Default & Prioritizing - Part One

Discrepant thoughts encumbered
With superstitions bound
Occurring in great number
Presumptive speech is found.

Dogmatic words being spoken
With countless hours spent
Books from books the token
Diversities to vent.

Arguments unending
Nothing vital gained
Final truth pretending
Last conclusions feigned.

Viewing this dilemma
For the causes being
Everyone the "expert"
Of what they have not seen.

Biased folk emphatic
Touting "proofs" their own
Ignoring contradictions
Concocting "facts" not known.

The wise sometimes short-sighted
The simplist sometimes right
With errant knowledge blighted
Sense gives way to might.

In humbleness show kindness
With love and grace be true
Conviction without blindness
Divisive words be few.

Fair-minded without libel
We must with one accord
Delve deep into the Bible
Congruent with the Lord.


- Icorigin

(based on a poem by Rev. Peder Andrew Langvand, Icorigin's maternal grandfather)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DEFAULT & PRIORITIZATION

BREAKING-NEWS UPDATE The demonic media will blatter that [good-guy] conservative Republican Senators (like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, etc.) and Representatives (like Boehner and Cantor) "caved" in to so-called "President" Obama and Senate democrats by Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, etc. refusing to filibuster in the last moments up to The Default Deadline so as to allow the Senate and House to send an Obamascare-funding Budget Bill to Barack Insane Obama to sign, allegedly "postponing" the subsidizing of non-affordable non-workable Medicare-disrupting former-healthcare-insurance-policies-destroying Obamascare until January or February of 2014.

Not so.

The good-guy Republicans senators and representatives realized that if Default occurred and had its full dire effects, the resultant prioritizations which would have then transpired would have been non-charted new territory the United States had never before encountered, and the apportionments would obviously have been a horrific anti-Christian, antisemitic, Social-Security-checks-endangering mess under the politically-constipated and diabolical meanderings of Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, Lew, and particularly tyrannical dictator and non-beloved oppressor Barack Insane Obama (whose sordid and despicable record of mis-ruling so far is both dastardly notoriously and largely despised nationwide and even globally, while even RINO talkshow hosts (such as Medved, Hannity, Lewis, etc.) yet suckhole to him for the sake of "minority-black" racist reparations) to the wicked glee of MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, and their ilk.

Political pundit Dick Morris believes that a suit brought by Oklahoma against Obamascare could be what ultimately knocks down the president's healthcare law.

"Why didn't anyone else think of it?" Morris wrote in The Hill. "Unlike the suit brought by 26 state attorney generals, this suit does not make a constitutional objection to the Non-Affordable Anti-Care Act. Instead, it uses the language of the law to challenge the elaborate system of subsidies, tax credits, and individual or employer mandates and fines the act has spawned."

The suit, filed by Oklahoma's Republican Attorney General Scott Pruitt, was published in the Case Western Reserve School of Law Journal. The article contends that the wording of the Non-Affordable Anti-Care Act allows a subsidy for health insurance only for those who got their coverage through state exchanges rather than the federal exchange.

"The IRS has ruled that the language of the statute should be 'interpreted' to extend the subsidies to those enrolled in state or federal exchanges, but that's not what the law says," Morris explained, adding, "Section 1041 of the act, according to their article, 'authorizes premium-assistance tax credits and makes them available only through state-run exchanges."

It also says tax credits can be given only if the taxpayer has a plan that was enrolled in through an exchange established by the state under section 1311 of the Non-Affordable Anti-Care Act.

Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. Cannon, who did the research, "argue that 'by its express terms, this provision only applies to exchanges 'established by a state' and 'established under Section 1311,'" Morris pointed out.

Morris argued that the IRS and supporters of Obamascare try to "stretch the language to imply a mandate to cover those in federal exchanges."

He quoted IRS director Douglas Shulmann's reply to a letter from GOP Congressmen about the issue, in which Shulmann said, "The statute includes language that indicates that individuals are eligible for tax credits whether they are enrolled through a state-based exchange or a federally-facilitated exchange."

"Unfortunately for [Barack Obama], the statue implies no such thing," said Morris. "It is not only silent on any subsidies for federal exchange, it is clear that the subsidies were intended to encourage states to set up exchanges."

A federal judge seemed to agree when he allowed Pruitt's lawsuit to proceed in August, ruling against the Obama administration.

