#i also refuse to believe that is-7 was the first and only time gregory took ray with him on an investigation

[zonaraze]

comics i drew while replaying aai + aai2 (3/3)

well this is long overdue... i didn’t even notice that ray has a jammin’ ninja patch on his shirt until recently. it makes sense though, he likes musicals after all

bonus:

[askaceattorney]

Manfred Von Karma Character Essay

Dear Dakadondon,

I’m going to give it a go on a character essay on my favorite villain, Manfred Von Karma. I haven’t been able to find any on him and I feel like he’s often overlooked as the nothing-but-evil villain when there is so much more to him than meets the eye.

When we are first introduced to Manfred Von Karma, he both is the final boss of the game and a foil for both Phoenix Wright and his rival, Miles Edgeworth. He represents the karma brought down upon Miles Edgeworth’s shoulders by his actions in the first game, thus his name “karma” or “ Karuma,” which means “karma” in Japanese. This works in the same way with Franziska Von Karma representing Phoenix Wright’s karma in AA2. Since we are focusing on Manfred Von Karma, he will be our main focus.

We are introduced to Manfred Von Karma as Miles Edgeworth’s mentor, but it is in AA2 we find out he is much more than a mentor. He was also a father figure of sorts to Miles Edgeworth. This relationship is often overlooked, even by the game itself. We are told by Franziska Von Karma how Miles Edgeworth was like her little brother, but nowhere in the game does it ever mention or demonstrate how Miles Edgeworth would be the son of Manfred Von Karma. Even the anime never truly focuses on that portion. As a result, we, as the players, are like Godot in how we miss the obvious red on white part of the case, and instead focus on the mentor and student relationship.  Like anyone, why would we believe someone as twisted and vindictive as Manfred Von Karma would consider Miles Edgeworth as a son? Yet, this same man considered him the student under Von Karma? If Sebastian Debeste’s relationship with his father could be father/son and mentor/student, why wouldn’t the same also apply to Manfred Von Karma and Miles Edgeworth?

To understand this father/son relationship Miles Edgeworth shares with Manfred Von Karma, we first need to understand why it is overlooked or taken out throughout the game. After losing his father, Miles Edgeworth practically lost everything. If we are to assume his father was the only family he ever had in his life, then this would mean he became an orphan. He was alone without anyone to care for or love him. All of a sudden, this Prosecutor, who had gone up against his father in court, takes him in under his wing. He gives Miles Edgeworth food, a home, a little sister, a family, education and training to become a Prosecutor. Before, Miles Edgeworth only had his father, now under the Von Karmas, he has a family. Manfred Von Karma gave Miles Edgeworth much more than his biological father ever did, when we take into account the mentioned family of Manfred Von Karma than just Franziska: a niece, a possible extra sibling(s) and a mother.

In the head of Miles Edgeworth, he is not deserving of this. He mentally believes he is responsible for the murder of his own father. He isn’t deserving of a family, a home or any of these things. This is a similar mentality he will eventually have with Phoenix later on after Turnabout Goodbyes. In turn, we have Manfred Von Karma, who is simply using Miles and his genius to have as his own. He knows of his crime of having murdered this boy’s father and yet is willing to provide this boy with a better life. It feels off for Manfred Von Karma, if we were to assume he’s your typical devilish bad guy with no moral compass. Though, if we were to take AAI2 into account in how he praises his wife’s cooking, despite being an amateur, and was willing to defend Delicia Scone’s innocence for no other reason other than, “she is innocent,” we can assume he does have some form of moral compass. At the very least, he is capable of love for those he considers family and will protect those he considers innocent. If we are to assume that he does love his family, or at least is capable of such, we can assume that there was a tiny bit of compassion he had in taking in Miles Edgeworth. Even if we were to reason that Manfred Von Karma was simply using Miles Edgeworth to cover up his own crime, no one can deny that Manfred Von Karma could’ve made him into a Cinderella or killed him under his care.

Of course, many would disagree this man would have a heart, if only because the game seems to imply that Manfred Von Karma took in Miles Edgeworth to beat the dead horse that was Gregory Edgeworth. Except, that would imply that Manfred Von Karma believes in spirits and was so passionate that he was willing to raise a child with severe trauma, nightmares and phobias. To put it simply, raising Miles Edgeworth, for Manfred Von Karma, would have been a nightmare in itself. Not only because he’d be having sleepless nights from a child, then teenager being up in the middle of the night because of nightmares, but also having to calm him down every time an earthquake hit, perhaps having to deal with Miles Edgeworth’s fear of elevators and there are the effects of DL-6 that took a toll on Miles Edgeworth. Anyone who knows anyone that deals with severe trauma will tell you that each day, minute and second that person is still living is a miracle. This is something Manfred Von Karma would be having to face every morning and night. For Miles Edgeworth, he believes he killed his own father and is not deserving of anything. Perhaps being a Prosecutor is his way of punishing himself, but it is also a goal he strives for that was placed upon him by Manfred Von Karma himself. You could say that Manfred Von Karma gave Miles Edgeworth a reason to live.

Knowing this, it makes sense why Manfred Von Karma framed Miles Edgeworth for the murder of Robert Hammond. This wasn’t about him ruining Miles Edgeworth’s life or revenge against Gregory Edgeworth. This was Manfred Von Karma running away from his problems, from his own guilt. We see in Turnabout Reminiscence how quickly Manfred Von Karma was willing to leave an investigation unfinished the moment he loses control. If you were to fail that game, before Manfred Von Karma demands Miles Edgeworth and young Franziska to no longer proceed in the investigation, he will stop the investigation right away or Franziska will win. It’s only after he demands there to be no more investigation that he no longer stops the investigation, but instead it is Calisto Yew or Tyrell Badd, who at one point sends his security to kick Miles Edgeworth and Franziska out. This means that the reason Manfred Von Karma wanted Miles Edgeworth to stop the investigation was because he no longer had control over the outcome. This makes sense for his character, who also left IS-7 after the events of DL-6. He’s the kind of man to run away from his troubles. If Miles Edgeworth’s trauma was trouble for Manfred Von Karma that he can’t ever get rid of, he will proceed to get rid of Miles Edgeworth instead.

The problem with Manfred Von Karma framing Miles Edgeworth for murder is that this adds another problem. Miles Edgeworth is now the supposed son of Manfred Von Karma. Keep in mind this is a man who obsesses over perfection. To frame his own son for murder goes against being the perfect father. Aside from his own personal problems, Manfred Von Karma has no reason to get rid of Miles Edgeworth. Miles Edgeworth, while did suffer a few losses, is a valuable asset to Manfred Von Karma. He is Manfred Von Karma’s proud disciple and, if we were to assume he only has daughters, the only son he’s got. He is willing to throw away Miles Edgeworth, for what? Because of his own personal problems? Because he knows all of Miles Edgeworth’s troubles are caused by him? Because the only way to fix Miles Edgeworth is to admit that he was and is a terrible murderer and a criminal?

Much like how Manfred Von Karma represented the karma built upon all the deeds Miles Edgeworth had done, the same can also be said in reverse. For Manfred Von Karma, Miles Edgeworth is the result of his own karma. That karma will never go away and, so long as Miles Edgeworth continues to live in the Prosecutor’s circle, the karma of Manfred Von Karma will haunt him for the rest of his life, unless he decides to find closure. Whether that closure be through death or reconnecting with Miles Edgeworth, unless it is met, Manfred Von Karma will always be troubled by the karma he’s placed upon himself.

To describe Manfred Von Karma is someone that is obsessed with being perfect in every way to a fault. He has family, friends, people he loves and cares about, but is also a coward to face whatever troubles come his way. He is the opposite of Phoenix Wright, who is willing to face what he’s faulted and try to make things right. Manfred Von Karma represents a side to humanity none of us want to admit. We are very narcissistic and strive to be better than everyone else. Then, the moment we run into trouble where our true colors are shown, we tend to hide or run away like Manfred Von Karma. 

When you consider the events of IS-7, it’s clear Manfred Von Karma made many mistakes in how he approached the case. He refused help from his detective, he continually tried to fight against the Defense that he was right, he used threatening tactics to force the Defendant to confess to a crime he didn’t commit, he overlooked other crimes that happened such as the two missing boys, and he changed the case file to the Defendant being the culprit - even though he accused him of being an accomplice to the crime. While he didn’t forge the Autopsy Report, he placed the blame of the penalty he received from his boss on the Defense, who didn’t do anything wrong. To add insult to injury, he orphaned and traumatized a child that now is under his care. Manfred Von Karma continually ran away from his issues, the vile acts that he has done. As a result, he refuses to acknowledge Miles Edgeworth as his son. If he can’t acknowledge it, why should the game?

Manfred Von Karma is one of the most morally gray characters in the AA game. He represents the worst of all humanity. He’s definitely not one to sympathize with, but not because we can’t, but because we don’t want to. I consider the best villains as those you could become at any point in time. Someone like Kristoph Gavin or Dahlia Hawthorne would be much harder to see in ourselves, since their circumstances came from other bad circumstances. Manfred Von Karma, I can see in anyone no matter the circumstances or life they live. So long as you believe yourself to be better than anyone else, you will always become another Manfred Von Karma. 

Ironically enough, I do see a redemption arc in Manfred Von Karma, if he was to ever live after Turnabout Goodbyes. The reason is because, believe it or not, I did have issues with Narcissism about ten or so years ago. Of course, I wasn’t as bad as Manfred Von Karma, but I can also relate to him. As such, I also know that it only takes seeing yourself as better than everyone else to void yourself of all empathy or compassion for others. This also includes thinking your opinions are correct or others’ opinions are problematic. All it takes for a redemption arc is realizing where you’re wrong, apologizing, and making things right. Of course, you can’t erase your history, but you can make a better future, especially for those you have hurt. Luckily, we have Franziska Von Karma and Miles Edgeworth to demonstrate what Manfred Von Karma could’ve been.

