Is the Bosnian Pyramid Depicted in Paleolithic Cave Art?

10/2/2013

Fair warning: This post contains some political opinions. I am a human being and do occasionally have off-topic thoughts. I don't get mad at people for disagreeing with me, but remember: Giorgio Tsoukalos offers liberal opinions on his Twitter feed and Erich von Daniken lobbied the U.S. government for conservative causes. I wrote a couple of paragraphs.

This isn’t a blog about politics, so my own opinions about the causes and consequences of the U.S. government shutdown are not particularly relevant here. However, what is relevant is the reaction of religious extremists who use ancient texts and ancient history to support a call for revolution against the U.S. government. On Monday, Dominionist preacher Rick Joyner released an internet video calling on God to authorize a U.S. military coup d’état to remove Barack Obama from office. Joyner told viewers that “no election” would return a moral leader to office, and he said that America’s “only hope is a military takeover, martial law.” He then asked God to “raise up” a military leader to save the country from tyranny by imposing a dictatorship.

Dominion theology arose in the 1970s as a Christian nationalist movement that claims God’s grant of dominion to Adam in Genesis 1:28 means that humanity needs to be governed by a conservative theocracy.

I don’t quite know what to think about open calls for revolution, or about the government shutdown. I’m not all that old, but this kind of open attack on the very foundation of the constitutional order—by those who claim to revere the constitution, no less—appears to be unprecedented in modern times. This shutdown is different than past shutdowns because it means to undo a legally enacted and duly court-upheld law by threat. So far as I know, this hasn’t happened since southern Democrats tried to force a government shutdown in 1879 in order to force Republicans to end support for African American voting rights, a move denounced as “revolution” at the time and widely seen as an attempt to reverse the settlement of the Civil War.

It’s like Seven Days in May, a 1962 novel (and later movie) about conservatives who plot to oust a liberal president in the name of “saving” America from liberal policies, a plot so realistic that John Kennedy allegedly believed it could really happen—and worked to get a film version made. Rod Serling, who would soon help launch the ancient astronaut and ancient mysteries craze, scripted the 1964 movie. No one, however, could predict that the loudest calls for revolution would come not from political dissenters but from extremists who use religion as a cover for social anxieties.

I think I’ve already made quite plain my view that other elements of historical revisionism play on these same anxieties, from the ancient astronaut theorists trying to find ways for non-fundamentalists to believe in gods and magic, to alternative historians who want to rewrite American history as a story of white triumphalism in an era of increasing racial and ethnic diversity. The political beliefs that pass under the name of religion are no closer to their ancient sources than ancient aliens and lost civilizations are to the actual history of the ancient world.

As depressing as all of that is, perhaps it’s helpful to have a palate cleanser. The U.S. isn’t the only country with nutty extremists looking to remake the country’s past in order to change its future. In Bosnia, you’ll recall, Sam Osmanagich has proudly proclaimed that a large natural formation is actually a 29,000-year-old pyramid built by a lost civilization, therefore making Bosnia the font of human civilization. The late Philip Coppens embraced this idea because it helped prove for him that scientists were dogmatists who refused to recognize truth. Steve Meads has taken pyramid claims further, to the point of utter absurdity.

In a posting on his website (which I discovered through a link posted on Facebook by Irna), Meads asserts that the Ice Age art from Chauvet Cave is actually a map of the Mediterranean on which a triangle shape represents the Bosnian pyramid!

Here is the relevant cave wall, which archaeologists believe was painted in stages, which each lion superimposed upon an earlier one. It is known as the “Panel of Rhinoceroses” and is only the leftmost part of a very large wall of art. The “triangle” is located where I have placed an arrow, and it seems to be formed from overlapping images.

And now with the alleged Mediterranean map. Meads believes that all the images were painted together, by plan, to “hide” a map of the Ice Age Mediterranean, when sea levels were lower, to lead visitors to the cave to the Bosnian pyramid. I have redrawn his map for clarity:

Weirdly, Istria is not affected by these lower sea levels, despite the fact that it would not be a peninsula were Adriatic sea levels lower.

I’m not going to waste your time trying to tease this out as a mystery. Take a look at a photo taken from a slightly different angle. With the light of the flash not bouncing off of a section of the paint, making it seem to disappear, the “pyramid” all but vanishes. There is just a solid line, some uneven rock, and an overlapping lion’s tail.