"The Oklahoma suit has survived a motion to dismiss and its standing to bring the suit has been affirmed by the District Court," Morris stated. "Attorney General Pruitt hopes for a judgment later this year and feels the case might reach the Supreme Court by late next year.

Obamascare Exchanges Hide Info on Abortion Coverage, Mandatory Abortion Surcharge:

With the exchanges of Obamascare activated this month, it has become evident that it is nearly impossible for individuals to try to determine which exchange plans on their state exchange, if any, exclude abortion, said a group of lawmakers at a bipartisan press conference Wednesday.

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04) unveiled his legislation, H.R. 3279, the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act -cosponsored by 70 other Members of the House-to ensure full disclosure of abortion coverage, requiring prominent and transparent disclosure of abortion coverage for each plan offered on an exchange.

The House Republicans have staked out a position that they can use their constitutional power of the purse to force the President to negotiate over key issues.

Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born foreigner Barack Obama and Senate democrat leader Harry Reid believe they can break the House Republicans and force them to reopen the government and pass a debt ceiling hike with no negotiations and no conditions.

Obscured to some extent by the focus on the partial government shutdown and the anxiety over the debt ceiling is the continuing failure of Obamascare and the endless stories about websites failing, people discovering higher rather than lower prices, people being terminated from their former health insurance policies and left with nothing but dangerous confusion.

What is increasingly clear is that heartless-nigherr (the "h" is silent) dictator Obama and tyrant Reid have adopted a calculated strategy of trying to isolate and break the morale of the House Republican leadership.

Barack/Barry/Barack Hussein Obama/Soetoro/Obama is faced with the danger that the conservative Republicans will learn how to use the power of the purse to design a plan for the next three years that will force concession after concession from him.

He has decided on a bold and very risky strategy of refusing to negotiate as long as the House attempts to use its power of the purse to force concessions.

Demoncrats have adopted harsh language to describe House Republicans as terrorists wearing body bombs, hostage takers, and even traitors. The mainstream media has enthusiastically picked up all insults and repeated them endlessly.

The intensity of this vilification indicates the Democrats’ strategic desire to break the House Republicans.

Historically there have been 17 government shutdowns since 1976. All were settled. All were part of the American system of constitutional government when the legislative and executive branches are in conflict. This is the eighteenth shutdown but the level of hostility and vicious language is far greater than any earlier shutdown.

Similarly, debt ceilings have been negotiated with various amendments beginning in 1953 under President Eisenhower. For 60 years, Presidents have accepted that the constitutional give-and-take requires negotiating over debt ceilings.

Diatribe Obama is trying a very daring expansion of executive power effectively taking away from the House its constitutional prerogatives and demanding it give him what he wants on his terms with no amendments and no conditions.

This is a cold, calculated strategy.

If the House Republicans hang on and actually get concessions they will have set the stage for three more years of forced concessions.

If imposter-"president" Obama hangs on and coerces a so-called "clean" continuing resolution and a clean debt ceiling hike actually dirtied with funding Obamascare, he will have set the stage for three years of presidential dominance.

It was an indication of Obama's determination that after his Secretary of the Treasury warned that the financial world would collapse next week if we didn’t raise the debt ceiling, he rejected a six week clean increase of the debt ceiling because it did not meet his requirements.

A lot is at stake.

As the federal government’s partial shutdown, sparked by Senate Democrats’ refusal to discuss budget compromises with Republicans in the House, continues, there’s a word more and more members of Congress are connecting to President Obama:

Impeachment.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., declared Tuesday that Obama has committed impeachable offenses and warned that America slowly is turning into a dictatorship under his leadership.

"We can have an impeachment hearing in the House, and in my mind the president has committed impeachable offenses," Bachmann told talk show host Rusty Humphries in an interview that was reported by The Hill Wednesday.

She described the actions of the administration, including shutting down national parks and preventing veterans from visiting war memorials, as thuggery and stated that the American people have had just about enough of it.

"I think we could be on the cusp of seeing civil disobedience - I’m not saying I want civil disobedience - but people aren’t going to take the thuggery of this [guy] much longer," she said. "We see thuggery going on in the White House, we’re not going to take it. We’ve drawn a line in the sand, and we’re telling [Obama] you need to recognize that you are [only one] branch of government. You are not a dictator.

Bachmann congratulated tea party activists for putting pressure on their representatives in Congress and urged them to continue raising their voices.