- Mod Edgeworth

[wallofweird]

hi fae, how do you feel about people saying that kevin only tolerates madison bc of kate and therefore they won't work? :/

Hi! Well, I think these people are definitely not watching This Is Us (or any type of television, for that matter) or living on Earth. Or seeing and unseeing things according to their pre-established opinions. Either way, that’s absolutely not true. On most of their interactions Kevin is polite, as you can see it here:

I love this part because there are at least three other guests closer to him but she is the first person he offers a glass of champagne... If you pay attention to the scene, he is holding THREE glasses. He gives one to Madison and he puts another on a shelf, I don’t know about the third, but there were definitely more women in the room that could’ve had that(those) glass(es), he just didn’t care, lol. Also, Rebecca is looking and smiling at him, but he doesn’t even notice it because he is too busy looking at Madi... I mean, another direction.

CREDIT: https://thisiskevison.tumblr.com (all the gifs above)

Kevin doesn’t look very happy with the idea of dancing and still he doesn’t protest.

CREDIT: https://madsdefencesquad.tumblr.com/post/616600065662926848/kevin-x-madison-height-difference

This gif doesn’t show it, but he turns his head and watches Madison as she walks away just like on gif number 4.

Siding with her during a conversation with Kate.

CREDIT: https://thisiskevison.tumblr.com (all the gifs above)

Comforting Madison.

CREDIT: https://madsdefencesquad.tumblr.com/post/618991372262916096/kevin-looking-at-madison-nothing-but-blue-skies

He isn’t smiling here, but does this seem to be a person that is annoyed with the other? He has soft, delicate, gentle eyes while looking at her.

And this whole thing about Kevin despising Madison and only tolerating her because of Kate is even more ridiculous because on this scene he is basically begging her to invite him to come inside.

CREDIT: https://madsdefencesquad.tumblr.com/post/616600065662926848/kevin-x-madison-height-difference

If he thought her company was so unpleasant, why would he accept it in the first place? He could’ve left and gone to Rebecca’s house instead, or come back after Toby got back from work, he could’ve called Randall, or Nicky, or simply gone somewhere else to make new friends because it’s not like struggles when he socializes with strangers.

And here is what Madison had to say about her night with him:

CREDIT: https://thisiskevison.tumblr.com/post/617836054621339648/do-you-want-to-know-why-i-think-i-slept-with

He made her feel comfortable enough to be her true self and he ended up spending at least a few hours with Madison. He spent the night at her place and only left the next morning... If her presence were so repellent, why didn’t he leave after the sex? Madison didn’t point a gun at him and forced him to stay. Even after he woke up, he kept lying next to her on the bed without a shirt on... Plus, there was the option of leaving without saying anything while she was asleep, but he didn’t do that.

Actually, the only time I believe Kevin was rude to her was at the hospital, but you have to analyze the context: his sister went into early labor, there was an endless list of possible complications to the baby and herself, it took hours until Kevin got some information, Kevin had been drinking, he was dealing with his failed attempt to connect with his uncle, the frustration of having relapsed after an entire year of being sober, feeling guilty for lying to everyone about it and the fear of losing Zoe because of those lies. He was going through A LOT. Those were probably some of the hardest hours of his life. Yet, at first he treated her just fine, it was the fact she wouldn’t stop talking (because that’s the way she was coping with the situation and usually what he does too when he’s sober, btw) that he said those things to her. Now, I don’t drink, but as far as I know people on hangover usually have headaches so it’s not weird that they will avoid noises and I remember Kevin saying a few minutes before that he was on hangover.

I also remember that he immediately regretted it and apologized to Madison, but she didn’t listen and left (I don’t blame her). And when she walked away he was hit by a dose of consciousness and realized his was being “an ass” and apologized to his family. She wasn’t the only one, he was snapping at everybody, because it wasn’t Madison, Randall or anyone else that was annoying him. It wasn’t personal. It was the stress of the entire situation that was making Kevin take it out on everybody. Plus, even though he didn’t specifically snap at Zoe, when he went outside to get some air and clear his head, she offered him company and Kevin shut her out.

CREDIT: https://thisiskevison.tumblr.com/post/618572824853069824/im-sorry-what-exactly-are-you-doing-here

By the way, Kevin bumped into Madison when he was getting out of the elevator and attempted to apologize for a second time.

Another scene people use as an ‘example’ of rudeness is this moment on the season finale, but I sincerely disagree. Here’s why:

Kevin was in the middle of a heated fight with his brother and that was almost getting physical when Madison arrived for the party.

And when she showed up at the door he just told her the truth: it wasn’t a good time.

Now, does that look like an angry, utterly annoyed and disdainful face for you? Because the way I see it, it’s just a guy who’s weary and not in his best state of mind, which is comprehensible since he was in a middle of an argument, his mother’s health is deteriorating, Randall had talked her into doing a clinical trial in the other side of the country despite her previous refusal and that’s just SOME of the heavy stuff he was dealing with at that specific moment.

However, Madison doesn’t bother and enters the place anyway.

And Kevin doesn’t yell at her, protest or leaves, he just lets her in and closes the door.

Again: does this look like he hates Madison so much like some people make it seem?

THIS is being annoyed and/or angry:

CREDIT: https://rostovarps.tumblr.com/post/165520445651/kevin-pearson-in-this-is-us-01x07-the-best

CREDIT: https://adyadintheforce.tumblr.com/post/177326964546/shame-on-all-of-us

And this is just being upset, tired, feeling like all your energy has been drained out of your body:

If you watch the scene, his face on the picture above and on this gif has identical expressions:

CREDIT: https://ltbelanna.tumblr.com/post/189147462109/this-is-us-4x08-sorry-im-sorry-me-too-see

And really, how did these people expect him to react? Did they expect him to smile, kiss her and propose a second round of hookup? His reaction made perfect sense to everything that was happening at the time.

Do they believe things would’ve been different if it had been someone else at the door, like Kate’s neighbor Gregory or somebody from her support group? Do they think that if it had been another person he would’ve hugged them, offer coffee and crack jokes? That the problem was Madison and not the situation he was in with Randall and Rebecca? 

Anywaaaay, by the end of their conversation he had already softened up and was even slightly smiling at her. 

CREDIT: https://millennial-mess.tumblr.com/post/613565105725194240/im-so-sick-of-chasing-ghosts-im-tired-of

CREDIT: https://madsdefencesquad.tumblr.com/post/620438418688704513/you-da-best

Sure, it wan’t a wide smile because it wasn’t like his problems had disappeared all of a sudden, but he had found a silver lining in the midst of everything.

And being exhausted, upset, annoyed, stressed or angry is part of the human experience and part of being in a relationship of ANY KIND: romantic, platonic, familial. Taking it out on someone can happen sometimes as well. It’s not always sunshine and rainbows. People are not perfect. People are not robots. They navigate through negative feelings and emotions too. It’s how things are in real life and also how things are on television, specially on This Is Us, which is a show that focuses on relationships and emotions.

Jack and Rebecca, Beth and Randall, Kate and Toby, Randall and Kevin, Kevin and Kate, Nicky and Kevin, Kevin and Sophie, William and Randall, Kevin and Cassidy all had moments like this... The list goes on. Would the same people define these relationships/friendships as unsuccessful and fake because of a few unfriendly moments? I doubt it, because what really defines a relationship as healthy and successful is the people’s ability to recognize their own mistakes, forgive each other, work on themselves as individuals and as friends/a couple/a family and getting even closer and stronger after facing the hardships. It’s not smiling, talking, hugging and kissing 24/7 because nobody does that. Maybe for a few days and weeks, but you won’t last even a month behaving like this, let alone YEARS.

And the complications are also what keep the story interesting and engaging. I don’t mean something like toxicity and abuse, but if couples, relatives and friends don’t disagree, argue and face problems out and within their relationship, the show doesn’t go anywhere. There must be conflict. There must be drama. And there must be happiness. It’s about balancing these aspects out.

If they want to watch something that’s always sunshine and rainbows and where the characters are always happy, they should watch a TV show targeted to three-year-old children, because honestly This Is Us has never been and will never be this kind of show. 

And we know Kevin has a pregnant fiancee on season 5 and since This Is Us is not a soap opera, I seriously doubt Kevin will go out there impregnating multiple women with multiple children and multiple sets of twins. I reckon it’s safe to say it’s Madison. That means they will go through one of the most amazing and yet vulnerable and challenging experiences two people can ever face and instead of pulling them apart, it will only bring them closer to the point they will get engaged. For me, this sounds like a relationship that is DEFINITELY WORKING.

[starspatter]

Heroes and Thieves, Ch. 7

Title: Heroes and Thieves Fandom/Universe: BTAS, pre/post-RotJ flashback

Summary: A story about second chances, healing, and having hope.

Rating: PG-13, for references to character death, child psychological torture and trauma.

Genre: Romance/Family/Friendship/Hurt/Comfort

Word Count: 2,067 Previous Chapters: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Also on ff.net and AO3.

Well time has a way of throwing it all in your face The past, she is haunted, the future is laced Heartbreak, you know, drives a big black car Swear I was in the back seat, just minding my own

-Gregory Alan Isakov, "Big Black Car"

Now.

“The Bat Signal is not a toy, Ms. Brown.”

Startled, Stephanie swerved around at the sudden emergence of a man swathed in black from the shadows, cloak whipping wordlessly in the wind.  She hadn’t even heard him arrive on the rooftop.

How does he do that?

“You know my name?”

She asked, flustered.

“I make it my business to know.  You’re Stephanie Brown, daughter of Crystal and Arthur Brown, a.k.a. Cluemaster. …Tim Drake’s girlfriend.”

Stephanie blinked, sighing before lowering her mantle and removing the guise’s (apparently ineffectual) inner layer, letting luminescent locks fall free around her shoulders.  (Reasoning that if the cops hadn’t come up to bust her by now, then it seemed rather unlikely they’d show up anytime soon.)  …Wish I knew what the heck to do with my hair under this thing, she thought idly as she combed her hand through the tangles.  Maybe I should try putting it in a ponytail or something.

