Gustave Doré, Depiction of Satan, the antagonist of John Milton’s Paradise Lost c. 1866 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
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”?
