Charlottesville, Virginia Hell

“President Trump condemned the ‘egregious,” racially-charged clashes in Charlottesville, Va. on Saturday, but avoided putting more blame on any particular group, saying hatred by “many sides’ was to blame.” Trump got it right saying “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,”

But, Lord Good God Almighty he did not put the blame completely on the White Nationalist, Altright, et al., But laid equal amount of blame on Antifa, BLM, et al… See, here is the thing, the White Nationalist had a permit to hold their rally, and the fact that Charlottesville would allow such a hated group to assemble and speak enraged Antifa, BLM, et al., causing them to descend in mass upon Charlottesville. Instead of the police protecting the permit holders they stood aside and let the Antifa have at the White Nationalist, then canceled their permit calling it an unlawful assembly, but let the Antifa, BLM, et al. group march through town unhindered. This, in turn, enraged James Alex Fields Jr. so much that he rammed his car into the marchers killing a woman.

I am not excusing James Alex Fields Jr.’s actions; I am pointing out that it did not happen in a vacuum, but you will not hear the officials of Charlottesville accepting any blame for what went down, nor will you hear any blame being cast upon Antifa, BLM, et al., no! Oh hell no! It is all the White Nationalist’s fault for having the audacity to actually make use of their First Amendment rights!

Published in: on August 13, 2017 at 08:18  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

But is anyone afraid of President Donald Trump

Susan Milligan a Senior Writer at us news says, “Trump puts the bully into bully pulpit – but experts say his approach has problems.”

Here is a little history lesson for her which she could have easily known. The meaning of words and phrases change over time. When President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to his office as a “bully pulpit”, by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda, the word bully meant good. It referred more to the “outstanding” bully-for-you sense of “bully” than for any aggressiveness on Roosevelt’s part, and this describes Trumps use of the “bully pulpit” as well. One might say Trump has mastered a “bully tweet” to make his agenda know and propagated; that is, a damn good way to get the word out.

She goes on to say, “He talks tough, and tweets tougher. He makes demands on Congress and state governments, needles foreign nations and launches broad attacks on the press. But is anyone afraid of President Donald Trump?”

Which leads me to ask, if they are not afraid of him why are they so hell-bent on impeaching him? He has upturned their apple cart, cutting the government work force starting with the White House staff, EPA, State Department, but to name a few. Slashing regulations off the books at a rate unknown in my lifetime.

Then she quotes,”‘That’s going to be a problem with Congress [and] the G-20,” the group of world leaders Trump is meeting with in Germany this week. “Already our allies are feeling pretty uncomfortable about his positions and approaches,’ Peterson says.”

Well hell yes, they are uncomfortable about his positions and approaches with the Trans-Pacific Partnership gone, and his dumping their beloved Paras Accord. They are just going to have to deal with it; he was not elected to be president of the world.

Then there is this lie, “The president’s voter fraud commission demanded that states turn over personal information on voters, including party ID and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. States are rebelling, and not just the blue-tinted ones: so far, 44 states have refused to hand over all or some of the requested information.”

According to her, any state that will not provide sensitive, non-public voter data like social security numbers has refused the commission’s request. However, the panel only requested public voter information, and most states have not refused to provide this data. But even as some states will decline to provide non-public voter data, most acknowledge that voter rolls are available to the public for non-commercial purposes. As a result, even some states that oppose the request won’t refuse to give the commission public voter data.

“The decision by states not to provide sensitive information is not a refusal to comply as CNN claims because the commission never sought non-public information. “We’re not asking for it if it’s not publicly available,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who serves as the vice chair of the commission, told The Kansas City Star. CNN grossly inflates the number of states that have refused.”

So she lies by selecting which truths she will tell, and how she strings her words together. Progressives will see her words as gospel, and not bother to check into the fact the claims to present, but she is preaching to the choir as, I hazard, very few non Democrats read her propaganda.

Further she goes on, “Trump’s orientation is to bully – ‘I’m going to run somebody against you. I’m going to hurt you.’ That’s not where you lead from,” says Texas A&M University political science professor George C. Edwards III, author of “On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit” (Yale University Press). But bullying does not translate into an effective bully pulpit once someone is in the Oval Office, Edwards says. “Presidents rarely move public opinion in their direction. That’s fundamental,” Edwards says. “You cannot govern based on the premise of expanding your coalition, but not everything presidents do lack public support. Turns out many things this president does lack public support.”

Milligan misstates Trump’s often claimed philosophy of “If I am hit, I hit back” into ‘I’m going to run somebody against you. I’m going to hurt you.’ This is a good example of twisting someone’s words into something they did not say, mean, or do. Why is it bulling to tel the never Trumper Republican that he will campaign against them in the primaries?

Then she goes back to this trope, “Not only did Trump lose the popular vote, Peterson notes, but he lost it by a bigger margin than anyone who has nonetheless won the presidency by securing the Electoral College majority. While his party hung onto majorities in the House and Senate, the GOP lost seats in both chambers in the 2016 elections. And his approval ratings are dismal, hitting the upper-middle 30s.”

