DONATE

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Faux 28th Amendment, Yet Still Need Convention


John R. Houk
© July 25, 2017

I became a recipient of a Chain Email that has been circulating for some years. The Leftist fact checkers who have I have little trust for have debunking posts circa 2011. As far as the Conservative perspective goes I trust TruthORFiction.com. Truth or Fiction purposely presents their website in a retro format for reasons I am unclear.

The purpose of the Chain Email I received is to promote a 28th Amendment that makes members of Congress accountable to the same rule of law as every American citizen is. Before a reading of a single paragraph of this 28th Amendment the email provides examples of alleged improprieties that members of Congress and their families receive that Americans do not receive.

According to Truth Or Fiction the Chain Email is total poppycock. Here is a debunking excerpt:

Summary of eRumor: 

A chain email says that children of members of Congress and their staffers have their student loans forgiven.

The email also says that 35 governors have sued for a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit federal power.

The Truth: 

Both of these claims are false.

There is a Student Loan Repayment Program in place to help attract and retain federal employees, but it does not extend to family members. Elected officials, uniform service members and other government employees are eligible under the law.

Federal employees can have up to $10,000 in federally insured student loans repaid each year, and up to $60,000 repaid over their career, the Office of Personnel Management reports.

And the federal government does not forgive these loans, as the eRumor claims. The loans are repaid. That’s important because it means federal employees have to pay taxes on loan payments just like the rest of their salaries.

In 2013, $52.9 million in student loan repayments were made for 7,314 federal employees, the Office of Personnel and Management reports.

The email’s claim that 35 governors had sued the U.S. government for a 28th amendment is also false. The email says that the proposed 28th amendment would state:

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators, Representatives of Congress; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States

That same language was used in an eRumor that TruthorFiction.com found to be false in 2013. Click here for that story.

Both versions of the eRumor said that 35 governors had signed onto a petition for a constitutional convention to create the 28th amendment, but that’s not true.

At last count, three states had tried to force a constitutional convention. Resolutions in Kansas, Georgia and Indiana sought to balance state and federal power, the Huffington Post reports.

And under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, 34 states have to pass a resolution on the same subject to force a constitutional convention — not 38 states, as the eRumor claims.

READ THE REST (Children of Congress Members Don’t Pay Back Student Loans-Fiction! 35 Governors Have Sued the Federal Government to Create 28th Amendment-Fiction!)

And yet there are actual special benefits for members of Congress that the rest of us American citizens are not privy to. All the perks of the chain email simply don’t exist especially in 2017. Even though members of Congress make less than the private sector with more responsibilities, retirement benefits kick in according to time served and when reach a certain age:

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. (Salaries and Benefits of US Congress Members: The Truth; By Robert Longley; ThoughtCo.com; Updated 3/12/17)

As of 2014 members of Congress are tied into the same Obamacare health insurance rules as all of us according to Thoughtco.com (Ibid.). Read the CNN explanation of how Obamacare insurance exchanges works for Congress and their staff: How do Congress' lawmakers get health care? By Ashley Killough; CNN [aka Communist News Network]; 7/18/17 Updated 7:19 AM ET)

Too bad the chain email didn’t address actual Congressional perks that We the People do not receive.

Senate Expense Account

 The Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA) is available to assist Senators in their official and representational duties. The allowance is provided for the fiscal year. The preliminary list of SOPOEA levels contained in the Senate report accompanying the FY2017 legislative branch appropriations bill shows an average allowance $3,306,570 per Senator. (Screw Obamacare, ‘We the People’ Want Everything Congress Has; By Lori; GlenBeck.com; 7/25/17) 

Senate Furniture Expense

Each Senator is authorized $40,000 for state office furniture and furnishings for one or more offices, if the aggregate square footage of office space does not exceed 5,000 square feet. The base authorization is increased by $1,000 for each authorized additional incremental increase in office space of 200 square feet. (Ibid.)

House Personnel and Office Expense

$1,200,000.00

Members of the House receive a $250,000 budget for travel and office expenses. (Ibid.)

