For the past six years, I’ve been more or less obsessed with the state and federal drug laws that define drugs in terms of “man or other animals” (“MOOA”) and thereby define man to be an animal. (See, Man or other Animals #1)
As you may know, I was sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $25,000/day ($9 million per year) due to my involvement with a trust that leased some furniture to a corporation that manufactured colloidal silver. The gov-co alleged colloidal silver was a “controlled substance” under the definitions of drugs. I read those definitions and realized they applied only to animals. I also understood from my study of the Bible that on the 6th day, God created man in His image, and gave man dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:26-28). Thus, any man made in God’s image of the Jewish or Christian faiths can’t be an “animal”. So I advanced a religious freedom defense based on the argument that, as a Christian, I can’t be subjected to laws that presume me to be an animal without violating my freedom of religion.
The Attorney General–after devoting 6 years and nearly $500,000 on pretrial investigations and hearings—dropped the case. The AG never told us why he dropped the case. But I presume that the MOOA/freedom of religion defense was the reason.
Since that case “disappeared” in A.D. 2007, I’ve had contact from radio listeners in England and Australia (or maybe it was New Zealand; I forget) also have drug laws that define the people to be animals. Thus, it appears that the presumption that the people are animals may be a cornerstone for the New World Order.
• Many of you are probably sick of hearing me tell that story. But some people “get it” and apply it, and one of them recently sent me an email that made me realize something that may be important. In fact, I’m amazed that I haven’t previously “connected this dot”:
The word “animal” (seen in the phrase “man or other animals”) is generally synonymous with the word “beast“. Thus, it’s conceivable, even arguable, that the “man or other animals” drug laws could also be described as “man or other beasts” drug laws.
If so, it’s not much of a leap to wonder if the “mark of the beast” might be translated as the “mark of the animal”. If so, is it possible that those laws that define the people to animals might be somehow construed as the “mark”? I.e., if you’re willing to accept the status of an “animal”. . . if you consent to be subject to laws that define you as an animal—have you “taken” the “mark”?
When we talk about the “mark of the beast,” does such “mark” indicate that we are property of some “beast” (Satan) who placed his mark of ownership upon us? Or, could it be that the “mark of the beast” is some sort of “mark” that identifies each of us as a “beast” or “animal” rather than a man made in God’s image?
If we consent to be identified as “animals,” is it possible that we have thereby taken the “mark of the beast”?
I’m not saying that drug laws that define us to be animals—and especially our consent to be so defined—necessarily constitute the “mark of the beast”. I’m simply exploring that hypothesis.
In fact, I can’t yet make a connection between “MOOA” and the “mark” that’s as solid as I’d like. But the two concepts have so much in common that if “MOOA” isn’t the “mark,” it seems certain to be a symptom of that mark.
Here are a few notes that explore the association between MOOA and the Mark:
Made in God’s Image
[The numbers in the following verses correspond to the Strong’s definitions of the particular words. The “H” before each number signals that the original word was written in Hebrew. If the text had been from the New Testament, the numbers would have a “G” prefix to signal that the original word was written in Greek. ]
• Gen 1:26 And GodH430 said, Let us make manH120 in our image,H6754 after our likeness:H1823 and let them have dominionH7287 over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,H776 and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.H776
Gen 1:27 So GodH430 created manH120 in his own image,H6754 in the imageH6754 of GodH430 created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And GodH430 blessedH1288 them, and GodH430 said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,H776 and subdueH3533 it: and have dominionH7287 over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thingH2416 that moveth upon the earth.H776
Genesis 1:26-28 clearly declares that on the 6th Day of Creation, God created mankind—both men and women—in His image and gave mankind “dominion” (authority, jurisdiction and/or sovereignty) over the earth, over the animals that move upon the earth, and over the birds and fish (created on the 5th day).
But note that the word “earth” (H776) has been defined in part by Strong’s to mean “to be firm” and/or “land”. Thus, technically, the “earth” in Genesis 1:26-28 does not appear to include the entire planet since man’s “dominion” does not expressly include the “air” or the “sea”.
Alternatively, even if the word “earth” really does mean the entire planet and not just the land, man’s God-given “dominion” (authority, jurisdiction and/or sovereignty) still extends only onto the land and the creatures of the sea and air—but not into the air or the sea, themselves. Yes, we have God-given “dominion” over the birds and the fish, but we may not be entitled to God-given “dominion” over the “air” or the “sea”.