55 Comments

kennethos

10/2/2013 08:04:30 am

@Jason:
Very interesting (almost odd) way of trying to connect "Dominionism" (whatever that may truly be defined as these days) to current poitics. As a former "Dominionist" (as a very young religious believer, in the '90s), I saw that "Dominionism" was part of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, and in fact, the actual term "Dominionism" was utilized almost solely by the movement's critics on the left; rarely, if ever, was the term ever personally used by its own adherents. The left uses this label as a bogeyman to describe its religious enemies (anyone who disagrees with common goals of the left), and I welcome anyone who can show me where current, or past, conservative Christians/Protestant believers welcome this label to themselves (very few, at least of those I'm familiar with). Today, come Charismatics/Pentecostals may still use some of the beliefs or theology, but it's not so terribly different from mainstream Southern Baptists or Presbyterians or the like (the kind not typically demonized by the left). With the preacher in the featured link, I don't see actual "Dominionist" theology or beliefs, as opposed to a very conservative theological outlook (the two are not the same). It may be helpful if you include links to back up your definition you described. If it includes nothing abut reconstruction, then it misses the point. Offering documentation, preferably from somebody not obviously biased or prejudiced in the subject matter, may also be useful. That said, in some very conservative religious circles, there are often those who ponder whether the military should rise up in a coup d'etat against liberalism (I saw this, sadly, in the '90s, with Clinton, also). (Funnily enough, as a military service-member, I never actually heard any currently-serving military personnel talk about all of this...they were too busy carrying out lawful orders, and taking care of soldiers, to indulge in fantasies about taking over the gov't.) It's yet another hyper-right-wing fantasy, not unlike hyper-left-wing fantasies.
I'm somewhat surprised by this, Jason. Usually, you're on target regarding historical silliness, and very careful about what you say, so as not to cause undue offense. This seems to approach some of your own biases, and I really can't see an actual connection, aside from an axe to grind on your part.
Incidentally, the gov't has shut down numerous times in the last 40 years, though the one in '95 was the longest, so this isn't unusual, except for our (limited) memories. I'm also not sure what you define as an "open attack on the very foundation of the constitutional order" (apart from fevered dreams of a theocracy), unless it's simply objections to non-progressive politics.

Jason Colavito link

10/2/2013 08:17:52 am

You're right that dominionism is usually used by those outside the evangelical right to describe Christian theocratic philosophies. But if you'd like me to pretend that a Christian leader calling for a coup d'état is responsible and deserving of a more respectful name, I can't agree.

It's not that the government shut down that is an attack on constitutional order, but the reason why. As with the 1879 crisis, the idea of holding government funding, and in two weeks its full faith and credit, hostage to overturn duly passed and judicially reviewed legislation is unprecedented. It challenges the very notion of the separation of powers by making the executive's ability to perform his office contingent on the acquiescence of another branch of government. The constitution provides only limited methods for the legislature to check the power of the president: overriding vetoes, rejecting nominees, and impeachment.

Beneath the spin of "just another shutdown," there is a very serious constitutional issue that is not about "progressive politics" but rather the question of institutional stability. If Republicans win now, its sets a precedent that even 1870s extremists refused to contemplate, where any Congressional minority can force an agenda simply by creating a crisis.

10/2/2013 08:36:53 am

You're right that a Christian minister shouldn't be calling for coup; we're agreed there. I recall all this and worse during Clinton's era, even as I recall the left screaming out for assassinations during Bush's time in office, so it's equally bipartisan (though maybe not for religious reasons). I find the use of "Dominionism" irresponsible scholarship, from folks whom I think should know better (not so much you, but others).
Your rationale does sound very progressive on its surface. Seeing as I'm on the right, I'll respectfully disagree. With checks and balances, I'm watching more arguments out there, with little genuine compromise. I'd argue that a Democrat win is just as dangerous as a Republican one, don't you think?

10/2/2013 08:37:06 am

10/2/2013 08:41:53 am

I will respectfully say that I don't think that asking for changes to a duly enacted and judicially reviewed law to be proposed by the normal legislative course is a "Democrat(ic) win."

What this looks like to me, from a historical perspective, is the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1863, when the Habsburg emperor was forced to conceded to Hungarian demands in exchange for the Hungarians not causing the collapse of the monarchy. Every 10 years, under the terms, Austria and Hungary had to renew their union, and the Hungarians used each renewal crisis as a chance to extract more concessions from Austria, weakening the state and leading more groups trying the same tactic. This eventually caused the collapse of parliamentary democracy in Austria, and weakened the empire to the point of collapse. But the Hungarian ethnic minority kept its power and lived on in splendor right up until the coming of the Great War.

Thane

10/2/2013 12:16:28 pm

Jason,

Are you aware that since , I think, 1977 there have been 18 Government shutdowns including this one? Of that 18, 8 were done when Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House and the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. Why were there Shutdowns? To force compromise over political issues or one party trying to force the other party to accept what they want.

There is no Constitutional crisis as our government is meant to be full of checks and balances to keep all factions contained. It is meant to required all groups to compromise...but when you have one party not willing to compromise means they want to railroad the other. In this case, The House is funding all of government except for Obamacare.... and the House has the authority to choose not to fund any part of government.

The Challenge to Consitutional order really if seen more when the House passes a bill and the Senate leader refuses to bring it to a vote.