They just cant get over loosing the election, undoubted she wants to scrap the Electoral College, but that would lead to a different type of campaigning, where only a few states with the biggest cities would be relevant to winning the office.

I would also point out that the ones doing the polls on Trump’s approval ratings are the same ones that had Hillary winning by a landslide.

Trump Did Not Curtsey to King Salman

Jesus Christ Almighty!!!

A curtsey is a traditional gesture of greeting, in which a girl or woman bends her knees while bowing her head. It is the female equivalent of male bowing in Western cultures, not a tall man lowering his head to allow a shorter man to put a chain with his country’s highest honor around his neck!

Trump is a head taller that King Salman.

Note they do not run the full clip of Trump receiving the medal, just show screen grabs of the images they wish to project. Propaganda techniques, show what you want seen, don’t show what would belie your assertions..

Published in: on May 21, 2017 at 14:18  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Concerning the Trade Deficit: Reagan v. Trump

This would be President Reagan from a press conference on September 17th, 1985.

Q. For the first time in 70 years, we have become a deficit nation—since 1914. Does this disturb you? Throughout your political life, you have decried deficit spending and our secondary posture in the world of trade. Do you have a solution for this?

The President. You used the word “deficit”; you mean our trade imbalance?

Q. Yes, the fact that we have become a debtor nation for the first time since 1914.

The President. Are we? I think this false impression that’s being given that a trade imbalance means debtor nation. This isn’t our government that is expending more than it is for imports than it is getting back in exports. These are the people of our country and the businesses and the corporations and the individual entrepreneurs.

On one hand, the American people are buying more than the American people are selling. Incidentally, those figures of export and import have some failings in them, some weak spots. They don’t include on exports anything that we’re getting back for services. There’s a lot of technical things I won’t get into, because they get too complicated here, about the difference in the two figures.

But let me point something out about this. The deficit that I’m concerned about, that is the most important, and that can be the biggest problem for us and that must be solved, is the deficit in Federal spending-here, our domestic spending. This is the threat to everything that we hold dear.

But the trade imbalance—from 1890—or 1790 to 1875, this country, all that 85 years, ran a trade imbalance. And in those years, we were becoming the great economic power that we are in the world today. Now, we come up to the present. And in the last 33 months, we have seen more than 8 million new jobs created.

Yes, we’ve lost since 1979 1.6 million jobs in manufacturing, but we’ve added 9 million new jobs in travel and service industries. We’ve had this great recovery; we’ve brought inflation down; the interest rate is coming down—all of these things that we want.

This recovery, the greatest one we’ve known in decades, has been done with this same trade imbalance. Now, in the 1930’s, in that depression that I mentioned earlier in my remarks, in that depression, 25-percent unemployment—the worst depression the world has ever known—we had a trade surplus every one of those 10 years until World War II ended the depression.

So, I think this has been exaggerated, and it isn’t a case of us being a debtor nation.

Another thing we don’t count is that from abroad, that is not counted in our export figures are the billions of dollars of foreign capital that has been invested in the United States, invested in our private industries, invested in our government bonds, if you will, things of this kind, because we are the best and safest investment in the world today.

That would be the polar opposite to the position of President Trump. They can’t both be correct. One of them is right and one of them is wrong. Which is it?

This is from Trump’s speech on 1/28/2017:

Tonight, as I outline the next steps we must take as country, we must honestly acknowledge the circumstances we inherited.

Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.

Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.

More than one in five people in their prime-working years are not working.

We have the worst financial recovery in 65 years.

In the last 8 years, the past Administration has put on more new debt than nearly all other Presidents combined.

We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

Our trade deficit in goods with the world last year was nearly $800 billion dollars.

In my opinion, they are both right considering the circumstances of their administrations. Reagan’s dragon was Stagflation, “as a political matter, the inflation hawks attribute the drop in inflation from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 3.8 percent in 1982 to Reagan’s courage in backing Volcker.

Background

Since the 1970s, inflation was a major problem. In 1980, Consumer Price Inflation was over 14%. The new president, Ronald Reagan, had to put into place policies that stimulate an inflation/recession – or stagflation – economy, something never before occurring in US economic history. In 1981, he asked Congress for a 10% tax cut so that people and businesses could put more money into the market. He wanted people to spend discretionary income to stimulate the economy so that new jobs and businesses would be needed. In the end of 1981, he saw a quickly improving market.The problem, however, was inflation. As stated by economist William Butcher: “In order to cure inflation, some recession is needed.” In 1983, Reagan allowed the second largest tax increase in history to counteract the inflation. Then, through the magic of the Laffer Curve, the recession of 1982 curbed inflation dramatically after a slight tax increase just strong enough to break the recession.

By 1984, inflation was under 4%; investments were higher; US families had higher take home pay; and, the income of the elderly rose. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won re-election by sweeping the electoral college – losing only Minnesota (his opponent’s home state) and the District of Columbia.

