Saturday, November 26, 2016

Causes of the American Civil War

I am noticing an uptick of the drumbeat of claim that slavery was not
the cause of the Civil War. It is true that it was not the only cause.
But the declarations of secession by the states that then went on to
form the Confederacy make it clear that slavery was the primary
reason. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#


Each state's statement is linked on the top of the page, and you can
read them for yourself. YES OTHER CAUSES EXISTED. but with
one exception slavery was given a lot of attention.


John C. Calhoun was the first to formulate a theory of secession, as
distinct from general remarks and so forth. Ironically, this was to slow
up the process that might start, because at the time he had property in
the south and a career in the government in the north, and didn't want
any conflicts that could affect him. Therefore he argued (in response
to the tariff issue that was a major tipping point for some) that when
the fed issues an order the states don't like, they should first simply
ignore it (on whatever basis he gave, I forget what) and go through
a process of development of opposition and rejection, with formal
secession an option to use at the very end of this. (Which of course
meant he would be retired and his careers north and south not
interfered with and he comfortably home in the south if this
happened. Disgusting hypocrite. not that such an effort is evil in
itself, but he was of course arguing as a southern loyalist so to
speak and from a Constitutionalist position (which didn't really
allow for any of his procedures).


Someone argued that the Emancipation Declaration didn't free
any slaves, since it addressed places not under northern control yet,
and any non seceded slave states were not addressed by it. But
the minute a southern location came under northern control, the
Emancipation Declaration applied, and knowing about this would
give slaves in unrecovered places motive to either run away,
revolt or drag their heels in compliance in the war effort, and to
help the Union troops when they came. Many did run off to join
them.


The argument is given that the Constitution provides for secession.
Obviously people who say this haven't read the Constitution except
to skim lightly, or rely on the words of liars. The Constitution does
not provide for secession from the USA, only for secession from a
state, to become a new state of the USA, provided the state seceded
from allows this.


The Preamble speaks of "a more perfect union." as compared to
what? The Articles of Confederation that preceded it were like what
the Confederacy had, and a book was written showing how this
disunity itself interfered with effectiveness of the south during the
Civil War. Pride, romanticism, all these stirring, thrilling lies that
stir feelings that some think are "spiritual" but St. Paul calls puffed
up and empty, kept people from learning from this failure. Also
kept them from noticing that both sides prayed to the same God,
and the North won.


A more perfect union, by definition then, would be something
that was centralized, obliged all members to help each other
on demand either directly or through a central government, and
that you could not leave, and could not under most circumstances
disobey the central government.


Someone noted that the behavior of the signatories to the Constitution,
their caution and their demand for a Bill of Rights, showed that they
knew they were getting into something they couldn't get out of. Like
a marriage in the days when divorce was unthinkable.


When you examine what the Constitution gave the states, shows
exactly this. All meaningful manifestations of sovereignty were
stripped from the states. Most importantly, border controls and
tariffs and the right to deal with foreign governments except through
the federal government. Ego sops like having their own flags were
left, which is nothing.


The states were also required to guarantee a republican form of
government to their citizens. This meant that their constitutions had
to be approved by the federal government before they could be
admitted, and they could not write up one that or change later to
one that was monarchic, inherited political class (officially at
least), mobocratic democratic which by definition is without
representation, or other deviancies from the pattern of the federal
Constitution.


The Constitution declared that itself and any treaties made pursuant
to it were the supreme law of the land any decisions or laws of any
states to the contrary notwithstanding, which latter means, do not
withstand, i.e., have no standing, no merit, no authority.


What most so called "constitutionalists" tell you is a mix of truth
and lies.


The Tenth Amendment is a laugh. it reserves to "the people" whatever
the Constitution doesn't already secure to the federal government or to
the states. I can't think of anything that isn't already in one or the other
category.


As for the income tax, that is not unconstitutional because it is created
by a formal amendment to the Constitution. Some things about it may
be unconstitutional, but the phenomenon itself is not.


A really odd thing is not only the liar who said that wages are not
taxable income (sending a lot of people to jail who believed him)
but the people who bought his argument, because he repeatedly cited
to prove this a paragraph WHICH EXPLICITLY LISTS WAGES AS
TAXABLE INCOME in the tax code.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Bill and Hillary are closet devil worshippers and the same demons deceive the white light wiccans who don't understand what they are worshipping




back when Bill Clinton was first running for office (and he went to Haiti for a voodoo ritual to help him http://www.infowars.com has links to articles about all this, the same message was received by
charismatic Christian and a wiccan. The former was told that Jesus was backing Clinton, and the
latter that "the goddess" was backing Clinton.