“Then you probably know why I called you here then.  Sorry about the theatrics,” she gestured towards the spotlight, “But I figured this was the fastest way to get your attention.”

“Tim told you about our history together.”

“Some of it.  He wouldn’t tell me why you two split up.”

There was a palpable beat.

“If he didn’t see fit to explain, then it’s not my place to intervene.”

“Please, Mr. Wayne.”  Those crescent slits narrowed at equally intimate address.  “I think I deserve to know at this point.”

“This isn’t any of your business, Ms. Brown.  I suggest you go home, and get rid of that silly costume.”

Like yours is any less ridiculous.

“This isn’t a game.  Quit before you get yourself into trouble.”

Holy déjà vu.

She crossed her arms frankly, standing firm.

“Tim said the same thing.  I’m getting real sick and tired of hearing it.”

“He’s right.  The streets are far too risky, especially for someone like you.”  There was a rough rigor to his tenor; like a razor blade scraping severely against the grain, incisive and insistent.  Deliberately rubbing salt and steel into the wound until it irritated. “I’ve seen how you operate: rash, reckless, impulsive, impetuous – not thinking before you act.  You might believe you’re being brave – that you’re endeavoring to prove something by jumping directly into danger, putting yourself in the constant thick of threats – but you’re just behaving brashly like a child. A person of your kind doesn’t belong in this field.”

Stephanie bristled at the blunt onslaught, blue irises burning boldly defiant.

“You don’t understand: My dad was supposed to be dead, and now he shows back up again in Gotham like nothing happened – except now he’s committing crimes without even leaving clues.  I couldn’t just stand aside and let him get away with it.  I had to do something.  After all, I’ve got a stake in this.”

Batman made a smothered sound, like a pained grunt – as if someone had just punched him in the gut.

“You sound just like he did.  All you stupid kids, don’t know what you’re getting into.”

“I know that without me you wouldn’t have been able to figure out the next place my father was planning to hit.”

Admit it, that “chopping mall” clue was a stroke of genius.

“And your assistance in bringing him down during the heist is appreciated. But this ends tonight.  You should leave the crimefighting to trained professionals.”

“I just wanted to help…”

Batman took a step forward, looming ominously over her.  His voice was dangerous.

“You don’t know what you want.  None of you ever did.”

Despite the fierce menace in his tone, she staunchly stood her ground, eyes stubborn and challenging as she declined to back down.  Her opponent carried on lecturing:

“You’ve accomplished your mission; succeeded in putting your father in jail.  Now that you’ve gotten your revenge, there’s no more reason for you to continue this fight anymore.  I suppose you’re just doing this now for fun, for the thrill.  Because you think it’s ‘cool’.”

Stephanie clenched her fists.  He had struck a chord, but she didn’t take kindly to being patronized either, her entire motivations being put down, brushed aside just like that.

“That’s not the only reason.  I mean, yeah this just kinda started out as a goof to get back at my dad of course, and sure I’ll confess I do get a kick out of the rush – but there’s more to it than that. I may not be all that smart or skilled at… anything really.  But this – this is something I can do to help others.  People in need.  For the first time in my life, it feels like I’m really doing something worthwhile, that I’m doing some good.  Like I’m making a real difference.  I’m doing this… I don’t know.  Not even for me.”  She turned towards the skyline, surveying over the (for the moment at least) peacefully sleeping city, lights reflecting above and below.  “I’m doing this for all of them.”

Batman stared at her.

“Regardless, this isn’t your responsibility.”

“And it’s supposed to be solely yours?  You’re just one man in a batsuit, you’re not in charge of this town.  You may be able to handle all the crimes within the city limits, but the suburbs don’t have anyone.  Not even you can be everywhere at once. Hell, no one can carry the weight of the world by himself.”

“This is a vow I took on my own shoulder’s, no one else’s.  I work alone.”

“If you really thought that, why’d you agree to take an apprentice on in the first place?”

While visibly there was no noticeable wince, another wounded growl escaped from the cowl.

“That was a mistake.”

“Oh really?  I’ve seen how you operate: Ever since you’ve gone partnerless, you’ve been colder, harsher, overly aggressive, and more unforgiving than ever before.  Everyone’s noticed; it’s been all over news reports everywhere, criminals claiming to be the ‘victims’ of vigilante violence. All the tabloids assume you’ve gone off the deep end, that you’ve finally cracked – or that you were off your rocker all along.  That’s why they say even the police won’t cooperate with you anymore.”  She looked towards the tarp lying on the ground, which had been covering the searchlight up to now.  Lucky for her they hadn’t removed the apparatus entirely.  “You accuse me of being hotheaded, but I could say the exact same of you.  Heck, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say you seem to have some sort of death wish.”

“How I conduct myself is none of your concern.”

“It is when there are people suffering for it.  Tim included.  The truth is Batman needs a Robin, doesn’t he?  Since your parents died, you need – want company.  Otherwise you’ll go crazy, doing what you do all the time.  Anyone would.”

Way to play psychoanalyst with the most famous and powerful – not to mention richest – man in Gotham, girl.

Batman held her undeterred gaze.

“…You really do sound just like him.”

Grudgingly, he gruffly acknowledged the comparison – though it wasn’t quite a concession.

Still, Stephanie seized on the opening.

“Seriously, just what the hell happened?  You two used to be such a great team.  You guys were a legend, the ‘Dynamic Duo’ and all that.  Nightwing and Batgirl too, whatever happened to them?”

His answer was aggravatingly simple.

“Things change.”

Why do I get the feeling I’ve heard that somewhere before?

She exhaled in exasperation, sensing the discussion was going in circles. She wasn’t about to allow such curt tautology cut her off though.

“You used to mean something to people.  This,” she pointed purposefully at the symbol in the sky, before jabbing at the mirrored center of his chest, “…used to mean something.  Sure, you could be scary sometimes, but it was clear that you cared.  Now, it’s like all the lives you save don’t even matter anymore.  All that exists in your mind – or your heart, whatever’s left of it – that is, assuming you even still have one – is darkness and dread.  Am I wrong?”

Her assertive allegation was met with stony silence.  Tentatively, she tried to uplift the weight on the conversation somewhat.

“Not everything has to be about fear.  There’s room in our line of work for hope too, you know.”

Again, he merely remained mute, scrutiny slanting into the distance.

All right, fine.  Don’t answer me.

Growing annoyed by such obstinate reticence (which she recognized all too well at this point; it was no wonder where her boyfriend got it from) and desperate for some sort of reaction, she attempted to return again to the original topic – her whole goal for summoning this guy’s big broody butt in the first place.

“Look, I’m sure you’re as aware as I am this isn’t just about me trying to barge in on your territory – your private little crusade – is it?  I don’t mean to pry open old wounds just for the sake of sating my curiosity either.  Something obviously happened between you two – something that changed him – that changed the both of you – and I need to know what in order to get through to him.”  She placed a palm on her breast, clutching and curling fretful fingers against cloth as she bit her lip, baring honest emotion.  “I want to be able to understand what he’s going through, but every time I try to get him to talk about it, he won’t let me near.  Refuses to open up, shuts me out just like you’ve been doing all night.”

His vision panned back slowly, restoring rapt concentration.  Again, those slim slivers of snow were silent, searching – scant headlights scanning in the dark.  Stark and cold against coal, yet somewhere within seemed to spark a vestige of warmth; like stoking, coaxing the burnt out ashes of an old flame to stir and rise again.  To remember.

“Tim means a lot to you.”

“The whole world.  He’s a great guy.”

“Greater than he knows.”

“Please,” she begged, “Let me help him at least.  I’m worried about him.”

He regarded her unwavering expression, gauging sincerity.

“…You really care for him, don’t you?”

She nodded, thinking to herself that- despite his still-outwardly icy demeanor, there was indeed a thaw in his throat, a slight swell of sympathy slipping through the grave gravel.

He rotated with a sharp whisk of cape, heading for the edge of the roof.

“Come with me.”

She followed, taking cue to simultaneously fumble for her cheap grapple as he reached for his own (no doubt state-of-the-art) device.  Whilst descending down the decel line, Batman pressed a button on his utility belt, and a rumble hummed from down the road as a long, sleek, jet-black vehicle charged along the street, skidding to a stop right in front of them as they alighted on the sidewalk.  The hood automatically slid back upon recognizing its owner, inviting within the depths of its leather wings.

HolycraptheBatmobile.

She hesitated as he walked round to the driver’s side and climbed in, casting an expectant – impatient – glance at his guest.

“Well.  Hurry up and get in.”

“O- okay.”

Dear Diary, whatever you do, don’t tell my mom I agreed to get into a strange car in the middle of the night with a shady man wearing a mask.  Pretty sure she’d flip her shit.

She hopped in after, settling against the cozy cushions.  Leave it to a billionaire to be able to afford the best quality sitting material.  Admiring the impressive array of controls on the dashboard, she figured the machine in itself probably cost more than her whole house combined.

“Hang on,” he warned as they lurched forward, “And don’t touch anything.”

Stephanie hastily withdrew her itchy fingers from the nearest knob, sweating nervously.

“Can I ask what this does at least?”

“Passenger seat ejector.”

She shrank back sullenly, leaning slumped into the lavish upholstery.

Mock me at your peril, masked man.

As they sped past buildings and streetlamps, Steph inquired with a hunch as to their destination:

“So are we going to your hideout?”

“I prefer to think of it as a lair.”

She couldn’t tell whether that was supposed to be a joke or not.  Either way, she couldn’t help but feel a hint of giddy excitement at her current situation.  Not many people could proudly proclaim they got to ride in the freakin’ Batmobile once during their lives.

Cool.