Reagan did not have to confront the fact that American companies were leaving America, taking their jobs with them, while still selling their products in America. If the American worker is working and making a good living by his labor then Reagan is right when he says, “On one hand, the American people are buying more than the American people are selling. Incidentally, those figures of export and import have some failings in them, some weak spots. They don’t include on exports anything that we’re getting back for services.” However, the dynamics change when all those jobs leave America for offshore locations. Now you have the government supporting American purchases with welfare payments, and while Reagan said, “Yes, we’ve lost since 1979 1.6 million jobs in manufacturing, but we’ve added 9 million new jobs in travel and service industries.” there is a large pay differential between a manufacturing job and being a travel agent or a waiter. How do those loses compare to what Trump pointed out, “We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001”?

Reagan’s Labor Force Participation Rate was 78.7% in 1980, and it climbed to 83.6% in 1988 when he left office. Today it is 81.5% the same as it was in 2012 down from the 83.3 it was when Obama took office.

Muslims and the Constitution, and Progressive in General

Vincent Tolliver, a Muslim, has the same problem understanding what the Constitution can limit and what it cannot as most Progressives. You see, political parties, regardless of their strip, are not government organizations; they are private enterprises, and as such the 1st Amendment does not apply to them, and they are as free to limit speech as they are to promote it.

Having participated in a forum for potential DNC Chair candidates on Saturday, Tolliver was consequently expelled from the race by interim chair Donna Brazile, who described his comments as “disgusting.”
However, Tolliver has now pledged to take legal action against the DNC, claiming a violation of his constitutional First Amendment rights.

Tolliver confirmed he would be taking legal action to Breitbart News, saying that the “Democratic establishment are denying me due process and are attempting to suppress my voice, in violation of my First Amendment right,” adding that he stands by his views on Islam. “The DNC and the Democratic establishment are attempting to prevent me from freely expressing known and indisputable tenets of lslamic law. Moreover, through sleight of hand tactics, interim chair Donna Brazile falsely accused me of discriminating against Mr. Ellison and cast aspersions by suggesting I was intolerant of religious freedom,” he alleged.

This is another prime example of Cultural Jihad. He can talk all he wants about bringing a court action, but the DNC did not violate his First Amendment right, because the DNC is not the government. You come into my house, and I can kick you out over anything you may say and it is not a Constitutional violation; the MCL can revoke my membership if I speak as one of their members on a political matter, and it is not a Constitutional violation.

However, he is using Alinsky’s rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.”

Trump: Draining The Swamp

Trump continues with his swamp draining. If you still don’t understand how our CIA under Obama’s directive orchestrated the Orange Revolution driving a duly democratically elected President out of power in Ukraine, forcing him to take refuge in Russia in fear for his life, you just don’t bother checking into the truth of the matter. It was the CIA/NATO Regime change in Ukraine that led Russia to support the Russians living in the Crimea to revolt against Ukraine and break away. Russia’s only deep water port is in the Crimea, and they were not about to let it go to NATO without a fight.

In retaliation for Russia taking back their port Obama put economic sanction on them. I hate Communism as much as I do Islam, but there is no good guy bad guy in Ukraine, there is interests at play. Obama wanted to let Qatar build a pipeline through Syria to Turkey to sell their natural gas to the Europeans. Assad and Putin are allies, so to protect Russia’s natural gas market in Europe he said no. As a result Obama and Hillary exported their created civil war in Libya, which they started because Gadhafi was going to sell his oil for gold not the petrodollar, to Syria.

I wrote this three years back in 6/28/2014:

Today I am going to discuss Libya and why the powers that be decided that Moammar Gadhafi had to go, and tie it to other recent events. It was not, as we were led to be because he was killing and peaceful demonstrates.  We read lots of headlines like this, “Libya protests: More than 100 killed as army fires on unarmed demonstrator” , but you did not read many like this, “Gaddafi under siege: Two CIA-backed groups, an al-Qaeda-linked LIFG on top of power stakes” from The Asian Tribune, or this “CIA & MI6 in Libya: U.S.-British covert operations exposed”  where it says this:

“The New York Times, the Washington Post and other corporate news sources are now openly admitting that the opposition forces fighting the Libyan government are supported and coordinated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s MI6 with in-country special forces.”

Connecting The Dots: Gadhafi, Benghazi, Syria, ISIS, Qatar, Turkey, Russian, and the Ukraine

Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was overseeing the collection of weapons that we had giving our mercenary, virtually all the so-called rebels were from outside of Libya, and putting them on a ship to Turkey to are another set of mercenary when he got killed. Qatar spent billions of dollars in their attempt to dispose of Assad in order to build their pipeline, they are sitting on one of the world’s largest supply of natural gus, but can only ship it by sea.

Russia, in appreciation of Syria’s not allowing the pipeline being built to undercut its main export product that Obama’s sanctions could not touch, started giving military support. It was Obama’s mercenary from which ISIS was spawned.

Published in: on February 5, 2017 at 06:43  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Drain The Swamp, More Like Killing The Octopus

The Progressives have infiltrated into all aspect of our government, they are the Hidra in the “Captain America”, the ones that Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.D. fight, they have burrowed in, and will be fighting Trump at every turn.

