May 1, 2017

No Need to Publish Letters About Publishing Photos of Dead Deer

proctologist

Warning! The photo to the left can be viewed as offensive and an influence to your moral compass. To continue reading, first, grow up.

This morning my inbox contained a link to a Letter to the Editor published in a Maine newspaper from someone that I believe is a faculty member at Thomas College. The letter was aimed at chastising the editorial staff of the paper for printing photographs of dead deer in their newspaper, stating that they, “find it very disturbing to open the paper and find pictures of slaughtered animals and don’t understand why those of us who have moral objections to hunting need to be involuntarily exposed to these pictures.”

One cannot argue that this person, at least states, that they find photographs of dead deer – and I would presume the same for all dead animals – bothersome and has difficulty viewing them. At same time, argument can reasonably be made that this person, if they are a college professor at a Maine college, lives in a state where deer hunting has, for many decades, been a rite of passage for residents and publishing photos of  “dead deer” in local newspapers is part of that rite of passage. We are in a constant state of war. The newspapers always contain images of war and the collateral damage of war. I wonder if this same person has the same moral objections to viewing dead bodies of men and women?

The bigger picture is what is most disturbing. We now live in a society in which the mindset is one of entitlement, combined with censorship (political correctness), and the selfish desire to force all others to one’s own way of thinking. This comes because respect and an understanding and appreciation of the interests of other people, has gone missing – more than likely by design.

We can also see an extreme case of this in the aftermath of another national “selection” for a new president. I recall when Barack Obama was “selected” as president, the false left was happy while the false right lamented the thought of this person being president of the United States for 4 or 8 years. With the tide changing, the false right is happy and the false left is struggling to get over it and in some cases resorting to violence to protest what appears to be something they know little about. But I’ll save that discussion for another day.

Back to the dead deer photos. If a newspaper caved to the whims of every unstable individual, who thinks of themselves as the author of all things “moral” and stopped publishing photos they believed to be of the interest of the majority of their readers, the paper would be void of all photos, for surely with little effort, an irrational weak person can find any photo disturbing and would have moral objections to what they represent while claiming involuntary subjection to viewing the pictures. How silly and childish!

I Corinthians 13:11 reads, When I was a child, I spake as a child: I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.Once it was thought, without much  discussion, that a person who held a position as a staff member of a college, had grown up and put away childish things. Evidently not.

Perhaps the author’s real intent was to offer disparagement toward the event of hunting and those that participate in it. A grown up would simply state such a position and offer rational discourse in support of their position, rather than bang their heads on the table, in a display of childish behavior, demanding the newspaper take away pictures and protect her from being “subjected” to what she considers the immoralities of others. Unfortunately, that grown-up behavior seems to be in short supply as any sane person can realize by simply opening their eyes.

I don’t read newspapers any longer because, as a grown man, I understand that its content is propaganda and full of things that are offensive and certainly what I would classify as immoral. Should I choose to open one up, I fully expect to find as I describe. The same adult behavior would prevent me from banging my head demanding my way at the expense of all others. I can only alter my own behavior as has always been the same way of existing in a state of sanity.

I doubt that the newspapers are going to alter what they publish because one reader has been offended…or has a related mission to end hunting. Such actions prove that insanity runs rampant throughout our perverted society.

Revelation 12:9

Revelation 12:9 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

And the great dragon that old serpent, called the devil and Satan, was cast out, which deceiveth all the world: he was even cast into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Just those guys over there not us? Just everyone else except us? Not me you people? All of those other people? Just ancient Israel? All of the world in modern times is not deceived because the news is to good?

Everyone. Me you and them. All of us..

1 Timothy 4:2

1 Timothy 4:2 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

[a]Which speak lies through [b]hypocrisy, and have their [c]consciences burned with an hot iron,

Footnotes:

  1. 1 Timothy 4:2 Although heretics counterfeit holiness never so much, yet they have no conscience.
  2. 1 Timothy 4:2 For they will as it were practice the art of disguised persons and players, that we may not think they will lie lurking in some one corner, or keep any resemblance of shamefastness.
  3. 1 Timothy 4:2 Whose conscience waxed so hard, that there grew an hard fleshiness over it, and so became to have a canker on it, and now at length required of very necessity to be burned with an hot iron.

The Essential Precepts Of A Free Government

“The Greek word translated into power in Romans 13 is one of more than half a dozen words which are all translated into the single English word power in the New Testament. The word power can have over a dozen different definitions in any unabridged English dictionary. The question is which of these many definitions should we apply to our thinking when we read these words of Paul?”