As for others challenging our way of government, it's not only from fringe folks on one side of the polarity but also on the Left. For example, Wonkblog’s Dylan Matthews recently argue dor an elected King that everyone would have to obey without challenge till the next election. This is similar to Paul Krugman wistfully thinking our government was like China's for a day or two or more...or the Occupy Wallstreet types and psuedo-anarchists that demand socialism if not outright communism

Finally, about the Debt Limit...if we don't raise the debt limit it doen't mean we automatically default on our debt. The President has the authority to prioritize payments AND it would require the government to operate within the debt limit spending limits....so, they may have to cut spending to get the books in order.

There is a-lot of Chicken-Little-ing going on all for political manipulation and gain, IMHO

Though we may not agree politically, I love you anyway. ::wink::

10/2/2013 12:25:18 pm

I'm well aware, Thane, of previous shutdowns, but none had been for a repeal of or change to a duly passed and judicially upheld law. Previous shutdowns have been over spending issues and, in one case, due to incompetence. Surely advocates of imperial presidencies (elected kings, etc.) are also contributing to the crisis of legitimacy. It's a dangerous game when politicians simply refuse to accept the outcome of votes as somehow binding. If six years ago it were Democrats holding the government hostage until George W. Bush did something they wanted, we'd hear cries of treason. But the mere suggestion of changing the filibuster provoked claims from Republicans that our Constitution was under siege. I'm not sure why this wouldn't be more serious than that.

I think, though, we can all agree that the current system isn't working.

10/2/2013 01:01:50 pm

When Bill Frist (sp?) was the Senate leader and he was considering a change in the fillibuster rule, the minority (the Democrats at the time) cried bloody murder and claimed it was the dismantling of our democracy and it was authoritarian and mean too! Frist (Republican) choose not to make the rule change. When the Dems won back the majority, Harry R. promptly started to threaten a change to the filibuster rule.

It seems that some aspect of politics requires hysterics especially when attempting to manipulate the perception of those outside of government.

No, I don't think we all agree that the system is broken. I think we can all agree that not everyone is playing above board and are instead of taking the lowest roads of crass partisanship and dispensing even with the understood norms of compromise and deal-making that were once characteristic of those working in the system.

10/2/2013 01:08:12 pm

Yes, I think we can all agree that partisanship and the erosion of traditional deal-making norms have created a system of near-constant crisis. I think that much of this relates to the increasing ideological polarization of parties that once each had liberal, moderate, and conservative wings.

Mark L

10/4/2013 03:52:32 am

That previous shutdowns happened under Democrats doesn't help answer any questions about this current one though, does it? Perhaps, instead of immediately screaming "well, the Democrats did it too" about every single thing (as you have done in this discussion so far) you should look at the specifics of this shutdown and the behaviour of your beloved Republicans.

I live in a country with socialised healthcare, and it's sort of pathetic to see a country so determined to mention God at all times, but utterly unwilling to enact any laws that actually help people. Do you think the Jesus of the bible, turning over the house of the moneylenders, would be delighted to see Republicans giving tax breaks to the mega-rich and protecting the illegal operations of banks, while ignoring the needs of the poor, and doing it in the name of God?

10/2/2013 09:00:33 am

Good point on the Austria-Hungary angle; I'll have to look into that.
As for asking for changes on laws....like amendments, they can be changed as time goes by. DOMA, DADT, Prohibition, etc. (The health care law is, unsurprisingly, divisive and polarizing; it too may pass away in due time.)

10/2/2013 09:10:35 am

I should fix my mistake and say that the Austro-Hungarian compromise was in 1867, not 1863.

Laws can be changed, yes, but by both houses passing a bill that is then signed into law. Demanding that another house pass, and the president sign, a law to forestall an unrelated and artificial crisis is not normal and a challenge to the idea of the separation of powers. If you want to change the law, elect more people who support changing the law until you have a majority. That has been the way American democracy worked in the past.

charlie

10/2/2013 09:00:48 am

I had thought, high school civics class for me was back in 1965, that calling for open revolt, armed revolt, was a crime.
At least this clown is not a member of the government, as they, like all the military, swear an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Of course many politicians seem to forget they swore that same oath once they get some publicity.
I was a Marine, honorable discharge, and when I was released from active duty, I was never asked to revoke that oath. Many veterans feel the oath we took is still valid as none were ever told we were no longer bound by it. Just my (not so humble) 2 cents on part of the topic for today.

Gunn

10/2/2013 09:24:19 am

If I may be so bold:

Christians are strongly attached to Biblical prophecy. We are warned about an approaching One World Government. Yes, there is anxiety over this. Are we to attempt to thwart an upcoming OWG, or to simply recognize that it is coming? Where does patriotism come in?

I am one of the people who thinks the 2nd Amendment carries with it an implied threat against any person (leader) taking America down the road to dictionary-definition tyranny. George W. Bush involved himself in tyranny by allowing for torture, for example. Torture is not the American way.