Hope was a letter I never could send Love was a country we couldn't defend

And through the carnival we watch them go round and round All we knew of home was just a sunset and some clowns

[pamphletstoinspire]

Articles on Catholic Theology and Teachings - Part 2 - Angels

Thrones were set up and the Ancient One took his throne…His throne was flames of fire, with wheels of burning fire. A surging stream of fire flowed out from where he sat; Thousands upon thousands were ministering to him, and myriads upon myriads attended him. –Daniel 7:9-10

Nearly all people have heard of angels or are at least familiar with pictures of them in popular culture. Yet, few perhaps, actually understand the nature of these creatures and their relationship with humans. Most have seen the paintings of the Renaissance Masters, which depict angels (especially cherubim) as babies with wings. Of course the masters wished to equate the innocence of the angels with the innocence of newborn children. Unfortunately, this popular image had lead to confusion and misunderstandings about the most mysterious of God’s creatures.

What exactly is an angel?

The word "angel" means messenger. Truly, this reflects the office of the angels and their relationship with humans. As such, it should be realized that the word "angel" does not properly describe their nature; it only describes what they do in relationship to us. Angels are more properly referred to as "spirits", for this is what they are. An angel is an incorporeal spirit of great power and intelligence. They are at the very pinnacle of the order of God’s creation. Their spiritual nature is closest to the image of God, and thus they have great power and intellect (although not necessarily charity).

It is important to realize that an angel is not a dead human; in other words we do not become angels when we die and pass on to heaven. Angels are as different from humans as animals are from us. Humans are endowed with sentience, conscience and a measure of intellect which divides us from the animals. In a similar manner, angels are endowed with a power and intellect not proper to man. In a sense, man is a composite creation which blends the nature of the animal (corporeality, instinct, passions) with the nature of the angels (free will, intellect, conscience, sentience and rationality). Thus the angels are not humans, and we can never become one.

We really aren’t alone in the Universe

Some astronomers and UFO buffs spend their life searching for other intelligent life in the universe. Although such a search is interesting and exciting, they are probably not aware (or don’t believe) that non-human intelligent life has already been discovered and was known to primal man. Angels, of course, are the intelligent life that we know exist by the testimony of the prophets and the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, Scripture only mentions angels a few times and thus we know little about them. When they choose to communicate with humans it is always by the will of God, and they serve as messengers from God. Angels can manifest themselves in corporeal form when they wish to communicate with us.

The nature of the Angels

St. Thomas Aquinas speculated on the nature of the angels from the vantage point of Scholastic philosophy. Aquinas used a synthesis of philosophy and Scripture (called Scholasticism) to speculate on the nature, powers and ordering of the angels.

He believed that angels had three primary roles given to them by God. Their first role was to worship God. The blessed angels of heaven, which were not corrupted by Satan in the beginning of time, are able to gaze on the revealed nature of God and contemplate the mystery of the Trinity. In this way, the formidable intellect of the angels allows them to dwell on the infinite glory and goodness of God. As the psalmist records, "Adore Him, all you His angels" (Ps 96:7). This is the bliss of heaven; a bliss which sharpens the mind and brings eternal tranquility and charity.

The second major role of the angels is to implement the will of God. God uses the angels to order creation, implement the laws of the physical world and aid in the spiritual deliverance of man. The psalms records, "Bless the Lord, all ye His angels: you that are mighty in strength and execute His word, harkening to the voice of his orders" (Ps 102:20). There are many occasions in Scripture which record the implementation of God’s will in the physical world by the angels (Exo 14:19, Mt 13:49, 1 Chron 21). Additionally, they also petition God with prayers on our behalf (Tob 12:12, Mt 18:10). Aquinas also believed that God assigns a guardian angel to each person. On our behalf, the angel prays for us and protects us from the evil angels (Mt 18:10). God’s use of the angels to implement his will is appropriate to a good God who values a familial relationship of charity between angels and men.

Finally, angels serve as messengers from God. Scripture records that the prophets received messages from God through angels. Indeed, the Virgin Mary received the good news of salvation from the angel Gabriel. Many of the prophets such as Ezekiel, Daniel, Abraham, and Isaiah received prophecies from the angels (Ezekiel 1:4, Daniel 7:16,.Genesis 22:11, Isaiah 6:2).

Ordering of the Angels

Aquinas believed that the angels were not equal in power and intellect. Indeed, based on the readings of St. Paul’s letter to the Colossians and to the Ephesians (Eph 1:21 and Col 1:16) St. Aquinas surmised that the angels can be divided into nine choirs (groups). Each choir has a distinct power and duty that sets it apart from the others.

The first and most powerful of the angelic choirs is the Seraphim. The prophet Isaiah described the Seraphim in a prophetic vision:

"I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple. Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft. ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!’ they cried one to the other. ‘All his earth is filled with his glory!’ At the sound of the cry, the frame of the door shook and the house was filled with smoke" (Isaiah 6:2).

The rich imagery of Isaiah reveals that the Seraphim are closest to the throne of God. This means that they perceive God in the richest way possible for a created being and thus they have an unmatched intellect, will and love. The Seraphim’s only task is to worship God in perpetual adoration. Seraphim are distinct from the other choirs of angels in that the burn with an intense ardor of charity. It is said that the charity of the Seraphim burns like white heat in a flame. As such, the Seraphim would appear to a man as a terrible lord of power and might; but the fear of the Seraphim would not come from fear of the angel, rather it would come from the comparison between the purity of the angelic being and the sin in our own souls.

The second choir of angels are the Cherubim. Cherubim are the angels which are often depicted as babies with wings in Christian art. Indeed, the good angelic Cherubim have an innocence that surpasses a human infant. As the choir with the second highest nature among the angels, Cherubim have the fullness and excess of knowledge. This perfection of knowledge, according to Dionysius, comes from the perfect vision of God, the full reception of the divine light, contemplation in God of the beauty of the divine order and their wiliness to share it with all others. However, the high nature of this choir of angels does not guarantee their moral goodness. For as Aquinas notes, Satan the source of evil and prince of darkness is a member of the choir of Cherubim (Ezekiel 28:14).

The third choir of angels are the Thrones. These angels are grouped with the Seraphim and the Cherubim in the first order of angels. Thrones are the lowest choir of the first order. Yet, "they are raised up so as to be the familiar recipients of God in themselves, in the sense of knowing immediately the types of things in Himself" (Summa Theologica Q. 108 A.6 P.1). The Thrones are said to be the way by which God accomplishes his judgements (St. Gregory).

The second order of angels is composed of the choirs of the Dominations, Virtues and Powers. This order of angels is charged with governing and ordering the laws of the created universe. The Dominations, which is the choir of angels at the preeminence of the order, are given the duty of appointing those things which are to be done by the Virtues and Powers. The choir of Virtues are charged with giving the power with which to accomplish the ordering of Nature. Finally, the choir of Powers are given the duty to order out how to execute what has been commanded. The choir of Powers direct the lower choirs on how to order creation.

The last order of angels is most familiar to man. This order is comprised of the Principalities, Archangels and Angels. Principalities are the leaders of the last order, and direct the actual implementation of God’s will. Archangels and angels actually carry out and execute what is to be done. This is why angels (such as Gabriel and Raphael) are the choir sent to communicate with man.

Goodness of the Angels

Moral goodness is not something that is dependent on the nature of a created being. The nature of a creature is the innate powers and potential given to a being by God. Because free will is a necessary part of the nature of man and angel, there exists the possibility of sin. Angels can, and have, sinned. Indeed, the original creation of God was perfect and moral in every possible way. Unfortunately, Satan (for reasons we can only speculate on) a good Cherubim, decided to selfishly seek and increase his own glory and power beyond the limits set by God. When he refused to submit to the will of God he committed the first of all sins: the sin of pride. When Satan sinned in pride, he convinced many other angels to follow him into submission and evil. For this sin, he was expelled from heaven forever and was denied the immediate vision of God. The good angels who resisted Satan’s temptations were admitted into the immediate vision of God and became firmly rooted in virtue. For this reason, the angels who resisted the first sin are no longer capable of sinning; they have made a permanent and indelible choice to submit to the love of God. The fallen angels, or devils as we now call them, are likewise permanently rooted in sin. It is not possible for a devil to repent of his sins.

This fact partially explains why belief in angels is a primary dogma of Catholic faith. Without belief in angels, there is no possible explanation for the existence of evil in the good creation of God.

[thewebofslime]