“The word used in Romans 13 by Paul is exousia, which is defined: “power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.”1 It is translated “right” in Hebrews 13:10 and Revelations 22:14, and it is even translated “liberty” in Paul’s 1Corinthians 8:9.2″
“Does the word exousia mean the power of government, or the power of choice?
In Plato’s notes, the “Greek words for freedom (are) eleutheros (liberal/Free), exousia (Freedom/Power to do something), …”3 In Bryn Mawr’s Classical Review, the word exousia is said to express “the new concept of freedom, in opposition to the already defunct and unhelpful eleutheria.”4 Even the Greek Glossary of Aristotelian Terms states that exousia means “right”.5 Aristotle actually exemplifies exousia’s use in the statement, “The right (exousia) to do anything one wishes…”6″
“If the word exousia means power in the sense of “the right to choose” or “liberty of choice,” then Romans 13 should understood as saying:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher liberty. For there is no liberty but of God: the liberties that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth (opposes) the liberty, resisteth (opposes) the ordinance of God: and they that resist (sets one’s self against) shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the liberty? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.” Romans 13: 1,3″
“Understanding that the word exousia can and does mean liberty seems to turn the world upside down for some ministers who have been saying that the Bible is telling us to be obedient subject, when in fact Paul is telling us to be subject to liberty.”
Read more here; EXOUSIA
And here;

New Age Tools

It will be the new normal. It will be legal. It may even be televised and people will cheer.. It’s the 21st Century of enlightenment, you know, the New Dark Ages.. And they want to outlaw guns..

9bd6eec12ab516a0a084c09f96b20466

This Is What Happens When Mentally Retarded Leaders Are In Charge

0215bec61491e83dd3dacc232d7353eb

Clowns To The Right Of Me, Jokers To The Left

9d7b3445b8cc8075c1fcaf443d438fde

Man’s Laws Will Forever Fail

Nothing that man does is guaranteed, nor does he have the authority to assure the right of liberty to anyone, for any reason. It is in man’s nature to be lawless. Only the perfect laws of our Creator, Yahuweh, can place us in an eternal state of liberty.

In Vattel’s Law of Nations, a compilation of documents many believe were the cornerstone in devising the U.S. Constitution and ruling guidelines over much of the world…once upon a time, it is stated that liberty cannot be achieved without laws. The largest problem with this statement is that these are the words of man and the laws of man. They always fail.

In our struggle to “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and unto Yahuweh, that which is Yahuweh’s,” we are left dealing with man’s laws and whether those laws directly contradict the Laws of Yahuweh. Regardless of how great and wonderful you think the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, they are not the inspired words of our Creator. They are man’s words. Because they are man’s words, they are guaranteed to be broken.

In Maine’s debate about Question 3, a proposal crafted by reprobate minds, we see that one man, his billions of dollars and his many blind followers, think of themselves as gods of this world – and as such they probably are. Michael Bloomberg wants to dictate to Maine people, and of course ultimately the world, how, where and when they will be able to adequately, or equitably, defend themselves against the darkness of evil from those who have deliberately turned or been turned into continued lawlessness. Why should he or any other man be allowed to do that by anyone?

In the second paragraph of the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence, it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Life” in part: The interval between birth and death.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Happiness” in part: Comfort, consolation, contentment, ease, enjoyment, pleasure, satisfaction. The constitutional right of men to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity, or develop the faculties, so as to give to them the highest enjoyment.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, contributes four columns, on two pages, defining Liberty. Of particular importance, to me anyway, are the following:

Liberty. Freedom: exemption from extraneous control. Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others… The absence of arbitrary restraint…

The word “liberty” includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment….It also embraces right of self-defense against unlawful violence.

For whatever man’s laws are worth to you, our own Founders acknowledged, if only for themselves, that “their Creator” (to me that would be Yahuweh) gave to us unquestioned rights – unalienable – among which are Life, Liberty and Happiness. When you examine Black’s Law Dictionary, how and why, then, have we allowed man to limit and destroy unalienable rights, including the right of a creation of Yahuweh to choose how they will defend themselves, their families and their property? What right does Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama or any other man have to pretend to be “their creator” and limit an unquestioned right – one as important as being able to choose the necessary and proper way to defend oneself?

In the debate about Question 3, I have yet to read anybody’s suggestions, opinions or ideas that even come close to expressing the desire to migrate more closely to the unblemished Second Amendment, which must have been founded under the principal that all men are created equal, that they they are endowed by Yahuweh with unquestioned rights, including self-defense.

A Maine representative says that Question 3 is “too broadly written.” He also says everybody he knows will “begrudgingly cough up the cash” in order to “transfer” a gun in the state. That’s nice, but what about the thousands of people who don’t have any cash to begrudgingly give up to a man’s law? Are they now eliminated from, i.e. no longer created equal, the unalienable rights described above. Whoa to the delusional person who also stated that this “inconvenience” (spending money to be subjected to a government spying routine) levied onto law-abiding citizens should be no problem. Inconvenience? This is the value-weighted nonsense that dominates the mindless – even those possessing billions of dollars.