"What this is about is whether or not we will hold on to a constitutional republic. I want the tea party to know they made a profound difference and what they’re fighting for is to see if we’re actually going to be a constitutional republic or if we’re going to be totally devolved into a dictatorship under somebody like Barack Obama."

More than a dozen members of Congress already have raised the prospect of impeachment.

One of the others is Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, who has received 435 copies of the book 'Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office' and plans to distribute a copy to every member of the House of Representatives.

Stockman told WND that he believes the book contains information that every member of Congress should know, and he believes discussing impeachment should not be forbidden.

"Enforcing the Constitution and preserving limitations on executive authority aren’t just mainstream, they’re the law," Stockman said.

Stockman previously told WND that the way Obama was planning to intervene in Syria was not in alignment with the Constitution.

"The Constitution and the War Powers Resolution clearly require the president to seek congressional approval before engaging our military in any action other than a national emergency created by an attack on the United States," Stockman explained.

He also criticized the president for flip-flopping from his 2008 campaign position in which he declared that taking America to war without congressional approval was an impeachable offense. He said that there were clear reasons why this sudden change in position took place.

"Two reasons, the arrogance of power and Obama’s lack of discipline. It sounds like Obama rushed to state a Syria position before seriously consulting advisers about it," Stockman stated.

In 'Impeachable Offenses,' New York Times best-selling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott expose and explain the high crimes and misdemeanors that Obama has committed during his regime.

They reveal how he has fundamentally and unquestionably abused the powers of his office and done serious, sustained and possibly irreversible injury to American society.

Among the topics:

- How Obamascare is not only unconstitutional, but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights, and marks an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
- How Obama sidestepped Congress and already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
- How the Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
- Obama’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assaults - arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
- Illicit edicts on gun-control actions in addition to the deadly 'Fast and Furious' gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
- The move toward a virtual surveillance regime with "fusion centers" and data mining and drones.

Here’s what Stockman said earlier.

"There’s a lot to look at and I think, at some point, if the smoking gun leads to the White House, we have to take action," he said.

Read the details of Obama’s actions and how they don’t align with the Constitution, in 'Impeachable Offenses,' by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, who was speaking at a recent town hall meeting, also raised the issue. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.

"I’ve looked at [Obama]. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights," he said.

He said at some point a decision must be made, and he said, "I think if the House had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach [Obama]."

But he noted the 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where impeachment could take place.

Other members of Congress who have discussed the idea include Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

"I think he’s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval," Hunter told the Washington Times recently. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense."

WND also has reported Sen. Coburn’s statement that Obama is "perilously close" to qualifying for impeachment.

Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, "What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against [Obama], and that’s called impeachment.

"That’s not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means. I think there’s some intended violation of the law in [the Obama] administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions."

"Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time," he said. "I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close."

Days earlier, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich., said it would be a "dream come true" to impeach Obama.

Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, "You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true."

He told constituents: "I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But . . . I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office."

Bentivolio said that experience with [BHO] caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.

Also interested in Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who responded to questions about impeachment.

"It’s a good question," Cruz responded.

"And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate."

Republicans would also need the votes in the House, which Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, thinks they have.

Farenthold said he is often asked why Congress doesn’t impeach [Obama].

He said he answers, "If we were to impeach [Obama] tomorrow, we would probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it."

But, like Cruz, Farenthold sees the lack of votes in the Senate as a roadblock.

The congressman also worries about what would happen if they tried to impeach Obama and failed. He believes the unsuccessful attempt to impeach President Clinton hurt the country.

In May, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

He told listeners of 'The Rusty Humphries Show,' "Of all the great cover-ups in history - the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them - this "is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history.

But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.

A lawmaker who has offered tentative support for impeachment is Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who said in May he considers it a possibility.

Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted a list of reasons on his website in June 2011, before he was elected to office in 2012, explaining why impeachment is proper.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a terse online statement, the White House has confirmed that Barack Obama has signed into law an update of restrictions around the White House, the vice president’s resident and other locations - a move critics say signals the "end to free speech."

The White House said yesterday Obama signed into law: H.R. 347, the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,’ which makes it a federal crime to enter or remain knowingly in any restricted area of the White House, the vice president’s official residence, or their respective grounds without lawful authority.

The critics say there’s more to the bill than that.