Kenyon Gibson is the author of Awkar al-sharr (Nest of Evil), which is an Arabic translation of his book Common Sense: A Study of the Bushes, the CIA, and the Suspicions Regarding 9/11. He is also coauthor of Hemp for Victory. [Woody Harrelson is a co-author]. Gibson has worked undercover for years, as an investigative reporter and in intelligence for the US Navy. By Ken Gibson The phone rang and I knew who it was even before I looked at the screen, which flashed the words IZMO MARINE; Mark Epstein’s former company. Earlier in the day, he had lost his only brother: Jeffrey. For weeks, I had been predicting Jeffrey’s demise. Mark, I reasoned, would be safe as long as Jeffrey lived. Certain people wanted Jeffrey cold in earth, and they wanted this done quietly. Getting rid of Mark would only make noise, making it harder to eliminate their main target: prisoner #76318-054 in the Manhattan Correctional Center. Mark Epstein is said to be concerned he might wind up dead like his brother, Jeffrey. According to Ken Gibson, Mark does not think his brother committed suicide but believes his brother is definitely deceased. [Photo Jan Benda.] Once that was accomplished, the secrets that Jeffrey had expressed a willingness to divulge in return for leniency, would be left to very few. His younger sibling, for instance. Those who secured Jeffrey’s omerta would have no qualms about ensuring their own liberty while creating a little business for undertakers. Mark claims to be an honest businessman; on the phone, he insisted that he had not spoken to his brother in 10 years. Mark Epstein claimed he had not spoken to brother Jeffrey in 10 years. Not only are there questions about that statement, but also questions about Mark’s financial empire. Questions which could lead Mark to occupy the same facility his brother did. He, too, could be faced with decisions about turning state’s evidence. These questions had been in my mind since the Spring of 2012. That was when we met, and at first, it looked like the beginning of a beautiful friendship. He would listen to my stories of infiltrating neo-Nazis in London and New York, allowing me into his Vandam Street apartment. For years I kept a file on him, updating it on occasion, as when he hosted a teacher from Horace Mann school who had sexually abused his students. This he did at an event at Cooper Union, his Alma-mater. Cooper Union is a school in lower Manhattan, known for its free tuition. Both brothers attended, benefiting from this policy, which Mark, as a director, tried to do away with. The students saw fit to do away with him; he is no longer a director. Tuition remains free. While Mark did not pay for his education, he thought it right that others pay for theirs. The same might be said of his housing. In 1992, he acquired, from Leslie Wexner, a close associate of Jeffrey’s, a large residential building at 301 East 66th Street. While some of the 220 apartments are privately owned, the majority are his. Documents relating to the transfer of the property show the amount paid: $0.00. Somehow Mark Epstein acquired property from Leslie Wexner – just like his brother Jeffrey did. What is the connection between Wexner and Mark Epstein? Mark Epstein owns most of the apartments at 301 East 66th Street It is not the only building he owns. 515 Greenwich Street belongs to him, where I rented an art studio he had listed in the Village Voice. As payment, he wanted the sum of $666 a month, which I amended to $667 – for obvious reasons. I stayed but seven weeks, as that is how long it took for me to make the mistake of letting him know that, in addition to investigating racist groups, I also worked on cases involving politicians and child sex abusers. The moment I did, I sensed a strange look on his face and a lull in the conversation. I tried not to let him see me looking at the playpens in his apartment, which had always seemed a bit out of place with the grand pianos in the home of a bachelor. That night, I heard a loud bang on the door. Mark was on the other side, yelling at me that I had to leave at that moment. He is not above performing an illegal eviction, for which a previous tenant challenged him in court and won substantial damages. Not wishing to spend long hours in a courtroom, I agreed to leave in a fortnight. We parted company at the end of April 2012. Until the day of Jeffrey’s death, I had not spoken to Mark. I resolved, however, to know just what Mark was up to, as I was not quite sure that his wealth was really generated from the silkscreen business. I took that story to be a smokescreen. It is oft-repeated on the internet, the name Izmo appearing in articles about him, but I have yet to see any credible record of it generating serious revenues. Did Mark Epstein really amass a fortune from the silkscreen business? Press Has Tread Lightly on Mark Epstein – Maybe That Will Change The press has been kind to Mark over the years; few questions of his source of income ever get into print. I contacted people at the New York Times whom I knew, having been a source of information to the Gray Lady for over a decade, but to no avail. James Stewart, its head financial reporter, heard me out but did nothing with the information I provided. Stewart had been privy to Jeffrey’s lifestyle, going so far as to visit him at his East 71st Street townhouse. Another of the NYT’s financial reporters, Landon Thomas Jr., had actually taken a $30,000 donation from Jeffrey. Then there is the inconvenient fact that the president of the NYT, Stephen Dunbar-Johnson, is in Jeffrey’s ‘black book’, the list of contacts that ended up published on the internet. And yet another, perhaps more inconvenient fact, is that Joicho Ito, who sat on the board at the Gray Lady, accepted $1.7 million from the felon. Joicho Ito is a Japanese activist, entrepreneur and venture capitalist. He is the former director of the MIT Media Lab, and a former professor of the practice of media arts and sciences at MIT. Ito has received recognition for his role as an entrepreneur focused on Internet and technology companies and has founded PSINet Japan, Digital Garage and Infoseek Japan. Ito is a strategic advisor to Sony Corporation and general partner of Neoteny Labs. Ito resigned from his roles at MIT, Harvard, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Knight Foundation, PureTech Health and The New York Times Company on September 7, 2019, following allegations of financial ties to sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein. My hopes of getting the press to take the story on Mark Epstein were slim. The Wall Street Journal seemed rabidly enthusiastic, calling me from their London offices and begging for an exclusive. Which I tried to grant, but on the condition that freelance writer Davis Richardson be involved. My contact at the WSJ sent me long texts and emails disapproving of his involvement. When they did do a story on him, I was not impressed. Freelance journalist Davis Richardson has written for the Observer, Vice, The Daily Beast, The Daily Caller and Wired. Gibson wanted him to help with the Mark Epstein story. But I was impressed with Richardson, a young journalist up from the Beltway area, who was then working for the Observer and contributing to both Daily Beast and Daily Caller. I took him with me to talk to people who knew the Epsteins, including Stuart Pivar, a founder of the New York Academy of Art. He, along with Andy Warhol, started that in 1982. Pivar talked at length about them to Richardson and me, stating: “I’ve seen Jeffrey do lots of bad things to lots of people.” I told Pivar that Jeffrey was not long for this world and that Mark would be a target as well. Pivar took it in stride, while his entourage looked happy to end the conversation. Richardson and I went to Mark’s downtown buildings and took notes, finding Mark’s car with Pennsylvania plates. A week later, Richardson called me, telling me to show up at the East 66th Street location [Epstein’s building], to which he was being granted inside access. We came, we saw, and we were overwhelmed. Mark Epstein’s apartments were fit for kings, with a doorman and a spacious entrance hall adorned with murals. From the roof, a view of the East Side commanded respect and demanded we take pictures. The residences were well worth the king’s ransom that neither of us could afford. Richardson continued to dig. In early August, he called me to ask me what I knew about the Humpty Dumpty Institute. “The what”?, I replied. The Humpty Dumpty Institute [HDI], with offices located on West 46th Street, was founded in 1988 by Constance Milstein, heiress to the Emigrant Savings Bank fortune and a major Clinton donor. On their website, Mark is listed as a director. The HDI Congressional Advisory Board lists some 30 or more Congress members. Affiliates had ties to Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey’s partner-in-deeds, and to her now-defunct charity, Terra Mar. On 5 August, I started to call some of the congressmen named on the ‘Humpty Dumpty’ list, telling their aides that I would like to pose some questions. Each time, I was given an email to follow up with, and I did so. I resumed this task on 9 August, but found that I was getting hostile receptions, and having to answer lots of questions from the aides about why I was asking questions. They seemed very sensitive to questions. I told them I was preparing a report for the Senate, which they did not like to hear. US Rep. Barbara Lee’s aide refused to give her name or that of anyone in Lee’s office. US Rep. Gregory Meeks’ staff asked lots of questions but gave no answers. Unbeknownst to me, Davis Richardson had published an article about the Humpty Dumpty Institute on the Daily Caller site. It went up on 7 August, and I was getting the fallout. To make matters worse, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was calling for an investigation about Mark. However, when I called her office and left my contact details, I got no response. I did get excellent response from both her challenger, Miguel Hernandez in New York’s 14th congressional district, and a candidate in the 13th, Henry Grullon. Their support lifted my spirits, made low after hours of performing this unpleasant task with dozens of lawmakers’ staff. I expected that at least a few would answer the three simple questions: When did they join Humpty Dumpty’s advisory board, who introduced them, and how well did they know Mark Epstein? None did answer any of the questions. But the press seemed to be waking up. From England, I got a call from Tony Gosling, a controversial journalist with a weekly radio show. When he asked about what ‘Humpty Dumpty’ might be up to, I bluntly replied that it might be a front for child rapists going to Third World countries to find victims. Gosling touched on the suspicions that Jeffrey might have been an intel agent, possibly for Mossad, and I gave a dissenting opinion, pointing out that while the logic of associating a Jew with the Mossad was to a degree logical, it was illogical to conclude that he was an Israeli spy when it was found that most of the people he would be presumed to have spied on were Jews and Israelis. I did bring up a new angle to it all when I mentioned that I had information that China might be behind it. Could China Be Involved? Years ago, shortly before I met Mark, I had been introduced to a Chinese agent – or former agent, as he had fallen out with his handlers in Beijing over his relationship with an Uyghur woman. He had told me many things that I did not understand at the time about Chinese involvement in US politics, and their ability to use patsies to carry out their projects, thus hiding their hand. Spy uses spy. The great game can be quite deceptive. And it can be dangerous. In fact, I had been stabbed while arresting a drug dealer in 1994. I too could have been cold in earth, and this reality was not lost on me. Quite recently, a contact at the Department of Homeland Security reminded me to watch my back. The former Marine with this concern for my safety was also my confidante, privy to my infiltration of neo-Nazis for over a decade. While most in this neo-Nazi crowd do not have a lot going for them, some do, including a character recently named in the press as ‘X’. Based in London, ‘X’ had recently gotten in contact with Jason Jorjani, an Iranian dissident based in New York. Jorjani was told that he would be assisted in making changes in Iran if he joined forces with Michael Bagley, then head of Jellyfish. The two met a number of times, and Jorjani was told that Bagley had presented Donald Trump with a plan to make a revolution in Iran. Not only was Trump supposed to be involved, but so was Michael Flynn. Jorjani may have doubted the veracity of all this or realized that he was in over his head. He went to the press with his stories of Bagley, Flynn, and ‘X’, saying that there may have also been a ‘Y’ and a ‘Z’. It is possible that he was alluding to me in the latter references, as Jorjani had been put in touch with me by ‘X’, who wanted me to get Richard Spencer a place in the Trump victory party. Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American neo-Nazi and white supremacist. He is president of the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist think tank, as well as Washington Summit Publishers. Gibson went undercover to investigate and report on neo-Nazis. The Trump people wanted nothing to do with Spencer, and neither did I in reality. Far from being the right-wing, quasi-criminal that they took me for, I was feeding information on all of them to the press and to government agencies. And I did the latter as a precaution so that any misunderstandings that could result from my interactions with foreign governments and the flow of classified information that found its way into my hands might be quickly resolved with a phone call to people with top security clearances who knew what I was up to. ‘X’ had introduced me to a lot of people over the years – Rui Gabirro, Gary Krupp, and a former US Navy nuke with top security clearance who was working on a classified deal to give Egypt nuclear power: Robert Abtey. I was getting involved with government actors, and there were sometimes questions as to which government they might be acting for. People are not always who they say they are. Which could be the case in the press, where I met with strange resistance. One NYT reporter was initially enthusiastic about all the emails I had from Operations Intelligence and Jellyfish regarding Bagley, but then suddenly backed off. It was left to UK radio host Gosling to out some of my secret information, which he did a few days before the 2016 US election, hosting me on the air in the United Kingdom. I made public information about ‘X’ – aka Jonothon Boulter – and Bagley. At that time, Bagley was involved in Syria, having been granted secret US State Department waivers (which he showed to me a year earlier) to arm rebels and set up refugee camps, that he said would be used as cover. Enter Hillary Clinton The Hillary Clinton State Department had no objections. No surprise, I was also able to tell the listener, as she was well liked by the Iranians, whose agents I had access to in London. I got close to enough to them to be on Iran TV and Press TV with Yvonne Ridley, before the powers that be shut down their operations. Hillary was their woman in the US in 2012, backed by agents from Tehran, who hoped she would win the party nomination for president. Obama took that hope away from them, but she ended up as Secretary of State, and they were happy. With her there, and later with Kerry in as her replacement, Bagley’s escapades were kept under the radar. Boulter developed a plan to make more money from the camps, for which he expected to have UN backing. Hillary Clinton seems to have been favored by certain parties in Iran. Wars are good business, and Bagley went on tour with his ideas, going on the radio in NYC at one point. Bagley, rather than come off as a spook, looked more like a Wall Street executive and Jellyfish was presented more as a PR firm than an outfit with black ops in the Congo and Mexico. What I did not understand were the ties to Clinton and her democrats. I assumed, given the fact that Boulter worked with the New Right (aka the London Forum), that they would support the right-wing, and Trump along with it. Had I known more about Bagley’s background as an aide to senator Patty Murray, I would have known better. Not until Boulter told me that he was not concerned about Trump, and that he had Clinton support for his deals, did I revise my perception. Bagley, after my tip to the officer at the DHS, came under investigation. Shortly before Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest, Bagley was taken in by undercover FBI men for money laundering. Caught red-handed with the greenbacks, he was deemed a flight risk by prosecutors. Of concern to them was the allegation that he had told undercover agents: “I wanna let you know that I’m also moving for [Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada] in Mexico City as well, with his number one guy.” El Mayo is El Chapo’s replacement. It is not the first time that Bagley did not know who he was really talking to. He may have learned by now that people are not always who they say they are. Which brings me to some people who have been mentioned a number of times: The Clintons. Who are they really? Lawyers, governor and first lady, president and first lady… or spies? Drug dealers? Sexual predators? Murderers? I would say yes to all four and more. Not only would I suspect that Bill’s act of giving American technology to China in his White House days was espionage, or that he was a drug dealer in Arkansas or a sexual predator with many more flights on the Lolita Express than he or the Clinton friendly press want to admit, but that he personally gave the order to murder Jeffrey. Somehow, I doubt that Mrs. Clinton is unaware of his activities, making her in my mind an accomplice. Ghislaine Maxwell attends the wedding of Chelsea Clinton. Several weeks ago, Mr. Clinton had lunch at Nello’s on Madison Avenue. Joining him at this uptown eatery was one of the guests at his daughter’s wedding – Ghislaine Maxwell. Not with them was their mutual friend, Jeffrey. He was dining that day downtown, at the MCC. So just what did Clinton and Maxwell discuss? That was the last record of a sighting of Maxwell in the Big Apple, and quite possibly the last sighting of her in public since. Reports of her in Paris, London, Tribeca and Los Angeles all seem to be deliberately planted red herrings, the latter of which was debunked by the Frank Report and the Daily Mail. Both publications tied the Los Angeles pictures to Maxwell’s friend Leah Saffian, an American born lawyer who plies her trade in England, Wales and California. Frank Report broke the story that Leah Saffian may have been responsible for leaking the photoshopped pictures of Ghislaine Maxwell at the In-N-Out fast food restaurant in Los Angeles in August Saffian’s association with Maxwell may have begun in England, when working for the law firm Peters & Peters, which represented one of Maxwell’s brothers in a serious fraud case relating to the embezzlement of the pension funds that occurred when their father, Robert owned the Daily Mirror. Robert was never brought to trial, as he was found dead in the water before the crown prosecution services could make their case. His daughter might be on the run from process servers; one female plaintiff alleges that she acted like a ‘Nazi guard’ in her zeal to serve Jeffrey, and the entire #MeToo movement is on the lookout for her. But despite her zeal in her service to Jeffrey, her loyalty may well be more with Clinton, especially after it was reported that Jeffrey, in a bid to make a deal, was willing to name names. She also might not want her next meal to be in prison, where bad things happen to lots of people. Was Jeffrey Epstein really suicidal? Or was he looking to make a deal that would limit his prison time in return for a candid and robust disclosure of his co-conspirators? So, just who made a bad thing happen to her man? In naming a suspect, motive and opportunity must be examined. Motive here is strong. Suffice it to say that William and Hillary would rather lunch at Nello’s than lunch in the Big House. But the Clintons are not alone as suspects. An examination of opportunity narrows it down to a much shorter list, which still does not exclude a number of other parties, but does place them at the top. Robert Maxwell had an untimely death. Opportunity would only present itself to someone with friends in low places. The New York City prison and justice systems could well be described as low places, and one might say that they are not without people friendly to the Clintons. Given the history of corruption in New York, both city and state, it is not surprising that a prisoner might not make it to the courtroom. Curious Justice System in New York On top of which are the circumstances that surround Jeffrey’s demise; which, being so well known, are not necessary to repeat in this discourse. It might be more of interest to look at the wickedness in high places that supports the thesis that a Clinton might be able to get certain dirty jobs done, perhaps at a dirt-cheap rate. Starting at the top, the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, was himself recently under investigation, which led to the arrest and conviction of eight of his friends; and then stopped short. Andrew Cuomo, New York governor. This governor had nine lives – and eight of them were used up by the arrest of his eight top cronies. Somehow, the investigation stopped short of him. A previous governor, Elliot Spitzer, who was once Attorney General, had to resign in disgrace over his proclivities with prostitutes. Some say he liked to wear a dog collar, crawl on all fours and be whipped by his charges. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office might be expected to be stand above that, were it not for the ties between Cyrus Vance Jr., the DA, and one of Jeffrey’s business associates: Harvey Weinstein, whose prosecution seems to lag. Could it have something to do with the fact that one of the prosecutors on the case, Jennifer Gaffney, resigned her post from the sexual crimes division, taking a job in the private sector, as the Weinstein case made its way to her office? Taken by itself, this is not so suspicious; but taken along with the fact that Gaffney also consented, in 2016, to convicted sex offender Robert Hadden registering as a level 1 sex offender without having to serve any jail time; and that in 2011, she was willing to have another sex offender reduce his offender level from a level 3, the highest, to a level 1, the lowest. Who just happened to be Jeffrey. At the time, the judge, Justice Ruth Pickholz, denied Gaffney’s request and expressed bewilderment at such a motion. Jeffrey, although registered as a top-level sex offender under obligation to check in with the police regularly, never did so, and the DA’s office did not enforce the stipulations even when reminded of them by the police. The justice system here may be full of play-for-pay con artists posing as public servants, waiting to get kickbacks, either in the form of donations or as jobs in the private sector. Viewed from that perspective, it is not hard to see how a rich and powerful person could get a man dead. A counter-argument to that might be that the facility in which Jeffrey was held is under federal jurisdiction; the Justice Department. But that argument holds little weight, and, in fact, could add to the perception that the Clintons could have meddled in the case. It does not in the least ease suspicion, but rather exacerbates it, when it is remembered that the Justice Department once granted a sweetheart deal for a felon with the largest stash of child pornography and bestiality in American history which allowed him to stay out of jail. The prosecutors in New York are not the only ones with a soft spot for serious sex offenders. The one involving child pornography, which occurred in Los Angeles in 1998, was signed off on by Robert Mueller. For unknown reasons, Robert Mueller helped arrange the sweetest plea deal imaginable for David Asimov – son of the late author Isaac Asimov. David Asimov was the lucky perpetrator. But no surprise, as this same Justice Department kept four innocent men in jail for decades for crimes that Whitey Bulger was responsible for. One of these innocents was a WWII hero. Did Bill Clinton Order the Murder of Jeffrey Epstein? Having named the Clintons as suspects, the next step is to apply pressure, or, to use a better word, tension, to get this case cracked. This is not so easy to do with a slack press. But maybe I ought not to expect any support, given the historical record. Did the NYT put any pressure on Hitler back in the day when presented with reports of concentration camps? Did it put any on Stalin when reports of Ukrainians being starved emerged? Did it put any on the State Department when I gave them the inside scoop on Bagley? No, no, and no. In fact, the reporter that denied the Ukrainian starvation reports got a Pulitzer Prize. More recently, the Ed Buck case, which finally made it to the front page – was ignored for years as this wealthy donor to the Democrats was allowed to party on as young black men ended up dead at his house. Edward Bernard Peter Buck is an American businessman, LGBTQ political activist, and Democratic political fundraiser. Two African American men have been discovered dead in Buck’s West Hollywood home since 2017 due to drug overdoses. On September 17, 2019, Buck was arrested and charged with three counts of battery causing serious injury, administering methamphetamine and maintaining a drug house. Buck is awaiting trial. Outraged, one young man’s mother publicly lobbied the Democrat Los Angeles DA to have him arrested but was rudely ignored. A similar case in the 1980s is even more harrowing: that of John Wayne Gacy. Then the parents of a victim made 100 attempts to get the police to investigate. They did so only when the stench of his victims seeped out from under the floorboards, by which time, he had tortured dozens to death. He laughed about it, wearing a clown costume that he used for fundraising. He, too, was a donor to the Democrat party, a candidate for the same, and a ward leader in Illinois. By saying all this, and naming the Clintons as suspects in Jeffrey’s death, it might seem that I am taking aim at that party. I am not, I am in no political party, and am not paid by any party. I would hope that Democrats join me, though I am sure that party loyalists will refuse, just as they did with Buck and Gacy. I would hope that ALL Americans would join me. I would hope that ALL Democrats see through Clinton and his allies, and investigate the Humpty Dumpty congressmen. It is not that I have concern for either of the Epsteins, but that what is going on is of national concern. Everyone needs not just to take a look at it, but to apply real pressure – again – tension is a better word. That word was once used as the title of a film made in 1949, in which Barry Sullivan played Police Lieutenant Collier Bonnabel, who explains that he only knows one way to solve a case: by applying pressure to all the suspects, playing on their strengths and weaknesses, until one of them snaps under the tension. Quite recently, this tactic was proven a success when Frank Parlato exposed Keith Raniere and his NXIVM sex cult. Not surprisingly, its members were donors to Hillary Clinton. It was not easy to get the investigation to go forward. Parlato ended up writing thousands of articles and contacting both major press and government agencies. Tension worked, and now Raniere is in prison and Allison Mack and others are headed there soon. And soon to join them, I hope, will be the Clintons, Mark Epstein, and the Humpty Dumpty congress members.