This, especially with the voodoo angle, shows two things. the power behind ALL the occult,
whether white light right hand love peace bliss whatever, or left hand path, is the same. the
former distance themselves for the down and dirty blood and guts kind, and "negativity" incl.
the "negativity" of rejecting invasion of your self, saying NO but while this may be because
they personally dislike this, so can only be used by the demons to encourage people to
undermine their sense of separate identity and blur the edges of their psychological and
paraphysical boundaries, the same "forces" were projecting the same message, geared to the
preferences of the recipients.


AND THAT SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH THE CHARISMATIC SCENE,
whether regular or hyper charismatic New Apostolic Reformation type. (there are no apostles,
anyone claiming that title is a fraud that office was not transferred, only some of the authority
to teach and ordain and guard the truth from the Apostles in the office of bishop.)


The kind of passivity, letting go, shutting off the mind, not using your mind it is "soulish" or
"fleshly" etc. etc. is precisely what the demons need (and The real Holy Spirit does NOT need)
to work using you or possess you. (one charismatic gal admitted to me on the phone that it
was a kind of possession.) THERE IS NO BIBLICAL BASIS FOR SUCH PASSIVITY OF
WILL AND MIND.





Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Faith and Politics

http://www.wsj.com/articles/meet-planned-parenthoods-tim-kaine-1475537188
describes Tim Kaine as "a Catholic who campaigns on the proposition that his faith
is so personal it will never influence his political positions." I stopped at that point.


how often have I run into the idea that one's faith is "personal" so not to affect
anything else? I recall reading that an actress who had become Christian said
she didn't talk about it because it was too "personal." SAY WHAT?! we are told
to share the faith. Now, maybe this was just an excuse to avoid a debate when
she knew her faith was shaky and she wanted time to become stronger and have
the answers to arguments. But taking her at her word it is real weird.


there is the idea that one should keep one's religious views in one pocket and
the rest of life in another. Someone who was talking with me about his small
time business expressed some view or intent regarding some dispute that I
reminded him wasn't Christian and he answered "this is business."


there is a saying, "if Jesus Christ isn't Lord of all then He isn't Lord at all."
This is not correct, because He IS Lord whether He is acknowledged by you
as Lord at all or not. That matter will be settled when He comes back someday.
And it is also incorrect, because usually there is some growth in Christ, He is
your Lord but you haven't entirely submitted to Him in all things, and you
haven't sorted it out yet but you are on the right track. or backsliding and
hopefully will repent and get right with Christ.


But essentially what is being said is, if you keep your faith in one pocket
and the rest of life or some segment of it in another, then you are not
treating Jesus truly as Lord.


The context I think where this started was not only morals but politics, and
a clever tapestry of threads were woven resulting in the false picture of
God is a Republican. And presidents who didn't give a damn and who
selected Supreme Court nominees who were more addicted to the legal
structure than to going back to a common sense view so insured Roe v.
Wade was safe, got elected on the anti abortion platform we all forgetting
that these otherwise monsters were not kings who could rule by decree
and overturn the evil at issue, and got conned by them.


But the issue is, like the saying What Would Jesus Do? that you should
take the faith into account in your daily and even political decisions.
Many things are shaky and unclear, some things help good in one context
and oppose it in another. Voting against abortion is always good, but
if you have an anti abortion candidate who will cut back subsidies and
welfare etc., and a pro abortion candidate who keep such or increase
such to pregnant women and post birth mothers, even when they have
a man in tow, then vote the second. Why? because the policies of the
former will give a motive for the murder the woman can't afford the
new child and keep the one cared for well who is already born, and
so forth. maybe it is just something selfish. but the motive to kill is
there if the income is cut.


and conversely, a woman contemplating abortion for economic reasons
might not do so if help or increased help is available.


Now, it is rare when a political decision has any bearing on theology.
Will this election's (local or federal or state) outcome affect the ease
of making converts to the Gospel or not? aside from that, most would
figure eh, whatever.