John Whitehead, president of the the Rutherford Institute, explained the plan came about as a knee-jerk reaction to a crazed assailant’s attack on U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., a year ago.

"The bill’s language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest and the right to peaceably assembly in all areas where government officials happen to be present," he wrote.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said it was something he could not support.

"Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway," he said. "The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.

"Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity - even if that activity is annoying to those government officials - violates our rights," he said.

The bill states, 'Whoever knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of government business or official functions; knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished.'

What happens when the government itself refuses to follow the Constitution? Judge Andrew Napolitano explains in 'A Nation of Sheep.'

Significantly, though, the definition of "restricted buildings" is anywhere someone protected by the Secret Service "will be temporarily visiting."

"A person eating in a diner while a presidential candidate is trying to score political points with the locals could be arrested if government agents determine that he is acting ‘disorderly.’ Mind you, depending on who’s making the assessment, anything can be considered disorderly, including someone exercising his right to free speech by muttering to himself about a government official. And if that person happens to have a pocketknife or nail clippers in his possession (or any other innocuous item that could be interpreted by the police as ‘dangerous’), he could face up to 10 years in prison," Whitehead warned.

"Given that the Secret Service not only protects the president but all past sitting presidents, members of Congress, foreign dignitaries, presidential candidates, and anyone who the president determines needs protection, anywhere these officials happen to be becomes a zone where the First Amendment is effectively off-limits," he said.

At the Examiner, Philadelphia columnist Tim McCown concluded: "Defenders and apologists for mainly Democrats and Obama supporters claim this act is completely innocent and all of us who believe differently have drunk Ron Paul’s Kool-Aid again. But a post on George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley’s blog page notes that the imprecise language, just as in the NDAA, creates risks and can most definitely be seen as a threat to our First Amendment right to Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition our government. None of that is very comforting in light of the Patriot Act and surveillance of and wire tapping of Americans."

He continued, "Tonight you no longer need to be a conspiracy theorist to have real questions about whether we are becoming a police state."

On Paul’s website was this: "Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it."

Whitehead noted that members of Congress, feeling the wrath of Americans pummeled by rising fuel prices, a tanking economy and unpopular war efforts, "Have been working hard to keep their unhappy constituents at a distance - avoiding town-hall meetings, making minimal public appearances while at home in their districts, only appearing at events in controlled settings where they’re the only ones talking, and if they must interact with constituents, doing so via telephone town meetings or impromptu visits to local businesses where the chances of being accosted by angry voters are greatly minimized.

"While the Trespass Bill may have started out with the best of intentions, it has ended up as the government’s declaration of zero tolerance for individuals exercising their First Amendment rights," he said.

"If these types of laws had been in effect during the Civil Rights movement, there would have been no march on Washington. [Marty King Jr] and his fellow activists would have been rendered criminals. And King’s call for ‘militant nonviolent resistance’ would have been silenced by police in riot gear," he said.

He also criticized so-called "First Amendment zones" or areas.

"Free speech zones have become commonplace at political rallies and the national conventions of both major political parties," he said. "One of the most infamous free speech zones was erected at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Not so much a zone of free expression as a cage, it was a space enclosed by chain link fences, Jersey walls, and razor wire. Judge Douglas Woodlock, who toured the free speech cage before the convention, noted, ‘One cannot conceive of other elements put in place to make a space more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone."

"Bubble zones and free speech zones, in essence, destroy the very purpose of the First Amendment, which assures us of the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances," he said.

Under the direction of foreign-born pseudo-"president" Barack Hussein Obama and consultant Hillary "Fostergate" Clinton, it seems like actual photos of the actual corpse of Osama bin Laden who was presumably murdered by NAVY Seals [contrast that with the very-public pics and vids of Saddam being hanged!] have never been made public.

Would it not be interesting if sometime in the very-near future we all discovered that the following Scripture verses concerning (not "regarding") Barack Obama, his Obamanites, and Osama bin Laden are related to the paragraph above:

Revelation 13:

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea and saw a [Osama bin Ladin, claimed by liars to have "risen from the dead"?] Beast rise up out of the sea [whether the Mediterranean Sea, or some other one, within which Osama? has been covertly isolated with international immunity in international waters, not subject to the jurisdiction of any particular nor singular government... not necessarily Naked-and-Afraid on a non-inhabited island but nicely nested within some novice nuclear nautilus - slightly different than the caves of Afghanistan and deserts of Pakistan] having [G-7?] seven heads and ten horns [10-nation-groups international jurisdiction], and upon its horns ten crowns, and upon its heads the name of blasphemy.