[theconservativebrief]

Nike’s new ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick sparked outrage among his critics, several of whom demanded a boycott of the brand and took to social media to share pictures of themselves burning its products.

In 2016, Kaepernick, then a member of the San Francisco 49ers, kneeled during the national anthem to draw attention to police killings in communities of color, a protest that critics (including Donald Trump) claimed was unpatriotic. By featuring Kaepernick in its campaign, Nike has positioned itself as an ally to him and, by extension, to the Black Lives Matter movement that shares his stance on policing.

While overall the Kaepernick ad has been a success for Nike — sales jumped by 31 percent shortly after the new campaign debuted — some officials are taking their displeasure with it beyond sneaker burning, with troubling implications. Lawmakers and university officials in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri are trying to use their influence to get constituencies and colleges to sever ties with Nike. It’s a trend that has led to outcry from the public, civil liberties groups, and legislators with opposing viewpoints.

With the tagline “believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything,” Nike’s latest ad campaign — marking the 30th anniversary of its “Just Do It” motto — came out on September 3. E. Ben Zahn III, the mayor of Kenner, Louisiana, wasted little time using his political power to retaliate against the company for using Kaepernick in the ad. Two days after the campaign’s release, Zahn issued a memorandum stating: “Under no circumstances will any Nike product or any product with the Nike logo be purchased for use or delivery at any city of Kenner recreational facility.”

Late Wednesday, Zahn rescinded the new rule after the American Civil Liberties Union warned him that it was unconstitutional — but not before his memo had been shared thousands of times on Twitter and sparked a public protest, in which members of the New Orleans Saints participated.

[embedded content]

“The policy violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against content and viewpoint discrimination because it prevents booster clubs and their members from purchasing … types of apparel that you have targeted as political expression,” an ACLU letter to Zahn explained. “Kenner booster clubs and their members have a protected right to exercise their freedom of expression by buying, and wearing, their chosen sportswear at Kenner facilities.”

Other Louisiana lawmakers criticized the policy as well. In a Facebook post, Kenner City Council member Gregory Carroll called Zahn’s memo “disturbing” and said the mayor issued it without his input. And in a statement rebuking the Nike ban, Democratic Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond noted that the company donated more than $10 million to the state after Hurricane Katrina and that Louisiana faces problems far more serious than Nike’s Kaepernick-led campaign, including one of the nation’s highest infant mortality rates and one of the poorest educational and health care systems.

“Using the current controversy surrounding Nike’s support of Colin Kaepernick as an excuse to rob resources from those who need it most in Kenner is a clear sign of Mayor Zahn’s pandering at the expense of the very children he is entrusted with guiding,” Richmond said. “… Instead of playing petty politics to score cheap points to the detriment of Little League players, Mayor Zahn should be working on behalf of his entire community.”

Christopher Gilbert, an ethics expert and author of There’s No Right Way to Do the Wrong Thing, said that he’s unsure what Zahn’s motives were, but if he made the decision solely based on his personal views, “it’s not the right answer,” he said. “It’s not ethical. If this person is operating for himself, then there are really questionable ethics here.”

Zahn isn’t the only politician attempting to flex his power to target Nike. Tennessee state Sen. Bo Watson (R) announced on Twitter Friday that he’s calling for the Tennessee Office of Legislative Budget Analysis to review all contracts Nike has with state-funded colleges and universities. At least a handful of such schools wear Nike apparel, and Watson says he simply wanted to know “what it’s costing taxpayers to do business with Nike.”

One Tennessee military veteran told a local TV station that although he doesn’t support Kaepernick, he doesn’t believe Tennessee schools should sever their contracts with Nike because of the company’s ad. But Watson has supporters, including fellow Republican state Sen. Todd Gardenhire, who speculated that the athletic wear company just might have to revise its agreements to maintain its contracts with Tennessee schools.

In their rush to undercut Nike in light of its support of Kaepernick, however, these legislators have seemingly overlooked that in 2015, the corporation opened its largest distribution center in Memphis.

Danny D. Glover, the senior political director of Nashville Mayor Karl Dean’s gubernatorial campaign, pointed out the fact in a viral tweet with the hashtag #YouAreHurtingTennesseans. The concern isn’t just that Nike employs thousands of Tennesseans but that these legislators are behaving as if all constituents share their views on Kaepernick.

“We’ve reached the point where the person’s opinion is the person. But conflict of opinions is the way to get to the truth.”

“We’ve reached the point where the person’s opinion is the person,” Gilbert said. “But conflict of opinions is the way to get to the truth. If we concentrate on Nike the personality or Kaepernick the personality, we miss asking what is that person trying to say. We could have a completely real conversation, and Nike has a chance to open the door.”

College campuses are often portrayed as places with a free exchange of ideas, but two private Christian colleges have taken actions that make it clear that they oppose not only Kaepernick’s viewpoints on police brutality but Nike for using him in its ad.

The College of the Ozarks in Point Lookout, Missouri, is removing all Nike logo uniforms. The move is consistent with the school’s announcement last year that it would refuse to play against teams with members who kneel, sit, or turn their backs as the national anthem plays.

“If Nike is ashamed of America, we are ashamed of them,” College of the Ozarks president Jerry C. Davis said in a statement. “We also believe that those who know what sacrifice is all about are more likely to be wearing a military uniform than an athletic uniform.”

Davis’s statement ignores that numerous service members have expressed support for Kaepernick and that some veterans have been killed by police. It also overlooks that freedom of expression, even expression one finds offensive, is one of the nation’s founding principles.

Another Christian school, Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia, announced plans to ban Nike products from the campus store because the administration considers Kaepernick to be “a person known for wearing pigs on his socks, mocking law enforcement, kneeling against our flag, and mocking our troops,” TMU president Emir Caner said in a statement. He noted that he and his family find Kaepernick “reprehensible.”

The college will sell all of its current Nike inventory and not restock it. Afterward, students and staffers who disagree with Caner must leave the TMU campus to buy Nike goods. While Caner surely has supporters, his detractors, including TMU students and alumni, have voiced their disapproval with his decision.

As an alumni and donor, you won’t be seeing anymore of my money. Not just because of this, but because you are stuck in 1940. So sorry to cut ties with a place I had so much fun of.

— Theme Park Beer Drinker (@ThemeParkBeer) September 7, 2018

Some have called Caner’s announcement a publicity stunt because the 2,600-student school had already signed a deal with Adidas. And others have said they simply support Nike and enjoy its products.

Caner has acknowledged that some TMU students disagree with him. But his comments on the controversy reveal that he’s yet to separate his personal views from TMU as a whole.

“As a university, I just can’t have a representation of someone that, in my mind, is as unpatriotic as it is,” he told Georgia news station NBC 11. “It’s not something that Truett McConnell University can stand for.”

Original Source -> Some lawmakers and school officials are trying to ban Nike after its Kaepernick ad 

via The Conservative Brief

[pamphletstoinspire]

THE HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, ACCORDING TO ST. John, FROM THE LATIN VULGATE BIBLE

Chapter 3

PREFACE.

St. John, the evangelist, a native of Bathsaida, in Galilee, was the son of Zebedee and Salome. He was by profession a fisherman. Our Lord gave to John, and to James, his brother, the surname of Boanerges, or, sons of thunder; most probably for their great zeal, and for their soliciting permission to call fire from heaven to destroy the city of the Samaritans, who refused to receive their Master. St. John is supposed to have been called to the apostleship younger than any of the other apostles, not being more than twenty-five or twenty-six years old. The Fathers teach that he never married. Our Lord had for him a particular regard, of which he gave the most marked proofs at the moment of his expiring on the cross, by intrusting to his care his virgin Mother. He is the only one of the apostles that did not leave his divine Master in his passion and death. In the reign of Domitian, he was conveyed to Rome, and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, from which he came out unhurt. He was afterwards banished to the island of Patmos, where he wrote his book of Revelations; In his gospel, St. John omits very many leading facts and circumstances mentioned by the other three evangelists, supposing his readers sufficiently instructed in points which his silence approved. It is universally agreed, that St. John had seen and approved of the other three gospels.

Chapter 3

Christ's discourse with Nicodemus. John's testimony.

1 And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

Notes & Commentary:

Ver. 1. No explanation given.

2 This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God: for no man can do these miracles, which thou dost, unless God be with him.

Ver. 2. By night. Nicodemus was at this time weak in faith, and therefore did not wish to endanger himself by coming to our Saviour in open day, when the enemies of Christ could see him. For many (as this evangelist informs us in chap. xii. ver. 42,) of the chief men also believed in him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess, that they might not be cast out of the Synagogue. (St. Chrysostom) --- It appears from this verse that Jesus Christ wrought many miracles, even in the first year of his preaching: though not very publicly, and amidst the crowd. However, few of those which he performed in Judea are noticed by the evangelist.

3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Ver. 3. No explanation given.

4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born, when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again?

Ver. 4. No explanation given.

5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Ver. 5. Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense. The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. (Witham) --- Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)

6 That which is born of the flesh, is flesh: and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit.

Ver. 6. No explanation given.