A future overthrow of the US Government is not out of the question. Why? Because we have so many guns. Guns help guarantee American freedom. Obviously, the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment. There can be no Christian nation without an ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. One can be a patriot and love his or her country, and still fight against future tyranny here. That is the American way.

But what of the impending One World Government? Yes, we are anxious about this, those of us who believe it will surely happen. But we shouldn't be fearful. We will all try to fit in somewhere when it happens.

Bill

10/2/2013 12:06:07 pm

Sorry, but not all Christians are worried about biblical prophecy or the emergence of a one world government. It is a vocal minority of the the Christian faith that has running around saying the sky is falling for the last 40 years. They seem to become more vocal whenever a Democrat is in office, point out everything they think is a violation of their constitutional rights and when they get their candidates into power stomp all over a different set of rights. Congress passed the law legally, the President signed the law legally, and the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the parts of the law that were challenged. The system of checks and balances was put into effect and it worked. It may not have been the outcome desired by opponents of the law, but if they have as much support as they claim they should have no problem putting candidates in place to rescind or reform the law. Holding the government hostage because they can't get the results they want is not politics - It's a tantrum.

As for the preacher, if you publicly call for the violent overthrow of the government or violence against elected officials you need to learn that rights come with responsibilities and if you are irresponsible enough to call for violence then you need to spend some time in some of our finer barred institutions.

10/2/2013 12:23:37 pm

Bill, The House has voted and passed multiple bills and resolutions to overturn Obamacare or change aspects of it. The Senate leader refused to bring them to the floor for a vote.

And just because a bill was passed into law after one election (and I might add when it came to obamacare it passed on a straight party-line vote), doesn't mean that after the next election when the composition of the Congress changes that the law can't be overturned, regardless of any judicial opinion. It's about the votes.

Plenty of bad laws have been overturned by subsequent Congresses.

10/2/2013 12:29:51 pm

And there's the crux of the problem: The traditional way of repealing a law is to propose legislation and have both chambers approve it. The Senate does not have the votes to approve it, and therefore this process should be closed, as you say, due to the votes.

10/2/2013 12:55:50 pm

Thane - The Senate hasn't brought these resolutions to the floor because they have no chance of passing and when it is rejected the House will just keep sending vaiations on the proposals, tying up the Congress. The House passed them knowing they wouldn't be brought to the floor and that they would be rejected if they were. It's political grandstanding on the part of House Republicans. Whether they support the resolutions or not they can vote for the resolution because they know nothing will happen and they won't have to worry about any repercussions. If the opponents of the bill have the deep national support they keep claiming there should be no problem gaining control of the Senate and advancing their agenda. As it stand now, it appears a vocal minority is threatening to take their ball and go home unless they get special treatment. It doesn't matter which party is in power, there are rules the government operates by and the House is breaking those rules by shutting down the government until it gets its way. In the end the Republican party may end up finding itself losing the House again because of its own behavior.

10/2/2013 01:05:44 pm

Sorry Bill and Jason, but just becuae a bill won't pass doesn't mean it shouldn't be voted on. There are two reasons people don't want to vote on something: 1) there is a fear that there will be enough party defections and the bill will actually pass, and, 2) Voting means that votes will be on the record AND could come back to haunt some incumbents when they are up for re-election.

All bills should have a vote. The votes should be on the record. The people can then chose to re-elect the incumbent or not and will have the voting record to help them decide if they like how that elected official exercised his votes in the House/Senate dependent on where he/she was elected to serve.

10/2/2013 01:15:10 pm

I shouldn't poke at this, but I can't resist: Both chambers have anti-democratic rules that keep bills from reaching the floor. Would you support the House being allowed to vote on bills that the Speaker doesn't pre-approve? (Currently, 218 members' signatures and a 30-day waiting period are necessary for this, meaning it almost never happens.)

10/2/2013 01:42:23 pm

You right Jason, during the Bush terms in office, my party (Republican), in both House and Senate used similar tactics to keep Democratic proposals from reaching fruition. Both parties use these tactics when in power and then scream about them when not in power. This congress is the first one take things to this extreme. And no Thane passage of a Bill or Resolution in one house does not Automatically guarantee it a vote in the other house. If congress feels it should there is a mechanism in place to change those rules. Neither party wants them to change them while they are in power. The house has a responsibility to fund legally passed laws and their resultant programs. They are not allowed to circumvent laws they don'y like by withholding funding.
The mechanism for that is getting like minded people elected and then either repealing the old law or passing a new one.

10/2/2013 03:02:26 pm

HI Bill,

I didn't mean to imply that a passage of a bill in on chamber guaranteed a vote int he other. It is my opinion, however, that it should be voted on.