They have wormed there way into the Pentagon:

President Trump says he wants the US to have better relations with Russia and to halt military operations against Muslim countries. But he is being undermined by the Pentagon.

The commander of US forces in Europe, General Ben Hodges, has lined up tanks on Poland’s border with Russia and fired salvos that the general says are a message to Russia, not a training exercise.

How is Trump going to normalize relations with Russia when the commander of US forces in Europe is threatening Russia with words and deeds?

The Pentagon has also sent armored vehicles to “moderate rebels” in Syria, according to Penagon spokesman Col. John Dorrian. Unable to prevent Russia and Syria from winning the war against ISIS, the Pentagon is busy at work derailing the peace negotiations.

The military/security complex is using its puppets-on-a-string in the House and Senate to generate renewed conflict with Iran and to continue threats against China.

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

The State Department is swarming with turncoats, as you know on February 1st, 900 State Department employees, in an act of extreme insubordination, signed a document stating that they did not support the temporary Muslim ban on travel into the United States. The White House is aware of this action and this led White House Press Secretary to state that they were aware of the action and that these employees needed to decide if they were going to get on board or leave. Mr. Spicer, they need to leave. President Trump has a major problem on his hands.

Monika Wesolowski has been a State Department employee for over a decade. Her work has been exemplary. However, Monika has 4 distinct handicaps. She is White, Christian, conservative and cute. In today’s State Department this is a toxic and even potentially lethal combination. Most importantly, she supports Donald Trump and for that, she is experiencing extreme workplace harassment and today, she faces termination for displaying a President Trump’s photo at her workstation.

Subsequently, Monika went to the ethics and legal department of the State Department and sought an opinion on displaying the photo of a sitting President in her workplace. The written opinion, see below, stated that what she was doing was not a violation and that she is not in violation of the Hatch Act which prohibits Federal employees from engaging in promoting a candidate. Monika subsequently showed the legal opinion to her supervisor, who promptly said “I don’t care, we will just have to agree to disagree”. Today, Monika faces an annual job review which has been moved up to coincide with these events. Monika stated that she expects to be fired today.

[snip]

In an interview on this topic which I did on Paul Preston’s Agenda 21 Radio show, he shared that he has outed 12 instances (people) associated with espionage in the State Department and that this ring was established under Clinton’s rule.

Monika’s story is no less volatile. She produces State Department documents and brochures on sensitive topics. Monika has had work rejected for having too many White faces in the brochures. There are brochures, unrelated to topic, which do not permit any White faces to be used.

The Saudi Arabian contract employee is in charge of State Department brochures on Child Sex Trafficking. She does an amazing job, according to Monika, of producing documents about these events on the continent of Africa. However, none of these same type events are covered domestically. Let me remind the readers that Washington, D.C., is right next to Fairfax County, VA, and as such, is the highest child sex trafficking area in the country. The State Department is also a stone’s throw from the alleged location of PizzaGate. How is this topic not covered domestically? As a US citizen, I want this question answered. What is the State Department potentially covering up? How deep does this corruption go? Source:

Even the National Park Service employees are over staffed with turncoats who are more interested in implementing the UN’s Agendia 21 than they are in following Trump’s agenda of pulling back from the Global Warming Hoax which is nothing but a stalking horse to impose Sustainable Development upon the world. Just what does the National Park Service have to do with Global Warming, they are charged with taking care of our parks not deciding when we can live and what kind of energy we can use.

On Tuesday (Jan. 24), a tweet from the Badlands National Park on global warming seemed to defy the new rules put in place. The Trump administration was quick to act.

Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer said that the NPS “had inappropriately violated their own social media policies. There was guidance that was put out to the department to act in compliance with the rules that were set forth.”

The temporary action against NPS social media was similar to other de facto gag orders by the Trump administration against the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture.

In those actions:

• The president banned EPA employees from providing updates on social media or to reporters and barred them from awarding new contracts or grants as well.

• The president instructed USDA employees not to release any public-facing documents including new releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content until further notice.

Although the Badlands NP tweet came down, something else replaced it — the Alt National Park Service.

On its Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/AltUSNationalParkService/), it says:

“Hello, we wanted to take a moment to let you know who we are. We’re a growing coalition of 59 National Park Service employees from nine different National Parks. We formed to ensure the protection of the environment for future generations to come.

“We were forced into a media blackout, hiring freeze, policy changes, and possible reduction in funding. We are here to stand up and speak out against the current administration. We all refuse to be silenced while we watch everything we love crumble. Join the movement at www.altnps.org -Arches, Glacier, Everglades, Cuyahoga Valley, Rocky Mountain, Shenandoah, Yosemite, Badlands, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Blue Ridge Parkway, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park.”

The implication is that Rocky Mountain National Park is part of this movement. RMNP officials say that’s not the case.