7 Wonder not that I said to thee, you must be born again.

Ver. 7. No explanation given.

8 The Spirit breatheth where he will, and thou hearest his voice; but thou knowest not whence he cometh, nor whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Ver. 8. The Spirit breatheth where he will. The Protestant translation has the wind: and so it is expounded by St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril on this verse; as if Christ compared the motions of the Holy Ghost to the wind, of which men can give so little account, whence it comes, or whither it goes. Yet many others, as St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and St. Gregory, understand this expression of the Holy Ghost, of whom it can only be properly said, that he breatheth where he will. (Witham)

9 Nicodemus answered, and said to him: How can these things be done?

Ver. 9. No explanation given.

10 Jesus answered, and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?

Ver. 10. And knoweth not these things. That is, of baptism given by in a visible manner, and you understand not, how will you comprehend greater and heavenly things, if I speak of them? (Witham) --- Many passages, both in the law and the prophets, implied this doctrine of regeneration; for what else can be the meaning of the circumcision of the heart, commanded by Moses; (Deuteronomy x. 16.) of the renewal of a clean and right spirit, prayed for by David; (Psalm l.) of God's giving his people a new heart and a new spirit. (Ezechiel xxxvi. 26, &c.) But the Pharisees, taken up with their rites and traditions, paid little attention to spiritual things of greater moment.

11 Amen, amen, I say to thee: that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony.

Ver. 11. We speak what we know. It may perhaps be asked here, why Christ speaks in the plural number? To this we must answer, that it is the only Son of God, who is here speaking, showing us how the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceeding from both. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

12 If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not: how will you believe if I shall speak to you heavenly things?

Ver. 12. No explanation given.

13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.

Ver. 13. No man hath ascended---but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven. These words, divers times repeated by our Saviour, in their literal and obvious sense, shew that Christ was in heaven, and had a being before he was born of the Virgin Mary, against the Cerinthians, &c. That he descended from heaven: that when he was made man, and conversed with men on earth, he was at the same time in heaven. Some Socinians give us here their groundless fancy, that Jesus after his baptism took a journey to heaven, and returned again before his death. Nor yet would this make him in heaven, when he spoke this to his disciples. (Witham)

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up:

Ver. 14. This comparison of the serpent lifted up in the desert, upon which whoever looked was immediately cured from the bite of the fiery serpents, is a figure of the crucifixion of Christ on Calvary. And we remark, that our divine Saviour makes use of these words, the Son of man must be lifted up or exalted; (exaltari) by which form of expression he would teach us, that he does not consider the cross as a disgrace, but as a glory; (Theophylactus and St. Chrysostom) and moreover, that as the Israelites, bitten by the fiery serpents, were cured by looking upon the brazen serpent, so are Christians cured by looking up with an active faith, replete with love and confidence, on Jesus Christ crucified.

15 That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Ver. 15. No explanation given.

16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

Ver. 16-17. Give his only begotten Son---God sent not his Son into the world. He was then his Son, his only begotten Son, before he sent him into the world. He was not, therefore, his Son, only by the incarnation, but was his Son from the beginning, as he was also his word from all eternity. This was the constant doctrine of the Church, and of the Fathers, against the heresy of the Arians, that God was always Father, and the Son always the eternal Son of the eternal Father. See note on chap. i. ver. 14. (Witham) --- The world may be saved. Why, says St. Augustine, is Christ called the Saviour of the world, unless from the obligation he took upon himself at his birth? He has come like a good physician, effectually to save mankind. The man, therefore, destroys himself, who refuses to follow the prescriptions of his physician. (St. Augustine)

Note:

Ver. 16, 17. Aei Theos, aei uios; ama pater, ama uios. Arius began his heresy by denying this, as it appears in his letter to Eusebius, of Nicomedia, in St. Epiphanius, hær. 69, p. 731.

18 He that believeth in him is not judged: but he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ver. 18. Is not judged. He that believeth, viz. by a faith working through charity, is not judged; that is, is not condemned; but the obstinate unbeliever is judged; that is, condemned already, by retrenching himself from the society of Christ and his Church. (Challoner)

19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

Ver. 19. The judgment. That is, the cause of his condemnation. (Challoner)

20 For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

Ver. 20. No explanation given.

21 But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

Ver. 21. No explanation given.

22 After these things, Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized.

Ver. 22. And baptized. Not Christ himself, but his disciples. See chap. iv. 2. (Witham)

23 And John also was baptizing in Ennon, near Salem; because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Ver. 23. Salem. A town situated upon the river Jordan, where formerly Melchisedech reigned. (Ven. Bede)

24 For John was not yet cast into the prison.

Ver. 24. No explanation given.

25 And there arose a question between some of John's disciples of John and the Jews, concerning purification.

Ver. 25. No explanation given.

26 And they came to John, and said to him: Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him.

Ver. 26. No explanation given.

27 John answered, and said: A man cannot receive any thing unless it be given him from heaven.

Ver. 27. No explanation given.

28 You yourselves do bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ; but that I am sent before him.

Ver. 28. No explanation given.

29 He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy, because of the bridegroom's voice. This my joy, therefore, is fulfilled.

Ver. 29. He of whom you complain is the bridegroom, and I am the friend of the bridegroom, sent before to prepare his bride; that is, to collect for him a Church from all nations. (Alcuin.) - The servants of the bridegroom do not rejoice in the same manner as his friends: I am his friend, and I rejoice with very great joy, because of the bridegroom's voice. He must increase, and I must decrease; by which words the great precursor demonstrates to the world, that not the least envy with regard to his divine Master rankles in his heart; but on the contrary, that he should be happy to see all his followers desert him, to run to Jesus Christ. (St. Chrysostom)

30 Him must increase, but I must decrease.

Ver. 30. He (Christ) must increase, not in virtue and perfection, with which he is replenished, but in the opinion of the world, when they begin to know him, and believe in him: and in like manner, I must be diminished, when they know how much he is above me. (Witham)

31 He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh from heaven is above all.

Ver. 31. He that cometh from above, meaning Christ. He that is of the earth, meaning himself, is from the earth,[2] is earthly, is but a frail and infirm man; and so speaketh as from the earth: this seems rather the sense, than that he speaketh of, or concerning the earth. See the Greek text. (Witham)

Note:

Ver. 31. Qui est de terra, de terra est, o on ek tes ges, ek tes ges esti, kai ek tes ges lalei. et de terra loquitur.

32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

Ver. 32. What he hath seen and heard. The meaning is not by his senses, but what he knows for certain, having the same knowledge as his eternal Father. See chap. v., ver. 19. And no one; i.e. but few now receive his testimony. (Witham)

33 He that hath received his testimony, hath attested by his seal that *God is true.

Ver. 33. He that hath received his testimony. These following words to the end of the chapter, seem to be the words of St. John the Baptist, rather than of the evangelist. The sense is, whosoever hath believed, and received the doctrine of Christ, hath attested as it were under his hand and seal, that God is true, and hath executed his promise concerning the Messias. (Witham)

34 For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for God doth not give the Spirit by measure.

Ver. 34. Doth not give the Spirit by measure. Christ, even as man, has a plenitude of graces. See chapt. i. ver. 14. And all things, all creatures, both in heaven and earth, are given into his hands, and made subject to him, as man. See 1 Corinthians xv. 26. (Witham)

35 The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand.

Ver. 35. The Father loveth the Son. The Father loveth John, loveth Paul, yet he hath not given all things into their hands. The Father loveth the Son, not as a lord does his servants, not as an adopted Son, but as his only begotten Son; therefore hath he given all things into his hands, that as the Father is, so may the Son be. (St. Augustine)

36 He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Ver. 36. The divinity of the Son is in this chapter proved as clearly as in 1 John v. 7. "There are three who give testimony in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." Which verse is entirely omitted by Luther in his version; for which omission he is severely reproved by Keckerman. But while Catholics and Protestants deduce from this and many other places in Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ, as an indubitable and irrefragable consequence, how may learned Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians read the same texts, and deduce quite contrary consequences? How clearly does this prove that the Bible only cannot prove the exclusive rule of faith. With reason does the Cambridge divinity professor, Dr. Herbert Marsh, ask in his late publication on this subject, p. 18, "Are all Protestants alike in their religion? Have we not got Protestants of the Church of England, Protestants of the Church of Scotland, Protestants who hold the profession of Augsburgh? Have we not both Arminian and Calvinistic Protestants? Are not the Moravians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Quakers, and even the Jumpers, the Dunkers, the Swedenborgians, all Protestants? Since, then Protestantism assumes so many different forms, men speak quite indefinitely, if they speak of it without explaining the particular kind which they mean. When I hear of a Swedish or a Danish Protestant, I know that it means a person whose religion is the Bible only, as expounded by the Synod of Dort. In like manner a Protestant of the Church of England, is a person whose religion is the Bible only; but the Bible as expounded by its Liturgy and Articles. How, therefore, can we know, if we give the Bible only, what sort of Protestantism well be deduced from it?" - In the same publication, Dr. Herbert Marsh, p. 21, adds, "Protestants of every description, however various and even opposite in their opinions, claim severally for themselves the honour of deducing from the Bible irrefragable and indubitable consequences. The doctrine of conditional salvation is an indubitable consequence to the Arminian. The doctrine of absolute decree, an indubitable consequence to the Calvinist. The doctrines of the trinity, the atonement and the sacraments, which the Church of England considers as indubitable consequences of the Bible, would not be so, if the Unitarians and Quakers were right in the consequences which they draw from the Bible. But the consequences which they deduce appear indubitable to them." This the professor properly styles protestantism in the abstract, or generalized, and nearly allied to apostacy from Christianity: a system, p. 16, "by which many a pilgrim has lost his way between the portal of the temple and the altar---disdaining the gate belonging only to the priests, and approaching at once the portals of the temple, they have ventured without a clue, to explore the inmost recesses; and have been bewildered in their way, till at length they have wandered to the devious passage, where Christianity itself becomes lost from the view." See his Inquiry into the consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer-Book with the Bible.