I realized there are many rules that developed over the decades/centuries in both chambers whether the rules were meant to provide political advantage to the party in power or to protect the minority from the deprivations of the majority or are traditional holdovers (some of which may have had a different reason to be and understood ways it should be interpreted and have been re-interpreted over time or not.) Such rules only further obscure the workings of government to the uninitiated and ultimately result in John Q. Public choosing to ignore it all because it makes his head hurt.
Do I think the rules should be reviewed, purged, and simplified? Yes. Do I trust anyone in government to do it? Absolutely not.
However, I do believe that our form of government was meant to slow down the legislative process so that time can be taken for reflection and negotiation. Our system is not meant to be contention free. A little chaos does us all good.

Disclosure: I am an independent and have been since I first registered to vote on my 18th birthday. I also don't believe in political parties as I think they have outlived their purpose as a means of communication and coordination. They are extra-constitutional and not a requirement in our governmental system. And no, I am not an anarchist.

10/3/2013 05:06:40 am

So seeing prophecy being fulfilled right before our eyes is running around saying the sky is falling? Excuse me, but most Christians think 1948 was a Big Year. As a Christian, you either believe in prophecy or you don't. Most do.

Who needs bars, Bill? Our Founding Fathers? You say, "...if you are irresponsible enough to call for violence...." Another excuse me. Was it a good thing for the "peasants" to overthrown the bogus French rule? Was it a good or bad thing for the "peasants" to overthrow bogus Russian rule? Why does the Queen of England have no real power? Obviously, sometimes it IS responsible to call for violence. You would have Paul Revere hanged by the neck until dead?

Bill...to the bars. Lock the door on yourself. You, yourself, deserve some time to think things over. No talking. Walk backwards. Right, you are no longer free.

10/3/2013 08:24:52 am

Gunn: I'm actually quite free because I don't spend my life living in fear and spreading those anxieties to others. You seem to be in a cage you built for yourself. Comparing the people that call for the violent overthrow of the US government to the founding fathers is a tactic used by both sides and is a non-starter but since you brought it up. The founding fathers understood that their words carried weight and that they were responsible for the consequences of their words. The modern advocate of overthrow wants to be able to say whatever they want and then divorce themselves from the consequences. If their words inspire someone to kill a judge or blow up a building the advocate quickly divorces themselves from the situation and hides behind the first amendment. You are guaranteed the right to free speech but you are not relieved of the responsibilities and consequences that come with exorcising your rights. One of the biggest problems we face today is that to many citizens of the US want to exorcise all of their real and perceived rights but they do not want to accept the responsibilities that come with those rights.

Using the French and Russians peasants as an argument for your positions seems to indicate no real knowledge of the conditions they lived in or the underlying motivations for their actions.

As for Christianity, only a certain segment of the Christian World sees prophecy coming true before their eyes. You seem to have bought into the idea that the American Evangelical Christianity and its concern with end-times prophecy is indicative of the Christian World as a whole. It's not. So please stop speaking for us as if we are a monolithic group.

10/4/2013 01:28:23 pm

Bill, you are trying to too narrowly define righteousness in violence. But you're trying to pick and choose, comparing one act of violence to another, and making improper judgments. I'm simply saying there is no guarantee our government will continue to act within reason...which I defined as not treading into tyranny, torture, etc.

I expect that our Founding Fathers at times felt like they were living in a big Redcoat cage. I don't feel like I live in a cage, because I'm free-spirited. The American Revolution was won. Believing in prophecy is not frightening to me, either, and you are wrong about narrowing the Christian experience to not include an emphasis on prophecy.

Most Christians believe in the supernatural, such as miracles, either past or present, and they also believe in the supernatural of the future...which is Biblical prophecy telling us what is going to happen. What are you saying, that you are a Christian and you don't believe in prophecy?

I've had a few attacks here by those calling themselves Christians, yet they are out of line with the traditional Christian viewpoint. The tradition Christian viewpoint includes believing in prophecy. You are incorrect in saying it doesn't. You need to back-check your credentials, Dude. It seems to be you who has "no real knowledge."

10/4/2013 01:39:44 pm

I was under the impression that traditional Christianity held that no man knows the day or the hour of the apocalypse (Matthew 24:36) and therefore anyone who claims to see prophecy being fulfilled in the here and now is a false prophet (Matthew 24:5, 10). If you think that it's time for Jesus to return, by definition it is not (Matthew 24:44).

10/4/2013 02:35:54 pm

Christian believers can look forward to various prophetical fulfillments, and that is part of our faith; yet the #1 prophecy highlighted by folks, and eternally "missed" (thus far), is the biggie, the return of Christ... the very one we're told, from Jesus himself, not to forecast (yet, inevitably, too many fools do so anyway, based on some "word from the Lord"). Even apart from this, we can anticipate different things happening...or not. Many prophecy teachers have a spectacular, 100% failure rate, spurring on righteous mockery by skeptics, and still their gullible followers send them money (sigh).

titus pullo

10/2/2013 10:13:39 am

I hate to get into politics on this site but the idea that somehow the GOP is acting unconstitutional is ridiculous. First a few facts..we are running massive deficits-funding over 50% of them by the Federal Reserve's printing press. In other words, we are debasing our currency to buy votes. The artificially low rates the Fed gives the Govt keeps the annual debt service to under what it would be..something like 1T by 2020. I have no issue with debating the role of the Federal Govt (although if you actually read the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, most of the current govt isn't legal or allowed by the States), but allowing the political class to buy votes by destroying the value of our money is folly (and was actually the first crime the Federal Govt called for the death penalty). Raise taxes or cut spending but don't run deficits. With 9 Trillion in debt principal coming up over the next few years, how is the govt going to roll this over (cause they sure won't be able to pay).