Special Class Beneficial Treatment

Members of Congress have long been treated as a special class with lifelong access to members-only parking spaces, elevators, dining rooms and exercise facilities (unless they become a lobbyist).

Grooming and Fitness Amenities

• Taxpayer-funded, members-only gym

• Taxpayer-funded, members-only salon

• Taxpayer-funded, members-only barbershop

• Taxpayer-funded, members-only tennis court (Ibid.)

Travel Privileges

Staff schedulers often times make reservations for members of Congress via dedicated phone lines that Delta and other major airlines have reportedly set up for Capitol Hill customers. Airlines also permit members to reserve seats on multiple flights but only pay for the trips they take.

Free parking at the two Washington-area airports (At a rate of $22 per day, that represents almost $740,000 in forgone revenue annually for Reagan National). (Ibid.)

If Congress Member dies, Family Benefit

Family members of those in Congress who die, typically receive a full year’s salary as compensation ($174K). (Ibid.)

As to the 28th Amendment in the Chain Email, no such Amendment has even proposed in Congress nor has any State every tried to suggest a convened Constitutional Convention on the matter of equalizing Congressional benefits with American citizen benefits.

Some discerning Conservatives believe the Federal usurpation of power has exceeded the design of the Framers of the Constitution. These Conservatives believe Congress is too hamstringed to reverse the despotism of excessive Federal power over the We the People where the Founding Fathers believed power should reside. In this view the best Constitutional method of restoring power to the people is based in Article 5 of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

- Article V, U.S. Constitution (From ConventionOfStates.com/Solution)

I as well lean toward a Constitutional Convention. But there is no surprise the American Left is not in big favor of a Convention. There are also Conservatives that fear a Convention not because they don’t recognize the problem of excessive Federal Power, rather these Conservatives fear an out of control Convention which the American Left may prevail potentially making the threat to American Liberty worse than the Dems and Leftist activist Courts already have.

This excerpt relays the fears:

Many people have voiced concern over the convention method of amending the Constitution. Our only experience with a national constitutional convention took place 200 years ago. At that time the delegates took it upon themselves to ignore the reason for calling the convention, which was merely to improve the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers also violated the procedure for changing the Articles of Confederation. Instead of requiring approval of all the state legislatures, the signers of the Constitution called for ratification by elected state conventions in only nine of the 13 states.

Another point of anxiety is that Article V of the Constitution says nothing about what a convention may or may not do. If a convention is held, must it deal with only one proposed amendment? Or could the delegates vote on any number of amendments that were introduced? The Constitution itself provides no answers to these questions.

Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention "would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land."

Others, like Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, disagree with this viewpoint. Senator Hatch has said it is ironic when the people attempt to engage in "participatory democracy set forth by the Constitution, we are subject to doomsday rhetoric and dire predictions of domestic and international disaster."

Of course, any amendments produced by a convention would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. We may soon see how this never-used method works if the balanced budget people swing two more states over to their side. (Do We Need a New Constitutional Convention; Constitutional Rights Foundation)

Here is the Convention of States rebuttal to the fears:

Much of the opposition to an Article V convention hinges on fears of a “runaway convention.” Convention opponents frequently argue that a convention is inherently unlimited and once it convenes it cannot be restricted in any way.

The text of the Constitution itself clearly indicates that a convention can be limited in at least some ways. For instance, a convention under Article V is limited to “proposing amendments.” It is essentially a recommendatory body: it cannot ratify its own proposals. Thus, even an “unlimited” convention is limited in this critical respect, which prevents rash or unpopular amendments from becoming part of the Constitution.

Further, Article V specifies that certain topics are off-limits for a convention (and for Congress) to consider. The last portion of the article takes certain provisions relating to the import of slaves off the table until 1808, and forbids any amendment that deprives the states of equal representation in the Senate. There can be no question that certain topics are off-limits for a convention, since Article V itself imposes those limitations. That states legislatures may further limit the authority of a convention is shown by the historical practice and purpose behind Article V.