If mankind does not have “dominion” over the air or the sea, who/what does?
What might we infer about maritime and/or admiralty laws which are intended to apply to the sea or even the air? Could it be that admiralty/maritime laws might not be “godly”? Could it be that laws might not apply to a man made in God’s image who was living, working and acting exclusively on the “land”?
Satan, the “Beast”
Popular culture sometimes describes Satan as having horns, hooves and a tail—all attributes of animals that are unknown to mankind.
So far as I know, there’s no place in the Bible that also describes Satan as having horns, hooves and a tail, but the Bible does describe Satan as a “serpent” or “dragon”.
Satan may not be “made in God’s image” (as are mankind; Genesis 1:26-28), but may be made in an image that is at least partially that of an animal or “beast”.
Insofar as the “mark of the beast” is some sort of mark that’s associated with Satan, it’s apparent that we might also refer to that “mark” as the “mark of the animal”.
Father of Lies
The Bible declares that Satan is the “father of lies”. Legal fictions are lies. Corporations are lies. Trusts are lies. The notion that men made in God’s image are animals is also a lie–and even an act of genocide.
I doubt that Satan cares if we die. It appears to me that Satan objective is to “steal souls”. His intent is to tempt and deceive us into committing acts that violate God’s law and thereby expose ourselves to damnation.
In the Ten Commandments, God did not command, “Thou shalt not die,” He commanded, “Thou shalt not murder”. It’s not a sin to die. It is a sin to murder a man made in God’s image. No one goes to Hell for dying. Some go to Hell for murdering.
Therefore, it seems that Satan gains nothing by merely causing us to die. Suppose Satan could release a plague that would kill most of mankind. What good would it do him? We’d be dead to this life, but well on our way to the next. By killing us, Satan might even come close to making martyrs out of us and thereby enhance our chances for salvation.
Fear is inversely proportional to faith. Insofar as we feel or succumb to fear, we confess our lack of faith. Therefore, Satan might use the threat of plague or the threat of war, etc., to strike fear in our hearts. It’s more important to Satan that we are fearful than that we should die.
Thus, it seems more likely that Satan’s goal is not to cause us to die, but rather to cause us to fear and even to kill each other. By killing someone made in God’s image, we might waive our “right” to salvation and thereby forfeit our souls to Satan. The victim may die in this life (which is almost inconsequential in the context of eternity), but live in the next life. The killer, however, may live in this life, but “die” in the next.
Satan isn’t after the souls of victims. He’s after the souls of the killers.
Therefore, if Satan could create circumstances (including wars, or laws that define the people to be animals) that increase the probability that some of us will murder others, Satan might thereby increase his harvest of damned souls.
• Speaking of “End Times” and the fall of “Babylon,” Revelation 18:23 declares,
“And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.”
Thus, “sorcery” need not result from supernatural powers, but can include the mere sophistries of words or images that “deceive” the people. I.e., a very effective speaker, writer or artist might be described as a “sorcerer” insofar as his talent was intended to deceive.
In Revelation 18:23, the Greek word “sorceries” was defined by Strong to be:
From G5332; medication (“pharmacy”), that is, (by extension) magic (literal or figurative): – sorcery, witchcraft.
The “Blue Letter Bible” defines the word “Sorceries” as:
1) the use or the administering of drugs
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry
We can see that “sorcery”/deception was closely associated with “medication” which implicates modern “drugs”.
Modern drug laws (see Tex. Health & Safety Code §§431.002(14) and 21 USC §321(g)(1)) that define the term “drug” with the phrase “man or other animals” are devices to create the lie but legal presumption that the people are animals. Those laws are intended to deceive the people into accepting their status as animals and surrendering their status to make claims on the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in our “Declaration of Independence”. As such, those “MOOA” laws seem consistent with “sorcery”.
Many readers might reject the argument that modern drug laws constitute acts of “sorcery” as silly. But bear in mind that by means of our drug laws, our government has changed individual men into “animals” (at least in the eyes of the law). If I could change you into a toad, I guarantee that the world would agree that I was a “sorcerer” of the supernatural variety.
Using drug laws to change the status of a man from that of being made in God’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights to that of a mere “animal” may not be evidence of supernatural sorcery. Merely drafting definitions in law that presume a man to be a toad is a lot less impressive than turning him into an actual toad.