As for a "shutdown", the Treasury Secretary should be sharing his financial plan. He pulls in about $200B a month in revenues, what is his plan for the outflows? Debt service first, then what? Seriously why won't Goldman Lew share his plan. Any CFO running trillion dollar deficits would be fired. And I don't just say this because Obama is in office, Bush was just as bad.

As Jefferson and Madison said in 1798, the States are the final decider (not the SC) on if a Federal Law is unconstitutional. The best solution is for a majority of states to reform the size and scope of the Federal Govt.

With liberty...

10/2/2013 10:24:23 am

You've raised a great point about how much of our current federal apparatus has grown beyond the original limits of the constitution. Certainly, for example, the founders never meant for the president to have war making powers. But I don't think anyone would seriously disagree that government by crisis is effective or anything but a drag on the government and the economy.

The Other J.

10/3/2013 06:09:47 pm

And that's why Jefferson thought the Constitution should be burned every generation or so and re-written; he understood that an 18th century political document wouldn't necessarily fit or be appropriate for a 19th century, 20th century or 21st century polis. Even with amendments, it's still adding 20th and 21st century patches to 18th century clothing.

10/2/2013 10:53:00 am

I also want to clarify something: I never said House Republicans were acting unconstitutionally, only that they were challenging our constitutional order. Consider, on the other side, FDR's court-packing scheme. It is legal for the Congress to change the makeup of the Supreme Court, but to do so for political reasons of convenience (to change rulings) assaults the idea of separation of powers, and even FDR's fellow Democrats turned on the idea for that reason.

10/2/2013 12:03:23 pm

Since the House has control of the pursue strings per The Constitution, the "Republicans" who happen to have the majority in The House are not Challenging the Constitutional order. The House, not the Senate, determines spending and spending priorities....or it should if people were being faithful to the Constitution and the separation of powers.

.

Harry

10/2/2013 01:30:04 pm

Thane, I have a few points to make:

1. No one questions the fact that Congress has the right to repeal the Affordable Care Act (or "Obamacare" if you prefer), but until that happens, reasonable minds will question the propriety of trying to starving a valid government program to death in its crib through means that amount to a form of political blackmail.

2. Speaker Boehner almost never allows a bill to come to the vote in the House unless it is supported by a majority of Republicans and Senate Republicans customarily block votes on anything they do not like. Moreover, when the bill to defund Obamacare did come to a vote, a majority of the Senate voted against it. So there is nothing particularly hardball about Sen. Reid not bringing bills to the floor that would not pass the Senate anyway.

3. For the record, the Constitution does not give the House any special powers over appropriations vis a vis the Senate. You are probably thinking of the requirement that the House originate revenue bills (but even there, the Senate is empowered to amend those revenue bills).

4. When it comes to the national debt, you are clueless. If you eliminated all spending except mandatory spending and the Department of Defense, the government's bills would still exceed revenue. And even that would not include all of the essential services that the feds perform. There is no option but default.

10/2/2013 03:13:08 pm

Ugh, my response got trashed when my system hiccuped.

For brevity's sake, I will concede points 1 thru 3. There is alot of political gamesmanship that goes on from both sides of the isle that I am less than happy with.

As for the debt limit. Not raising it should result in a concerted and active effort to reduce spending. I didnot say that it is a magic bullet. I only said that if it is not raised, it will not result in an automatic default. The president can prioritize payments, Ideally, the Congress will continue to negotiate to reduce spending which will slow down the growth of debt which will eventually fall below the current debt limit levels to levels we used to operate under.

The current debt, much less the projected debt, is not sustainable and must be addressed.

That's my opinion and to date, I am sticking to it until and if something comes along to convince me otherwise.

10/2/2013 01:32:35 pm

I'd ask the question here, since this thread is going far more about political issues than maybe-Bosnian-pyramids: how skeptical are we about our own beliefs? How open are we to being proven wrong, in error, or mistaken? Or or we completely confident, due to our prevailing worldview?
I can agree with Jason's point about partisanship; it applies equally to all parties. My query is: do we recognize this in our own POV's, and lives? Or, are we blind to our view's inherent faults and problems, and so it's much easier to point out the blunders of the other side, than address our own? I have a feeling that current levels of partisanship are likely on a par with those of, say, 100 or 200 years ago. It's simply our awareness of that which hasn't kept up.

