No, You’re wrong about Second Amendment rights I’m not

Mr. Gene Yoon wrote in medium.com that “You’re wrong about Second Amendment rights” in it, among other things he said, “The problem is that the disparity of destructive power between the weaponry of the government and the weaponry that people can own has become too great. Even if all citizens were armed with fully automatic assault rifles, this arsenal would pale in comparison to the firepower available to state and local police forces, never mind the world-ending power of the national armed forces. Private gun ownership might be a problem in many ways, but it is not at all a problem for the government’s power over the people.” Of course, he does not see the Second Amendment in the same light as I do so I asked “Does not the American’s fight in Vietnam and the Russian’s in Afghanistan point to the fallaciousness of this argument?’

He goes on to say “So ‘a little rebellion’ based on guns is a laughably ineffective tool in today’s society. Government power is no longer truly threatened by private gun ownership, and hasn’t been for about a century.”

It was not the guns that the Vet Cong carried into battle that defeated my beloved Corps, it was the press you alluded to in your opening analogy that led us to abandon the South Vietnamese and giving Cambodia to Pol Pot, do you think that the Federal government could wage a war against its citizens, like Lincoln did in his total war, and escape the power of the pin? There are oath keepers that would not fire upon fellow citizens, not drop bombs upon them.

Also you neglect all of the weapons stored in National Guard building and compounds all over America, Texas’ National Guard alone would count as the wold fifth largest army I have read, how had would it be for a few armed citizens to take over a National Guard depot and use those arms in an armed rebellion? There are many of us Veterans spread out all across the land that knows how to use those weapons and are able to teach others.

I pray that it never comes to it, but the inability of the government to take our arms gives us the power to fight back should the government actions become so egregious that a rebellion was called for. If you think that we would be content to fight a tank with a rifle when we can steal a M72 LAW and MANPATS you are living in a world that never trained to fight with what you have to get more. I assure you Americans can make Improvise Explosive Devices as well as the Afghans.

Open your eyes to see just how important the 2nd Amendment is for the threat of an armed rebellion to keep our government in the bounds of the Constitution. When you light a fuse, it is not the fuse that explodes, but what it sets off.

Advertisements
Published in: on October 15, 2017 at 09:02  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

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: , , , ,

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  Comments (1)  
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: , , ,

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: , ,

What Killed the American Indian? Not the the pipeline.

What with all this squawking going on about the Dakota Pipeline and so many people trying to say that the Europeans deliberate massacred hundreds of of millions of Indians to take their land I decided to set the record straight. In truth the genocidal maniacs who killed most of the Native Americans were these dirty bastard, diseases. We didn’t put the full power of the state and science behind the mechanical slaughter of human beings. We didn’t conduct medical experiments on Native Americans the way Germany did Jews and Roma. We moved into a continent that was largely depopulated by disease.

The US is guilty of a LOT of horrors. So before you may feel tempted to strawman me, read a lot of what I write. Americans are horribly ignorant of the crimes committed to bring them to this place and time with all the wealth they have. Treaties were continuously broken with Native Americans. Africans were enslaved. Vietnamese were killed with impunity.

I admit it and know the history.

But Americans didn’t commit industrial genocide. Americans didn’t put the full resources of state and science behind the mechanical slaughter of human beings. Americans didn’t conduct medical experiments on Native Americans the way Germany did Jews and Roma. Americans inherited a continent that was largely depopulated by disease.

And that’s the main point. Disease wiped out most Native Americans. Thereafter, the few surviving tribes that were encountered, were displaced and frequently attacked, making their lives miserable. What happened to the Native Americans is a debt the US will never fully repay, but the US did not commit willful genocide.

If anybody in the Americas did, that would be Spain. Spain conducted some of the worst and intentional programs of destruction against the Aztecs and Incas imaginable. Now, do I think that Spaniards should have to wander the halls wailing in agony? No. That was a long time ago and when it happpened, it was sadly standard operating procedure for nation-states, including (GET THIS!) Incas and Aztecs!

But when Germany and Japan committed their horrors, they were members of nations that were supposed to not behave that way any longer. And of course, there is some finely spun racism too — Germany committed her crimes against white people. That kind of horror hadn’t happened ever on the continent of Europe at that scale, with that level of industrialization.

Nevertheless, what the US did —while wrong on a hundred levels— cannot compare to what the Germans did.

Dan Holliday

Published in: on January 26, 2017 at 09:14  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

The Pledge: You know, the one that they made Donald Trump take

Now I would like to call you attention to some hypocrites, remember in the first debate, and it was asked if they lost would they support the winner?

“The first Republican debate opened with a question, specifically for Trump. Per Bret Baier:

Who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican Party and pledge not to run an independent campaign against that person? Raise your hand now if you won’t make that pledge tonight.” Trump was the only candidate who said that he might run as an independent if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination. Not only is that a difficult path to take, but also an expensive one. Trump is probably the only candidate running who could afford to launch an independent campaign.

Now Jeb! Bush and Lindsey Graham are reigning upon that pledge. A pledge is a contract, if you make a public pledge for a certain amount of money to a charity, if you do not give the money that you pledged you could be taken to court and forced to pay the money. Consider the hell that would have been raised had Jeb or Lindsey won and Trump would not support their run, saying, “he thinks the Republican Party has been ‘conned,'” like Lindsey just said. The MSM would climb him like a tree debarking him on the way down.

Has anyone mentioned the pledge they made to do what they so absolutist refuse to do now?

Published in: on May 6, 2016 at 20:02  Comments (9)  
Tags: ,