But "the faith" can include moral issues. And these are mislabeled
"politics" because subject to laws that are contested in the political
arena now. Well, guess what.


laws against murder and theft and even wife beating are strictly
political because they are the product of action in legislatures by
elected people, and they are the most glaring examples of forcing
your morality on others that you could ask for.


So this treating of abortion as a "political issue" or "forcing your
morality on someone" is to put it mildly inappropriate. Ditto
the gay etc. agenda. (LGBTQ is too much trouble and too weird
looking to type out, have to think twice to do it right, and sounds
like accepting them by using their lingo someone once said.)


call it the pervert agenda, that would safely and adequately refer
to anything.


And no, sex isn't just for reproduction only to be proper. And that
isn't an act of love inherently. Sex is a mode of reproduction, and
that reproduction should happen in a context that is not going to
traumatize the kid. A good relationship between the couple. Only
once in the OT does God say He wants reproduction and made
sex for that, and the context is denouncing those who betrayed
their wives and divorced them to take pagan wives, resulting in
not having a "godly seed" God said He wanted. In Genesis
the man shall LEAVE his parents (you are not supposed to be
marrying the whole family and it is not supposed to be arranged
for political or financial benefit of others) CLEAVE TO his
woman (ish translated wife which also in Old English means
woman, his old lady, his steady girl) and THEY SHALL BECOME
ONE FLESH the sex act develops as the ultimate self sharing
of your body with another, not a stage to marriage as the next
level but it IS the next level. Indeed, marriages aren't considered
final without "consummation." I Cor. 6:16 specifies on the
basis of this that the sex act is what makes the two one flesh,
even if with a prostitute, which is why a man who fornicates
sins against his own flesh.


So the contraception thing is an error in Roman Catholicism.
But the anti abortion thing is not an error. And the only reason
it is now "political" instead of common sense moral and illegal,
is because of faux scientific terminology being hijacked and
some snivel about the poor victims of botched abortions and
eugenics and other issues and enough in legislatures being
persuaded (or blackmailed by those who know the prostitutes,
gay and straight, and abortionists these two faced legislators
have used) to make it legal.


So if your faith is so personal it doesn't affect your behavior,
in business or politics or sex or whatever, then that faith is
mere make believe, it isn't real, its dead.


Read St. James Epistle.


And notice that Paul is constantly harping on the proper
vs. improper behavior and states of mind that logically
result from pistis, belief that affects action.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Organ Donors are Alive when their Organs are Harvested

The illusion of Science
Organ Donors are Alive when their Organs are Harvested
Prior to 1968 a person was declared dead only after their breathing and heart stopped for a determinate p...eriod of time.
The current terminology "Brain Death" was unheard of.
When surgeons realized they had the capability of taking organs from one seemingly “close to death” person and implanting them into another person to keep the recipient alive longer, a "Pandora’s Box" was opened.