10/2/2013 01:42:01 pm

It's always hardest to think critically about our own deeply held beliefs. Most of us would not want to be proved wrong, and especially in emotionally charged issues most people tend toward belief before reason without even recognizing this.

It's an issue I faced when I first started to face a crisis of faith (if that's what you'd call it) over the failures of Graham Hancock's lost civilization back in 2001. It was hard to see my own errors in thinking or to believe that I had been systematically mislead under the guise of believing I had been thinking critically about the "failures" of the mainstream.

On another note, the partisans of two hundred years ago were much more personally vicious than we are today. If you read the old newspapers and partisan books of the time, it's strong stuff even by today's linguistic standards. But when push came to shove they respected norms and the system more than we do because the alternative was the breakup of the country or conquest by foreign powers. We don't have that incentive to support good governance today.

10/3/2013 06:40:33 pm

"My query is: do we recognize this in our own POV's, and lives? Or, are we blind to our view's inherent faults and problems, and so it's much easier to point out the blunders of the other side, than address our own?"

That's where ideology begins -- it's worldview-framing beliefs and perspectives that you don't even consciously realize are framing your worldview.

It was generally my understanding that skepticism and reason entailed the caveat that those tools had to be applied to your own perspectives and assumptions, otherwise it wasn't much more than rhetoric, and not a tool to excavate toward some truth.

The problem is, in public, turning a skeptical eye back on the self starts to sound pretty self-analyze-y and like it should take place in a therapist's office. It doesn't always make for the best half-hour of news commentary.

In private, it means confronting the fact that beliefs you structured your life around may be flawed or not even worth holding. On a less-ominous level, it can be what helps scientists, academics, detectives, etc. find flaws with their own hypotheses and thought processes before they can present a solution to a problem. That doesn't always work in politics, though, where a key tactic is to deflect attention away from flaws and blind spots rather than confront them. Pointing out your own weaknesses doesn't tend to make for a sustainable political career.

10/2/2013 01:47:51 pm

Mea culpa. To begin with, I must apologize to Thane for using a loaded word such as "clueless." I think that was too uncivil in the circumstances. "Wrong" would be more appropriate. I do recognize that people with whose views I am in sympathy do go too far or fail to see the other point of view. Nevertheless, I do tend to be more accepting of arguments that fit my worldview.

10/2/2013 03:19:03 pm

Harry,

Once I dried my tears and took a few deep breaths, I was able to over come the insult.

::wink::

Actually, I was slightly taken aback but I reasoned that you were using it in the...shall we say...idiomatic way and not as a pointed insult.

That being said, I could be wrong but based on what I've read, I don't think so. I may also not be explaining my position clearly or using the appropriate language. I am writing on the fly and am not an economist. I'll look into it some more. IF I am wrong, I am wrong and will adjust my thoughts but if I'm not, I'm not.

Beyond that, Thank You for the apology.

Cathleen Anderson

10/2/2013 01:49:56 pm

Getting back on topic, I believe I found a typo in the paragraph immediately preceding the first picture. The word "at" should probably be "as".

10/2/2013 01:55:07 pm

Fixed.

10/2/2013 01:50:54 pm

Just to be clear, my mea culpa was in response to kennethos, not to Jason's comment, which I did not read until after I posted.

10/2/2013 02:26:16 pm

Don't forget, I *did* sort of start things up by critiquing some of Jason's language. I left the Reconstruction movement when I realized that most of the folks I was encountering were proud, smug, self-righteous religious folks mostly lacking in humility, and utterly convinced they were right. There was very little grace or forgiveness with them, to say nothing of love. (Not the most attractive people professing biblical faith, I might add.) So, I got a good lesson in recognizing these qualities...in myself, and others (imperfectly in myself at times, of course!). Needless to say, the right has no shortage of these qualities. Nor does the left.
Part of the issue I see is that the Left is equally full of smug, self-righteous (mostly secular) views and behavior...and is not very good at recognizing it in themselves. They seem to be very adverse to questioning their own beliefs (which I had to do, and Jason has alluded to). Nonetheless, in many ways questioning our beliefs (to learn, grow, etc.) is a life-long quest. We often forget this when our beliefs are most comforting/comfortable. If a certain narrative (which seems to be a prevailing meme for the left currently) sounds pleasant, we go with it...whether on left or right.

10/2/2013 03:23:59 pm

Back to topic....

Jason, seeing the map of the Mediterranean in the otherwise very nice cave paintings reminds me of those folks that see pentagrams and/or masonic symbols in the street layout of Washington DC.

Or those...what do they call them....the abstract images you have to stare at to see the real picture contained therein.

If you hasn't included the picture with the coastline drawn out, I would never have seen in...in fact, I STILL don't see it even after it was outlined for us in that one picture!