2 And The Beast [who] I saw was like a leopard, and [his] feet were as the feet of a bear, and [his] mouth as the mouth of a lion; and the dragon gave [him] his power and his throne and great authority.

3 And I saw one of its heads as it were wounded to death; and [his] deadly wound [Judeo-Christian patriots within the United States and other nations?] was "healed;" [sounds like a takeoff on Obamascare?] and all the Earth marveled, and followed The Beast.

4 And they worshipped the dragon [Satan] who had given the authority to The Beast: and they worshipped The Beast; saying, Who is like The Beast? Who is able to make war against [him]?

5 And there was given to [him] a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given to [him] to continue forty-two months [a time, two times, and half a time, or 3-1/2 years].

6 And [he] opened its mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle and those who reside in heaven.

7 And [he] was allowed to make war against the saints and to overcome them; and power was given [him] over all families and languages and nations.

Revelation 17:8

The beast [who] you saw was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and shall go into perdition; and those who reside on the Earth (whose names are not written in The Book of Life from the foundation of the world) shall marvel when they consider The Beast [who] was, and is not, and yet is.

Also noteworthy is the description of The Ultimate Graven Image constructed by worshippers of by "the false-prophet beast" [Obama and his Obamanites?], which pseudo-human Image will be used to bypass the problems of foreign-born birth certificates, the question of "personhood" in the intense national and global abortion debate, continuing threat of under-the-radar assets-hiding terrorists and non-registered criminals disrupting The System, lack of economic and financial controls in the form of Debt-Ceiling and Government Shutdowns and Default hassles, discriminatorily restricting monetary transactions of stifled and squelched Judeo-Christian "right" against their political and government activism, and judicial immunity against prosecution for whatever It does as a non-human THING and not "person" - thus being exempt from all laws regulating HUMAN persons:

Revelation 13:

11 Then I saw and considered another Beast [Barack Hussein Obama] coming up out of the land [Washington DC of New York of the United States]; and [he] had two horns [head of the EU and of the UN, and/or religious leader of the worldwide apostate catholics plus global cultic islamics] like The [Leader of "Peace"] Lamb, but [he] spoke as the dragon [i.e. Satan, which "dragon"-euphemism Americans, Europeans, and Asians vividly understand].

12 And he exercised all the power of The First Beast in [his] presence and caused the earth and those who reside therein to worship The First Beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

13 And he [Barack HUSSEIN Obama?] does great [armed-services-military-assisted?] signs, so that he even makes [SDI and meteoritic] fire come down from heaven to the earth in the sight of humans

14 and deceives those [Obamanites?] who reside on the Earth by those signs which were given to him to do in the presence of The Beast [Osama bin Laden?], mandating those [Obamanites?] who reside on the Earth make an Image of the [Osama bin Laden?] Beast [put demonic welfare-recipient-freeloading Obamanites to work worldwide to improve and stabilize global economy doing worshipful idolatry for who they misconsider "The Global President" which they dastardly desire to do], who has the wound by "the sword," and did live.

15 And it was given to him to endue The image [NOT merely a "hologram"] of the beast with spirit [or "breathe," but NOT having immortal soul], so that The image of the beast [will] speak [more proficiently than Data on Star Trek, better than Questor in the movie The Questor Tapes, and much better than the faceless robot in the movie The Day The Earth Stood Still], and he shall cause those that do not worship The Image of The Beast to be [murdered].

16 And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slaves, to receive a mark [an under-the-skin embedded RFID tattoo chip, reminiscent of jews being tattooed in Nazi concentration camps during WWII ?] in their right hand, or in their foreheads;

17 and that no one might buy or sell [whether with electronic transfer, debit or credit cards, gold or silver or platinum, coins, etc.?], unless he has The Mark or The Name of The Beast or The Number of [his] name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let whoever who has understanding count The Number of The Beast:a number of humans; and [his] number is six hundred sixty-six [i.e. 666].

A final question:

Would the False Prophet and The Image spoken of in the Biblical New-Testament book of Revelation chapter 13 ALSO be marked with 666 on THEIR right hands or foreheads, OR will exclusion similar to Obamascare Exemptions for federal employees and other Obamanites apply to THEM then?