In short, the text of Article V, the history and purpose behind it, plus Congress’s own inaction, all indicate that an Article V convention can be limited to a particular topic or set of topics. Our Founders knew what they were doing when they voted unanimously to put the convention provision in Article V.10 A convention is not some all-powerful body with authority to unilaterally scrap our Constitution, though convention opponents often represent it in that light. It is a limited-purpose committee intended to give the states the ability to propose particular amendments that Congress never would. As such, the state legislatures can impose binding subject-matter restraints on the convention to ensure that it does not run away. (A Single-Subject Convention; By Robert Kelly, J.D.1 [1. Mr. Kelly is a practicing attorney and a member of the California Bar. He currently serves as General Counsel for Citizens for Self-Governance.]; Convention of States pdf)

Frankly I can think of some more important issues for the 28th Amendment of the Chain Email. The Left must submit to what made America great. The Left has done such an effective job of propagandizing their agenda that most Americans are not even aware of the Liberty and Freedom our Founding Fathers fought for against the British Crown despotism of the 1760s and 1770s. The witless supporters of the American Left have been slowly restoring Americans to the same despotism that led Thirteen British Colonies to demand Independence that eventually led to the U.S. Constitution of laws of We the People.


For those interested in the debunked Chain Email on the faux 28th Amendment, it is below.

JRH 7/25/17
****************
Proposed 28th Amendment and Congress
Chain Email
Editor Received 7/25/17

Please read 28th amendment

Please Read, and forward.   This will only take 1 minute to read!
 28th Amendment, 35 States and Counting.

It will take you less than a minute to read this. If you agree, please pass it on. It's an idea whose time has come to deal with this self-serving situation:

OUR PRESENT SITUATION!

Children of Congress members do not have to pay back their college student loans.

Staffers of Congress family members are also exempt from having to pay back student loans.

Members of Congress can retire at full pay after only one term.

Members of Congress have exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed, under which ordinary citizens must live.
 For example, they are exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment.

And as the latest example, they have exempted themselves from Healthcare Reform, in all of its aspects.

We must not tolerate an elite class of such people, elected as public servants and then putting themselves above the law.

I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon their states. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

IF???

Each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days most people in The United States of America will have the message.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the Citizens of the United States ..."


You are one of my 20.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Americans Demand Full Repeal


Obamacare (mislabeled the Affordable Care Act) is a debacle on affordable healthcare that was based on lies to gullible Americans ready to believe any Dem propaganda coming from the likes of the un-American President Barack Hussein Obama.

Justin Smith shows why Obamacare should be completely scrapped with a true affordable healthcare reform to replace the Obama debacle. Here are some intro words from Justin to me in submitting this editorial:

There is an expanse of convoluted information on even the limited scope of this piece, which looks at repealing the ACA, rather than replacing it. All the double talk these politicians are doing is going to have to catch them one day. Soon I hope.

JRH 7/24/17
****************
Americans Demand Full Repeal

By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 7/23/2017 10:55 AM

"Experience hath shown that, even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- President Thomas Jefferson

Americans elected a Republican majority to Congress in 2016, in large part, to repeal Obamacare and find solutions that would make health care more affordable for all. We didn't send Republicans to D.C. to give concessions to Democrats, who advocate for a single-payer communist system and didn't care two-cents about Republican concerns in 2009. We didn't vote for Obamacare-lite and more bailouts for insurance companies, or earmarks for special interests. We don't want "repeal and replace". Americans want to reduce the cost of health care for all Americans, and Americans demand a full repeal.

One might think that repealing the corrupt, failed Obamacare racket would be a fairly straightforward and necessary matter. However, on July 17th, many Republicans, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, proved themselves to be no better than con-men and liars, along the same lines of Democrats, who promised Americans an affordable health care system that allowed them to keep their doctors, when Republicans attempted to bring a bill to the floor, that left much of Obamacare intact and the Medicaid expansion in place through 2024. They also created a $50 billion market stability fund nearly identical to the Obamacare "risk corridors", rightly described as "bailouts" by some conservative Republicans, such as Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) demanded $1.32 billion from the Stability Fund for Alaska in exchange for her vote on the 17th. And, the South Dakota Purchase guarantees Indian Health services clients a 100 percent federal Medicaid match, which is currently only allowed through the Indian Health Service Department.