Even so, the secular “sorcery” of legally defining men to be animals is clearly based on deceit, treachery, treason and is evidence of spiritual warfare.
More, if I were a supernatural sorcerer, I might turn one or two men into animals, but the secular “sorcerers” in Congress have turned over 300 million men, women and children into “animals” and virtually no one has noticed or complained. Which is more impressive? My ability to, “presto-changeo!,” turn one man into a toad, or the government’s ability to turn 300 million into animals?
It’s not hard to imagine that Satan might be behind the seemingly “magical” conversion of 300 million men and women into animals.
Love Thy Neighbor?
We’re told in the New Testament to “love they neighbor as thyself”. If I have just declared you to be an animal, have I thereby denied my “love” for you? If I’m a congressman and I vote in favor of some “man or other animals” drug law, have I just degraded the people to the status of “animals” and thereby denied my “love” for all of my “neighbors”?
Insofar as I am to “love my neighbor as myself,” is it possible that by declaring you to be an animal, I effectively admit that I’m an animal? In truth, neither I nor Congress can cause another man made in God’s image to actually become an “animal”. But, by trying to do so, by trying to degrade some other man to the status of animal, would I or Congress thereby reduce ourselves—in the eyes of God—to the status of an animal? I can’t truly reduce you to the status of an animal, but if I try, does that “mark” me as an animal?
If that were true, then it might be arguable that the act of passing laws that deem the people to be “animals” ultimately condemns the legislators to be animals in God’s eyes. If, by declaring others to be “animals,” we mark ourselves as animals, it might follow that the “mark of the beast” might be the inclination to degrade others to the status of animals.
Esau and Jacob
Insofar as we “choose” to abandon our God-given, unalienable Rights, we may emulate the example of Esau who traded his birthright from God to his brother Jacob for a bowl of pottage.
Later in the Old Testament, God twice declares that “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated.” So far as I know, the Bible doesn’t specify why God hated Esau. But I believe the reason for God’s hatred is that Esau “turned his back” on the birthright he received from God. Esau despised the birthright (blessings) from God and treated it with contempt. In despising God’s blessing, Esau unwittingly despised our Father YHWH ha Elohiym—who is described as a “jealous God”. I suspect our Father YHWH ha Elohiym won’t put up with contempt from anyone, so He therefore “hated” Esau.
But I’m not telling you what our Father thinks–because I don’t know. I’m only telling you my interpretation of the facts I’m seen relevant to Esau’s troubles. IF my interpretation of Esau’s problems is correct, then it may also follow that a people who were made in God’s image, but subsequently consented to abandon that status to be treated as “animals” may also have thereby expressed their contempt for God. If so, it may follow that God will become furious with such people.
Esau was not a bad guy. He was just a dummy who was hungry and willing to trade his birthright (which he didn’t understand, respect or immediately need) for a lousy bowl of pottage. The Bible does not imply that Esau intended to insult God by selling his God-given birthright. Esau’s expression of contempt for God was unwitting. Nevertheless, Esau paid a terrible price for his ignorance.
Similarly, 99.99% of the American people have no idea that their government has defined them to be “animals” (and thus, no longer “men made in God’s image”). Still, in their ignorance, that 99.99% have unwittingly consented to waive the blessing given them by God just as Esau unwittingly waived the birthright given him by God. Could the people who’ve unwittingly consented to be treated as animals rather than “men made in God’s image” be held as accountable as Esau?
I don’t know.
But if you’re willing to be treated as an animal by your government, then perhaps you should also be willing to endure God’s wrath.
• As I wrote at the top of this article, I cannot yet forge a compelling equivalence between the “Mark of the Beast” and our “man or other animals” drug laws. But I believe that there is a commonality there that’s intuitively apparent and evidence of the very same sort of spiritual warfare we can expect to see in End Times.
Again, I wonder if, when we talk about the “mark of the beast,” does such “mark” indicate that we are property of some “beast” (Satan) who placed his mark of ownership upon us? Or, could it be that the “mark of the beast” is some sort of “mark” that identifies each of us as a “beast” or “animal” rather than a man made in God’s image?
If we consent to be identified as “animals,” is it possible that we have thereby taken the “mark of the beast“?
• I’ll have more on the link between the Mark of the Beast and the “MOOA” drug laws in the future. For now, I’m wondering if any of you can provide insight or evidence that supports or refutes the existence of that link.