“Rocky Mountain National Park is not involved nor have we joined the group,” said Patterson. “The only information I have is what I’ve gleaned from the internet or media reports.” Source:

Hydra’s Head stretched deep into the EPA, and they do not care if they are breaking the law, the EPA staff has been instructed to freeze all its grants ― an extensive program that includes funding for research, redevelopment of former industrial sites, air quality monitoring and education, among other things ― and told not to discuss this order with anyone outside the agency, according to a Hill source with knowledge of the situation.

Federal employees are turning to encryption technologies to coordinate their resistance to the Trump administration, looking for ways to protect their conversations from hackers or agency overlords.

A small group of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees are already “communicating incognito using the app Signal shortly after Trump’s inauguration,” Politico reports. Such apps encrypt communications and make them difficult to monitor or hack.

But is this legal? Probably not, according to one expert.

“It appears that some employees at the EPA may be using encrypted apps on their phones to avoid transparency laws in an effort to conceal their communications from internal and external oversight,” Henry Kerner, an attorney and senior vice president of the public interest law firm Cause of Action, told The Daily Caller News foundation. Source:

The Epa was counting on a Hillary win, banked on it so they could continue with there plans to stifle the use of fossil fuels, and continue their conversion of our energy supply to the much more expensive renewables, wind and solar, and do away with Nuclear Power.  In other words Agenda 21.

After Trump’s Election: ‘EPA Employees Were in Tears’

By Penny Starr | November 14, 2016 | 11:33 AM EST

(AP Photo)

People who work at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy are having a hard time coping with the election of Donald Trump as president, with many reporting depression and some being advised to take sick leave, according to an article published Friday by Environment and Energy Publishing (E&E).

“U.S. EPA employees were in tears,” the article stated. “Worried Energy Department staffers were offered counseling.

“Some federal employees were so depressed, they took time off,” it stated. “Others might retire early.

“And some employees are in downright panic mode in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory,” the article said.

John O’Grady, union boss for EPA workers, said people are “upset.”

“People are upset,” said O’Grady, who works in an EPA office in Chicago. “Some people took the day off because they were depressed.”

“The president-elect has vowed to repeal some of the rules they’ve toiled on for the last eight years during the Obama administration, including the Clean Power Plan rule to cut power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions,” the article said.

“Trump has even suggested abolishing the agency entirely, although that would be an uphill political climb,” the article said, adding that the man Trump has picked to head the EPA transition, Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is a “climate change skeptic.”

“If you look at the seven stages of grief, I’m still in denial,” an unnamed career EPA employee said. “I will not look at the news. I will not read the news.”

Another EPA staffer said, “I don’t actually know anybody here that was supporting Trump.” Source:

While Trump is just getting started his opposition is winding up in high gear, both in the streets and in his Departments, to stall, delay, and kill every move he makes, they are being added and abetted by the Democrats Party.

Democrats are insisting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) career employees could continue their work on global warming under the Trump administration.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) there’s no going back on global warming regulations, and one Democratic lawmaker has even urged the agency’s more than 15,000 employees to resist.

“This agency when this president came in really came out of the closet on climate,” McCarthy told CSM in an exclusive interview last week that was published Friday. “I have a senior team that’s great and the senior career staff that are here are just extraordinary. They are here because of this mission, and that will continue.”

“Even in the prior administration you had a lot of people in the agency that continued to do work on climate, even though that work was not visible,” McCarthy said. “The work continues in the agency.”

California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer sent a letter to McCarthy and EPA employees urging them not to cave to pressure from Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to head the agency. Source:

We do live in exciting times.

Published in: on February 3, 2017 at 09:19  Comments (1)  
Tags:

Progressives, Liberals, and now Progressive Again

Woodrow Wilson, America’s 28th president, rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s system of the separation of powers. This philosophy is known as Progressivism.

“All that progressives ask or desire,” wrote Woodrow Wilson, “is permission — in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”

John Dewey and his followers, argued that we needed a broader conception of liberty than the one maintained by laissez-faire negative-rights libertarians. The key idea can be summed up in a quote from Anatole France: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” Basically, the idea is that the freedom to starve because you have no food is not a meaningful freedom at all, because it does not maximize your autonomy or allow your to realize your potential, which were important goals in classical liberalism.

Thus Dewey argued that we should recognize positive liberty as well as negative liberty, meaning that e.g. just as we ought to recognize a right to live without someone killing you, we similarly ought to recognize a right to live without dying due to lack of food. Thus American Progressives advocates that the government should play some role in the economy in order to give people autonomy and enable them to pursue their own happiness, along the lines of the “responsiveness” part of the Progressive philosophy. Thus Americans liberals still try to achieve the goals of classical liberalism, but they sometimes do it through Progressive means.

The Progressives rejected God given rights as naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not born free. John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not “something that individuals have as a ready-made possession.” It is “something to be achieved.” In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state. Man is a product of his own history, through which he collectively creates himself. He is a social construct. Since human beings are not naturally free, there can be no natural rights or natural law. Therefore, Dewey also writes, “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology.”

The Progressive presidents advocated a very interventionist foreign policy, since they were motivated by the desire to help people as much as possible, even people abroad. Liberals still share some of this impulse, and are willing to support limited American military intervention in circumstances of extreme humanitarian crisis. But mostly their foreign policy views were taken from classical liberalism, so they they’re antiwar for the most part.