Another says that Question 3 would be a violation of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives law. Maybe, maybe not. To think that one man’s law, of which pays no mind to the foundation of “there can be no liberty without law,” would somehow have meaning to another man’s laws, of which the people did not participate in creating, is a practice in futility – it’s also a bit of insanity.

We can also read an opinion piece about the killing of people, real or staged, in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, extolling the benefits of having lawful armed citizens in places where more reprobate minds are running loose looking for people to kill. Of the reference here is that places like malls and far too many other places are “gun-free zones.”

If I, as a creation of Yahuweh, as acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, have an unquestioned right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, how then, even when defined in Black’s Law Dictionary that rights are distributed equally among all, is it an equal distribution and opportunity for me to be able to choose how to defend myself against crazies, when man establishes “zones” where I give up my right to choose? And these “zones” are growing rapidly. Bloomberg’s intent is to turn Maine into a gun-free zone. What good is any item for protection if there is no place to lawfully use it?

We can also read the words of a Maine man, former chief counsel of Maine Gov. Paul LePage, explain about how Bloomberg’s proposal “misses the target.” The author states, “if we need to do something, let’s first identify the problem,” and then suggests crafting more laws for specific problems. Are there problems? Who decides what’s a problem. There are no laws that stop criminals from killing somebody that they have a mind to kill. Why is it then we keep pouring on of more and more useless laws? Don’t you get it……YET?

In addition to this political double-speak, the same author says that in answer to hypothetical responses to those who ask, “so, what, we should do nothing?” – his only answer, again, political double-speak, “No one is saying that.”

Well then what are they saying? What are they offering for “solutions” to the “problem?” You’ll never get them because all responses that make the media outlets come only from politicians or people brainwashed by the politicians. It is insanity and we must worship it because it’s everywhere and promoted everywhere.

We hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo, rants and diatribes from both sides – one pitted against the other in attempts to out-rhetoric the other. What a laugh. Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the vote on Question 3 in November, I still have lost my right to choose how to defend myself and what defense is left is limited in geographical scope. I will soon live in one giant gun-free zone. Where are any of these limits found in our explanations of unalienable rights?

As insane as the world and the people in it have become, rational thought would be that as a people we would be looking first at what caused the world’s insanity and secondly, how can we further insure that people have the right to decide for themselves? But that is NEVER going to happen.

In Scripture, in Mark 7: 6-7, we read: “This people honoreth me with lips, but their heart is far away from me.

7 But they worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Also in Collosians 2: 8 -“Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not after Yahushua.”

We see that man pretends to honor Yahuweh with lip service, but outwardly they cling to the laws and traditions of men, even to a point where those traditions and laws directly oppose “that which is Yahuweh’s.” People have come to know nothing but the fake, commandments (lies) of men and willingly find trust and faith in them. It is the focus of their lives and many don’t know it – they are incapable of recognizing it.

I have many times asked why are people all around me so blinded by the lies of men – how could they not see what seems obvious? However, in 2 Thessalonians 2, we read that for those who have not sought to honor Yahuweh through salvation and the keeping of His Commandments, “And therefore Yahuweh shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies,

That all they might be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

These things were foretold by Yahushua as what it would be like in the Last Days. Surely we are in the last days as the “strong delusion” appears in too many people.

Here’s an example of someone, no doubt, operating under “strong delusion.”

cutoutquestion3sign

Redeemed By The Blood of the Lamb

Oh, Hillary. You murdering Satan worshiper. In your eyes, I am “deplorable” and “irredeemable” to your evil, lowly standards of sub-human existence. But I don’t care. All that matters to me is that I am REDEEMED by the Blood of the Lamb – that is the Son of the Creator of living things, the One who died for my redemption.

So, Hillary. Go to Hell. Go directly to Hell. But be warned, Satan doesn’t like anyone who is competition to his evil ways. Be Vewy, Vewy scared!

“Who is the judge of whether another human being is redeemable or not?

You may have seen Hillary Clinton’s ‘basket of deplorables’ comments on the news or your social media feeds in recent days.

The full quote goes, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.”

After Hillary Clinton made her “basket of deplorables” comment, she went on to describe this same group of people as “irredeemable.” Her exact quote went, “Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

Irredeemable, according to Merriam-Webster, means “not able to be saved, helped, or made better” – these people are “irredeemable” yet, Hillary Clinton wants to govern over them.”<<<Read More>>>http://www.themainewire.com/2016/09/trump-supporters-irredeemable-clinton/

Hey, God’s Here.

There is a winged Serpent in the Vatican.  Well, some of us knew that.  There is another winged serpent there with the opope.  The winged serpent god of War – Kukulkan.

God Almighty, Our Heavenly Father, would be spending the next month with the Taoist thunder god Lei Gong in the cloud kingdom over Tibet.

…as well as try performing a transubstantiation or two. And perhaps toward the end of his stay, if he’s feeling up to it, Kukulkan can treat us all to an authentic human sacrifice.”

from the ONION