Shane Sullivan

10/2/2013 03:50:30 pm

When I look at the area where the two lions overlap, I see a draft horse, or maybe some kind of bovine.

And the Blessed Virgin, of course.

10/3/2013 03:02:16 am

Looks like an Ox type to me, Shane...or sort of a long-horn steer.

The two large animals that overlay the "Ox" look feline to me, perhaps lioness or panther.

and, of course, The Blessed Virgin....weeping. I think she despairs that someone thinks they see the Mediterranean coastline in this image.

10/3/2013 06:44:33 pm

An aurochs?

10/2/2013 11:40:18 pm

I don't really see it either. The author's original map was so confusing that I wasn't really sure what I was looking at.

10/3/2013 05:38:41 am

Lest any should scoff at my notion of violent resistance, when called for. Obama does not come close to tyranny...Bush II did.

Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed,” adding later, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says “the representatives of the people”?

James Madison: “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Thomas Jefferson: “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, said, “To disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Here’s a more recent quote from a card-carrying liberal, the late Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey: “Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

As a patriot, I am willing to resist tyranny with violence. "I regret that I have but one life to give." Pass the bullets....

Must a free Christian nation defend herself? Of course, against tyranny both abroad and at home.

Don't be a freedom freeloader.

Graham

10/3/2013 02:00:15 pm

I'm going to start with a political comment, firstly the chickens hatched by the phrase "No Compromise! No Surrender!" back in the 60's are coming home to roost. Secondly, I've always believed that the overselling of Obama back in '08 (Especially the Nobel Peace Prize.) led a number of conservative Christians to believe he is the Anti-Christ.

This leads me on to the final thing I want to say, Jason, you speak of the Dominionists as a product of the 1970s. The idea of replacing a head of state with Jesus, by armed force if need be dates back to the 1600's and the Fifth Monarchy Men who wanted make Jesus the King of England and themselves the 'Saints' who would govern in His name and actually made an attempt to violently overthrow the English government of the day.

10/3/2013 06:52:28 pm

Goddamn Roundheads...

10/4/2013 06:21:13 am

Not quite, the Fifth Monarchy Men wanted to overthrow Oliver Cromwell, but were caught off guard by his death, the abdication of his son Richard and the return of the Monarchy in the form of Charles II. They tried to overthrow Charles II and were exiled to the Americas for their pains.

10/4/2013 08:57:21 am

I thought the Fifth Monarchists were an off-shoot of the Roundheads. The Roundheads laid the groundwork for the Fifth Monarchists, the Levellers, etc.

No Roundheads, no Fifth Monarchists, no? Or they would have emerged in some other form.

LESSURE

10/7/2013 06:55:15 pm

Americans use violence too much. One can overthrow tyranny in this country unlike some others without even firing one bullet. The tyranny started before Obama and will be present long after he is gone. People must first believe that its possible AND realize that its not as simple as Republicans and Democrats!

Steve link

11/1/2015 07:43:22 am

Hi all, I do realise that not everyone sees what I believe to have found. I'm not saying I'm right either. I am very open to being proven right or wrong but, at the moment, nobody has been able to do either. I wish I could post every comment, both verbal and online, that would show the positive side of what I feel I have. That and the fact that you are only seeing one image from a very large set of images, you are not seeing the possible entire story behind all of this cave art. It might all be absurd and nonsense to some and I do not have a problem with that. There are a few things that people do not realise when considering the images involved. Firstly, our brains are wired differently. According to the general theory, left handed people use the opposite side of their brain and are more prone to be able to "see" things from a different point of view. I happen to be left handed (for what it's worth). Secondly, these images appear to be multi layered with multiple meanings and some are used several times in order to 'complete' the story. I'd love to be able to show everyone everything I have and to explain my reasoning behind it all. This image (if links are allowed) has had many a person doubt everything they've been taught, including a few of the very well educated professors from a very large university near to my home. http://i2.wp.com/chauvetdreams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/hippo-compared-outlined.png It seems to show a duplicate of the cave art... The duplicate is from the tomb ceiling of Seti the first.

I sometimes wonder what verdict all of my "evidence" would get if presented as a case in a court of law, rather than from an academic point of view. Reason i say this is that there is another image that has more than twelve matching points with an image created by Leonardo da Vinci. He wrote about a time in his early years how he discovered a cave and wondered what was inside. It was after this time that he began to create some of his most amazing pieces of work. Could he have been influenced, or learnt from, a copy of the Chauvet art that is in the cave that he discovered? We may never know, but the similarities between the two are rather amazing.

So, right or wrong, I'm glad people are discussing it. It's a step forwards towards gathering answers. If I am proven right, we all know there will still be those who will claim i am insane or something. If I am wrong, so be it, I'm fine with that and the only thing that would have come out of it all was the fact that I wrote a book and became an author... something I never imagined doing or had intentionally set out to do. Just as luck helped those discover the cave, serendipity came my way and made me focus on writing about what I believe I have found.