Progressive are totally silent about their widespread support for the theory and practice of eugenics. As Princeton University economist Tim Leonard has chronicled, “eugenic thought deeply influenced the Progressive Era transformation of the state’s relationship to the American economy.” Despite the fact that this monograph favorably cites progressive hero Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for his famous dissent in the economic liberty case Lochner v. New York (1905), the authors make no mention of Holmes’ notorious majority decision in Buck v. Bell, where Holmes and his colleagues (including Louis Brandeis) upheld the forced sterilization of those who “sap the strength of the State.”

Today it is the Progressive that laud Margaret Sanger and champing the slaughter of babies, which, btw the way are mostly black, Let’s read a few quotes:

“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children… [Women must have the right] to live … to love… to be lazy … to be an unmarried mother … to create… to destroy… The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order… The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

No, that was not taken from Hitler. That’s a quotation from the patron saint of the feminists and Hillary Clinton. And the above words were not a one-off moment of insanity. There’s more where those horrendous thoughts came from.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

In any case, when contemporary liberals call themselves progressive, they’re hearkening back to their intellectual predecessors. The Progressives hijacked the Democrat Party early in the 20th Century, as they were doing it they stopped calling themselves Progressive and started referring to themselves a Liberals. We can thank Hilary for the label coming back out in the open, she said that she was proud To call herself a Progressive.

Trust a Muslim? Not me.

There are three Islamic doctrines that make trusting a Muslim impossible for me. They are: Taqiyya, Abrogation, and Cultural Jihad.

The first, Taqiyya, not only allows Muslims to lie to Infidels, but encourage it for the advancement of Islam.

The second, Abrogation, means that any saying of Mohammed which may contradict a previous saying is abrogated, that is “abolish, do away with, or annul,”. Keep in mind the Quran is not in chronological order like the Bible is.

Surah 16:101
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.

Surah 2:62 is abrogated by Surah 3:85 below,
Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians, – Any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Surah 5:69 is also abrogated by Surah 3:85 below.
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course : but many of them follow a course that is evil.

Surah 3:85
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

Thus when a Muslim quotes a Surah to make a point that has been abrogated they are practicing Taqiyya.

The third, Cultural Jihad is the Islamic plan to dominate non Islamic countries by stealth, by immigration and using their own laws and customs to convert the country into an Islamic country, that is what is going on in Europe now.

“What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.”  Cultural Jihad

Published in: on January 30, 2017 at 09:14  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

Numbers chapter 5 verses 11-31 does not supports a woman’s right to abort

Today, the March for Life, recently I was told that Numbers chapter 5 verses 11-31 supports a woman’s right to abort their unborn child. Not so, these passages define the civil actions that God commanded the Israeli men of the Old Testament to take if they were “jealous” of their wife; jealous meaning that the husband believed the wife to be unfaithful. The wife in question was to ingest a special drink made by the priests. This drink would give signs if a person was guilty; ie, the thigh would rot and the belly would swell.

  1. The main reason that this has became an issue is because of a mistranslation in the NIV. I would add that the NIV is a perversion of the scriptures and a poor excuse for an translation. The NIV uses the phrase “your womb miscarries” while the KJV uses the phrases “thy thigh to rot.” The NIV wrongly says that the womb miscarries, which causes multiple people to fall into confusion.
  2. The primary focus of this passage is to manifest the guilty party. Nowhere in these passages is there any hint of an unborn child from an adulterous relationship. The thigh rotting and belly swelling was a supernatural means in which God shined a light onto the guilty party. It would be like a prosecutor having undeniable evidence.
  3. Both guilty and innocent wives of jealous husbands drank this concoction indiscriminately. Why would it only cause abortions on the guilty? Why would it not harm the unborn children of the innocent wives? Verse 28 states concerning the innocent wives, “she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.” Again, it only affected the guilty, yet, BOTH drank it. This certainly did not cause an abortion, it manifested the guilty.

 

When does life begin? It either happens at conception or it doesn’t. There is no grey area when life begins. To describe a pregnant woman, the bible often uses the term ‘with child’. Check out these verses: Ge 16:11, Ge 19:36, Ge 38:24, Ge 38:25, Ex 21:22, 1Sa 4:19, 2Sa 11:5, 2Ki 8:12, 2Ki 15:16, Ec 11:5, Isa 26:17, Isa 26:18, Isa 54:1, Jer 30:6, Jer 31:8, Ho 13:16, Am 1:13, Mt 1:18, Mt 1:23, Mt 24:19, Mr 13:17, Lu 2:5, Lu 21:23, 1Th 5:3, Re 12:2.

David considered himself a sinner from the moment of conception, ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ (Psalms 51:5)

The bible does not support abortion. A human fetus is a living person and deserving of basic human rights. Every child is a “heritage of the LORD” and should be treasured as such.