In the beginning, through trial and error, they discovered it was not possible to perform this "miraculous" #surgery with organs taken from someone truly dead, even if the donor was without circulation for merely a few minutes, because organ damage occurs within a very brief time after circulation stops.
To justify their experimental procedures it was necessary for them to come up with a solution which is how the term "#BrainDeath" was contrived.
Much is being done to get your organs.
For an organ to be suitable for #transplantation it must be healthy and it must come from a living person.
Once DBD (Donation After Brain Death) or DCD (Donation After Cardiac Death) has been verified and permission extracted from distraught family members (in cases where relatives cannot be located the #government often now makes the determination on our behalf) the "organ donor" undergoes hours, sometimes days, of torturous treatment utilized to protect and preserve the body-container of "spare parts!"
The "organ donor" is forced to endure the excruciating painful and ongoing chemical treatment in preparation for organ excising.
Literally the "donor" is now an organ warehouse and used for the sole purpose of organ preservation until a compatible recipient can be located.
Donation after circulatory death (DCD) can be performed on neurologically intact donors who do not fulfill neurologic or brain death criteria before circulatory arrest. This commentary focuses on the most controversial donor-related issues anticipated from mandatory implementation of DCD for imminent or cardiac death in #hospitals across the USA.
The truth of the horrific treatment and DEATH OF THE "DONOR"
Organ removal is performed while the patient is given only a paralyzing agent but no anesthetic!
Multi-organ excision, on the average, takes three to four hours of operating during which time the heart is beating, the blood pressure is normal and respiration is occurring albeit the patient is on a ventilator. Each organ is cut out until finally the beating heart is stopped, a moment before removal.
It is well documented the heart rate and blood pressure go up when the incision is made. This is the very response the anesthesiologist often observes in everyday surgery when the anesthetic is insufficient. But, as stated below, organ donors are not anesthetized.
There are growing numbers of protesters among #nurses and #anesthesiologists, who react strongly to the movements of the supposed "corpse." These movements are sometimes so violent it makes it impossible to continue the taking of organs. Resulting from their personal experiences and attestations, many in the medical profession have removed themselves from this program altogether.
New York hospitals are routinely 'harvesting' organs from patients before they're even dead, an explosive #lawsuit is claiming.
The suit accuses transplant non-profit The New York Organ Donor Network of bullying doctors into declaring patients brain dead when they are still alive.
Plaintiff, Patrick McMahon, 50, reckons one in five #patients are showing signs of brain activity when surgeons declare them dead and start hacking out their body parts.
'They're playing God,' said McMahon, a former transplant coordinator who claims he was fired just four months into the role for speaking out about the practice.
He said that the donor network makes 'millions and millions' from selling the organs they obtain to hospitals and to insurance companies for transplants.
'Hearts, lungs, kidneys, joints, bones, skin grafts, intestines, valves, eyes -- it's all big money.'
The Air Force Combat veteran and former nurse added that financially strained hospitals are easily influenced to declare a patient brain dead because they're keen to free up bed space.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court in 2012, cites a 19-year-old car crash victim who was still struggling to breathe and showing signs of brain activity when doctors gave the green light for his organs to be harvested.
Network officials including director Michael Goldstein allegedly bullied Nassau University Medical Center staff into declaring the teen dead, stating during a conference call: 'This kid is dead, you got that?'
But McMahon said he believed the 19-year-old could have recovered.
The lawsuit cites three other examples of patients who were still clinging to life when doctors gave a 'note' - an official declaration by a hospital that a patient is brain dead, which, as well as consent from next of kin, is required before a transplant can take place.
The suit claims that a man was admitted to Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn, a month later, again showing brain activity.
It claims McMahon protested but was blown off by hospital and donor network staff, and the man was declared brain dead and his organs harvested.
In November 2011, a woman admitted to Staten Island University Hospital after a drug overdose was declared brain dead and her organs were about to be harvested when McMahon noticed that she was being given 'a paralyzing anesthetic' because her body was still jerking.
'She was having brain function when they were cutting into her on the table,' McMahon told MailOnline.
'He had given her a paralyser and there's no reason to give someone who is dead a paralyser.'
He said he confronted the person who gave it to her and he was speechless.
'Finally he said he was told to do it because while they were cutting her chest open she was moving her chest around.
And a paralyzer only paralyses you, it does nothing for the pain,' he said.
McMahon added that surgeons 'took everything' with regards to body parts.
'They took her eyes, her joints. She was right there when I was having the conversation. They were inserting the plastic bones where the real ones had been.'
According to the lawsuit, when McMahon probed further on the disturbing case another network employee told hospital staff he was 'an untrained troublemaker with a history of raising frivolous issues and questions.'
McMahon added that staff members who collect the most organs throughout the year qualify for a Christmas bonus.
'If counselors do well by getting a lot of organs they are given a bonus in December,' he said.
The veteran - who worked at the donor network between July and November - said there are about 30-40 staff who are out in the field, going to hospitals and trying to get signatures and donations.
Estimated U.S. Average Billed Charges Per Transplant: Heart $1,000,000 Double Lung: $800,000 Liver: $580,000 Kidney: $275,000
More than 123,000 people are on waiting lists for organ transplants in the United States, 100,000 of whom are waiting for new kidneys. Yet the need for healthy organs far outpaces donations. Only 28,000 transplants were completed in the last year, according to the 2014 national data from the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.
Because organ donors are often alive when their organs are harvested, the #medical community should not require donors to be declared dead, but instead adopt more “honest” moral criteria that allow the harvesting of organs from “dying” or “severely injured” patients, with proper consent, three leading experts have argued.
This approach, they say, would avoid the “pseudo-objective” claim that a donor is “really dead,” which is often based upon purely ideological definitions of death designed to expand the organ donor pool, and would allow organ harvesters to be more honest with the public, as well as ensure that donors don’t feel pain during the harvesting process.
The chilling comments were offered by #Doctor Neil Lazar, director of the medical-surgical intensive care unit at Toronto General Hospital, Dr. Maxwell J. Smith of the University of Toronto, and David Rodriguez-Arias of Universidad del Pais Vasco in Spain, at a U.S. bioethics conference in October and published in a recent paper in the American Journal of Bioethics.
“Because there is a general assumption that dead individuals cannot be harmed, veneration of the dead-donor rule is dangerously misleading,” they write.
“Ultimately, what is important for the protection and respect of potential donors is not to have a death certificate signed, but rather to be certain they are beyond suffering and to guarantee that their autonomy is respected.”
Instead of the so-called Dead Donor Rule (DDR), the authors propose that donors should be “protected from harm” (i.e given anesthesia so that they cannot feel pain during the donation process), that informed consent should be obtained, and that society should be “fully informed of the inherently debatable nature of any criterion to declare death.”
The doctors note that developing the criteria for so-called “brain death,” which is often used by doctors to declare death before organ donation, was an “ideological strategy” aimed at increasing the donor pool that has been found to be “empirically and theoretically flawed.” They also criticize the latest attempts to create new, even looser definitions of death, such as circulatory death, which they argue amount to simply “pretending” that the patient is dead in order to get his organs.
Based on an interview in 2013 with Dr. Paul Byrne, 80-year-old neonatologist blowing the whistle on the dark side of hospitals, it became clear that the concept of "brain death" is a complete fabrication conjured up for the sole purpose of legitimizing the murder of living people in order to harvest their organs.
These people (who often end up in hospitals as a result of car accidents or drug overdoses or the like) are given paralysis drugs during organ removal -- BUT NO ANESTHESIA!!!
Medical staff are literally cleaving open the chests of these innocent people and tearing out their organs, one by one, leaving the heart for last, after which point they are, of course, dead.
It's wakey wakey time people.This is no joke.
If you do not want to be tortured to death by medical sadists, SAY NO TO ORGAN DONATION! Evil is still evil by any other name.
A special thanks to Sandra Tsai for making us aware of pending lawsuits & information.
More News on: http://www.theillusionofscience.org/418692745
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17020597
http://www.srtr.org/annual_Reports/2011/113a_dh.aspx
http://www.cdc.gov/transplantsaf…/outbreak-invest/index.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23990679
http://www.everydayhealth.com/…/donating-kidney-may-carry-…/
http://www.srtr.org/csr/current/Centers/Default.aspx

