the sum total of your thoughts and conflicts.

These thoughts are internal karma. External karmas are actions that are done to you from others.

The internal karma can influence the external karma and visa-versa. As an example, if you think unkind thoughts of yourself, you may attract people that re-enforce

those unkind thoughts. If people that think unkind thoughts surround you; you will eventually begin to think similar thoughts.

In Ayurveda it is taught that karma is undigested experience.

In other words, the emotional mind (manas) and ego (ahankara) cannot truly comprehend an experience they can only react. So if we experience only through our

emotions and ego we create a conflict between the conscious and sub-conscious mind. This conflict will manifest over and over again by the sub-conscious mind until

the conflict can be resolved.

This process is not necessarily to punish you, but it is the minds process of resolving conflict. Karma is actually the greatest gift the cosmos could provide. It is a

natural process for resolution of conflicts, ill behavior or choices we have made with an unenlightened mind. Karma’s give the opportunity to free oneself from these


This is where the word Kri (work) mentioned earlier comes in. A person needs to work out the conflicts. This process calms the mind, enhances peace, and expands


It is important that we cultivate the ability to appreciate karma at work.

If someone has a disease you may say, “how sad”, but in reality the disease may serve him or her as a “wake up call” that changes need to be made.

In that case the disease could be very important to their growth as a person and may mark a point in their life where great physical, mental, and spiritual change took


This process can apply on a very practical level for physical health also.

If you eat garbage eventually the body’s tissues will suffer from the lack of minerals, vitamins, prana, and other nutrients.

Cause and effect.

By eating poorly you are not just creating a conflict, the body is being robbed of vital nutrients (cause) and will result in disease (effect).

The sub-conscious conflict then has occurred with the need to learn to respect and take care of the body. This may manifest within this lifetime or another lifetime.

Karma is not something to be feared.

It is one of the great teachers of the universe.

It is a master and a servant to us all.

Do not perform good karma because it is good; perform it because it is who you are.

Do not be a good person for a reward, be a good person because you respect that attribute.

Then you will be free from karma and achieve liberation (moksha).




The Arid-zone Ugly Crows K.N.E.E. Family
Thanksgiving November 24, 2011


Post a Comment

<< Home