Here is the verse that they say advocates abortion with the Strong’s numbers, with the Strong’s translation below:

Num 5:21

Then the priest H3548 shall charge H7650the woman H802 with an oath H7621 of cursing, H423 and the priest H3548 shall say H559 unto the woman, H802 The LORD H3068 make H5414 thee a curse H423 and an oath H7621among H8432 thy people, H5971 when the LORD H3068 doth make H5414 thy thigh H3409 to rot, H5307 and thy belly H990 to swell; H6639

The KJV translates Strong’s H5414 in the following manner: give (1,078x), put (191x), deliver (174x), made (107x), set (99x), up (26x), lay (22x), grant (21x), suffer (18x), yield (15x), bring (15x), cause (13x), utter (12x), laid (11x), send (11x), recompense (11x), appoint (10x), shew (7x), miscellaneous (167x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H423 in the following manner: curse (18x), oath (14x), execration (2x), swearing (2x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H3409 in the following manner: thigh (21x), side (7x), shaft (3x), loins (2x), body (1x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H990 in the following manner: belly (30x), womb (31x), body (8x), within (2x), born (1x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H6639 in the following manner: swell (1x).

 

Abortion in the Bible

Passages from the Pentateuch: the
first five books in the Hebrew Scriptures:

horizontal rule

It is mainly from the Hebrew Scriptures that the modern-day Jewish people obtain their spiritual insight. In Judaism, a fetus is regarded as a pre-human, as not fully a human person. It is considered to become fully human only after it has half-emerged from the birth canal during the process of being born.

Christians primarily use the Christian Scriptures for guidance. However, the Hebrew Scriptures also contain passages that some feel may deal with abortion.

bullet Genesis 2:7:
This passage describes how God made Adam’s body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the “man became a living soul” only after God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”

Some theologians have suggested that this passage states clearly that Adam’s personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become a human person only after she or he starts breathing. This would imply that a fetus is only potentially human. Thus, an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person. The most important word in the Hebrew Scriptures that was used to describe a person was “nephesh;” it appears 755 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as “living soul” in the above passage. One scholar, H.W. Wolff, 1believes that the word’s root means “to breath.” He argues that during Old Testament times:

“Living creatures are in this way exactly defined in Hebrew as creatures that breathe.”

An alternate interpretation is that Adam and Eve were unique creations. They did not start as a fetus, and were not born. They were fully formed as adults. If this approach is taken, then It is not valid to compare a newborn who has not yet breathed to Eve and Adam when they were first created as fully formed adults who had not yet breathed.

bullet Genesis 25:21-23

“…Rebekah, his, wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

The passage refers to the twin fetuses of Rebekah as being “nations.” They are clearly not nations at that stage of development; the word has to be interpreted symbolically. They are rather two fetuses who were later born. The Bible refers to their descendents as nations. The passage also refers to the twin fetuses as “banim:” a Hebrew word which almost always means “newborns” or “infants,” or “children.” The ancient Hebrews did not have a separate word to describe “fetuses.” So they used the same word to describe fetuses that they also used to refer to children.

Some suggest that since the ancient Hebrews used “banim” to refer to fetuses, newborns, infants and children, that they regarded all four as simply stages of human personhood.

English translations of the Bible generally use the term “children” here; this would more accurately be translated as “fetuses” except that the latter primarily a medical term. Again, the passage does not address the main question: were the fetuses full persons, or are they just potential persons at the time?

bullet Genesis 38:24:
Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar’s twin fetuses had been considered to be human beings, one would have expected her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that he was the male responsible for Tamar’s pregnancy.)

If the fetuses that she was carrying are not to be regarded as living human beings at the end of her first trimester of pregnancy, then causing their death would not be a great moral concern.

However, if the twin fetuses are to be considered as human persons, then it seems strange that they would be considered of such little value as to allow them to be killed for the alleged sin of the woman carrying them. In this case, this passage may be expressing a theme that runs through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation: that it is acceptable to kill or otherwise punish innocent person or persons for the sins or crimes of others — the pregnant woman in this case.

An alternate interpretation is that innocent persons were often punished for the sins of one member of the family. See Joshua 7:21, Daniel 3:28-19, and Daniel 6:24). So it might be normal to give little concern to the fetuses.

bullet Exodus 13:1-2:

“The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'”

Throughout much of the very ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods.  However if the first son was preceded either by the birth of a girl or a miscarriage, then the ceremony was not performed, as the son was not the first offering of the womb. In later years, this practice evolved into a substitute animal sacrifice, a monetary donation to the temple, or a dedication of the child to their deity.