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

God's wrath and God's love


Something I emailed someone.

The Fathers are not alien to the idea of God's anger at sin, both the renovationsts and the
more classical agree that God's anger is not the passion driven unstable etc. stuff we are used to. However anthropomorphic you want to deride it as, and God's love also, don't forget that,
it is solidly present in the Bible and that includes the Psalms we use.
 
OFten human anger is based in part on liking being angry or on varioius issues that don't have
to do with love. There is plenty of reason for God to have some anger at the intransigently
hostile to Him type humans. There is nothing evil about that.
 
God's love must be eliminated then with God's anger for both are anthropomorphisms. This
very term anthropomorphism reeks of the more educated type of paganism that rebelled
against the lowlife passionate "gods" of Greece and Rome, and their Renaissance humanist
heirs who laid the groundwork for later bad developments in theology east and west.
 
so you want to go that far?
 
when you love something you are angry at what tries to harm it. God is wrongly styled as
wrathful in the OT loving in the NT but while He shows His wrath at times, He spent a lot
space in the prophets begging people to repent and offering forgiveness. The NT fulfills
prophecies in the OT.
 
Granted His emotions for lack of a better word are not identical to human emotions but
at the same time, we being made in His image and likeness can't reject anthropomorphisms
outright for the very reason that we ARE made in His image and likeness however warped
that has become.
 
Its not a question of a God eagerly looking to torment people. indeed, Jesus says Sodom
will have it better in the Judgement because they WOULD have repented if given the signs
and wonders Christ did in some other cities who did not repent, and those will have it worse.
 
a God Who cuts you slack because of the good you would have done if given the chance the repentance you would have done if given the chance, is not a sadist. that doesn't mean they
will have blessedness, just not such bad punishment. the warning that the hypocrites who
devour the money of widows and orphans and for pretense make long prayers will have the
greater damnation shows there is a lesser damnation.