The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible states:

“…the ancestors of the Israelites probably at one time actually sacrificed their first born children, as Genesis 22:1-14 implies.” 2

These passages relate to infanticide, not abortion, because the infant would be killed after birth. But it shows the low regard for newborn humans during that era. Other references of human sacrifices in the Hebrew Scriptures are found at:

  • Judges 11:29-40: Jephthah promises God that he will make a human sacrifice of the first person who comes to greet him when he returns home after a successful battle. He later ritually sacrifices his only daughter.
  • I Kings 16:34: This passage may refer to the killing by Hiel of his two children during the reconstruction of Jericho. Archeological excavations there have uncovered the remains of persons who appear to have been sacrificed “to obtain divine favor.
  • II Kings 16:3: Ahaz, king of Judah, murdered his son as a human sacrifice.
  • II Kings 17:17: The people of Judah abandoned worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They were said to have burned their children as human sacrifices to Baal.
  • II Kings 21:6: Manasseh burned his son as a human sacrifice to Baal.
  • Isaiah 57:5: Isaiah, speaking for the Lord, comments on the practice of the people of Israel in sacrificing their children, “down in the valleys, under overhanging rocks.
  • Jeremiah 7:31: Jeremiah, speaking for the Lord, criticizes the people of Judah for burning “their sons and daughters in the fire.

bullet Exodus 20:13:

You shall not murder.”

This verse is often mistranslated “Thou shalt not kill.” Murder actually refers only to the killing of a human person.

Since the Jewish religion has traditionally interpreted the Torah as implying that a fetus as achieving full personhood only when it is half emerged from the birth canal, this verse would not apply to abortion.

 

bullet Exodus 21:22: (Cont’d)The New International Version (NIV) of the Bible uses the phrase: “gives birth prematurely.” and offers “miscarriage” as an alternative translation in a footnote. These two options result in totally opposite interpretations: one supporting the pro-choice faction; the other supporting the pro-life movement.

Some liberal theologians reject this interpretation. 1 They point out that this passage appears to have been derived from two earlier Pagan laws, whose intent is quite clear:

  • Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) which reads: “If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death.”
  •  
  • Hittite Laws, (1.17): “If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver…” The phrase “drives out the embryo” appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums the passage up with: “Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence — it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.” 2

bullet Exodus 22:29:

“Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.”

Many Old Testament theologians believe that this is another remnant of the time when the ancient Hebrews and Canaanites ritually murdered their first son, sacrificing him to their god.

 

bullet Leviticus 17:11:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

It is a bit of a stretch, but this passage might possibly be interpreted as implying that personhood begins as an embryo when blood first becomes present. Since the heart starts beating about 21 days after conception, then one might argue that the embryo becomes a human person at that stage of pregnancy, or slightly earlier.

bullet Leviticus 27:6:

“And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female three shekels.”

A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls were of less value at three shekels; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.

An alternate explanation is that there was such a high infant mortality rate that one could only be confident that there was a reasonable chance of a newborn surviving after its first month had passed and it was still alive.

bullet Numbers 3:15:

“Take a census…including every male a month or more old. “

Only male babies over one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration. One explanation of this policy was that an infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human person. Another is that the death rate among newborns was so high, that one could not have a reasonable certainty that the child would live until it was at least a month old.

bullet Numbers 5:12-31

Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water…..”

This passage describes a ritual that a husband could force his wife to endure if he suspected that she had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nobody seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present. Needless to say, there was no similar magical test that a woman could require her husband to take if she suspected him of adultery.

bullet Numbers 31:17-18

“Now, kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

This occurred at end of the genocidal campaign against the Midianites. Moses, presumably under orders from God, ordered the soldiers to kill every boy and non-virgin girl or woman. Presumably, a significant percentage of the latter would be pregnant. So, their fetus was killed along with the mother-to-be. The fetuses would be destroyed, presumably because they were perceived to have had no value. The female virgins would be spared, because they were considered to have significant value.

bullet Deuteronomy 2:34:

“At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors.”

The Israelites tried to negotiate peaceful passage through the land of Heshbon. They were unsuccessful. So, apparently under the instruction of God, they exterminated all of the people, including innocent children. This undoubtedly included killing the fetuses of pregnant women . This is an early example of genocide based on religious belief, not unlike the genocides perpetrated by Christians against non-Christians in Nazi Germany during World War II, and in Bosnia Herzegovina in the 1990s. It demonstrated no regard for the life of the fetuses who were destroyed.

bullet Deuteronomy 30:19:

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” The segment “choose life, that…thy seed may live” at first glance might be interpreted as referring to the choice to not have an abortion. It is even clearer in the Living Bible which says “Choose life, that…your children might live.”

It is always important to consider the context of any isolated quotation. Verses 15 to 18 clearly state that the choice referred to in verse 19 is whether to worship either Jehovah, or the gods of the Canaanites, whose land they were about to invade. Verse 20 picks up the same theme. Verse 19 thus relates to religious choices and is unrelated to abortion. However, the two-word phrase “choose life” from this verse is often quoted by pro-life groups. Michigan Christians for Life offered a free, 3″ x 6″  bumper-sticker which says simply “Deuteronomy 30:19.3 Automobile license plates that carry the “choose life” message are available in several Southern U.S. states, although their constitutionality has been challenged.

bullet Deuteronomy 32:23-26: 

“I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men.”

God is here describing how he will commit genocide against a specific nation. He will murder of persons of all ages and both genders, from infants to old people. It also involves erasing the memory of them as a nation. Presumably, fetuses would also die during the genocide.

Source:

Published in: on January 27, 2017 at 12:58  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,