Shortly after Senator Mitch McConnell decided to pull this bill, Senator Rand Paul stated: "... the new bill is the same as the old bill except for it leaves in place more taxes, increases taxpayers subsidies to buy insurance, and adds $70 billion to the insurance bailout superfund. I don't see anything in here remotely resembling repeal. And I've said for some time now that the bill has to look more like repeal to get my vote. I can't support it at this point."

One is left wondering, about the Republican's political will to do the right thing and set America's health care system back on a free choice, free market path, that will allow it to succeed. The House passed a Senate repeal bill by a vote of 219 to 212 in March 2010, which Obama didn't sign; and yet, the Republicans chose not to defunded Obamacare, when they could have.

Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Shelley Capito (R-WV) both voted for a pure repeal bill in 2015, but now object to voting for a similar bill. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) also stated that she wouldn't vote to advance a pure repeal.

What health care legislation and reforms would these Senators support, if they had to live under it too, without their current exemptions?

On July 19th, President Trump called on the U.S. Senate to "repeal and replace" Obamacare once again, when he should have been giving a speech on the wonderful virtues of the free market. He missed a key opportunity to explain that communism fails every time.

America's health care left the free market after the 1929 Baylor University experiment with some Dallas, TX school teachers and Blue Cross, and by the end of the 1930s, a health insurance model that swept away excellent cost effective health care arrangements was created by the American Medical Association, which called those arrangements "commercial" and "unethical". This AMA creation evolved into a miserable mixture of government and private sector power for insurers, that drove costs sky-high, even before Obamacare, because federal tax policy and subsidies encouraged doctors to charge exorbitant rates and rewarded companies for providing employees with medical insurance.

Both the 1965 Medicare program and the 2010 ACA incorporate the misguided logic of extending the influence of health insurance companies over health care, supervising physicians and regulating medical care, all in the name of controlling costs. This is a socialist and crony-capitalist model that has failed Americans, and it must be eradicated, while immediately implementing structural changes that create a real world free market for both health insurance and health care.

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study released on May 23rd, 2017 revealed average annual premiums increased from $2784 in 2013 to $5712 on Healthcare.gov in 2017. This is a 105 percent increase.

Too many Americans mistakenly believe that they can take more money out of the system, while receiving top-of-the-line treatment and care, with minimal wait times and less money going into the system in the form of premiums, co-pays and deductibles. They seek a fantasy, rather than real solutions that provide the most good for all Americans.

When Senate Republicans sought negotiations with the Democrats this spring, Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia and Tom Carper of Delaware wanted funding (tax payer dollars) to offset larger than expected insurance claims for health insurance companies participating in the state and federal insurance exchanges. Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) wouldn't even agree to a meeting, without an upfront Republican agreement to no per capita Medicaid block grants to the states and no rollback in Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) told NBC (Tues-July 18th) that he was "not interested in bailouts for insurance companies alone without reforms". He specifically dismissed any plan for guaranteed cost sharing reduction payments, which are considered to be insurers most important demand.

During the first GOP debate, candidate Donald Trump said, "What I'd like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. ... Get rid of the artificial lines (50 state insurance commissions) and you will have yourself great plans. And then we have to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves ... through a different system."

Of course, the President and Congress should take a few more actions to lower costs and create a real health care free market. It must be made legal again for a person to buy any health insurance plan suited to one's specific needs and choices, because people shouldn't have to pay for items they don't need, like abortions, addictions and sex change operations, in order to fund other people's health care. Congress must end all federal government subsidies to health insurance companies, doctors and medical facilities, and also start tort reform. And a strong free market will emerge to provide and guarantee great health care at good prices.

Most importantly, anyone who really loves their family must fight with every last ounce of their intestinal fortitude to ensure our healthcare is maintained in a free environment, free from the arbitrary high-handed authoritarian decisions of some Washington bureaucrat. Cost becomes irrelevant, if a bureaucrat under a government operated system can deny a person treatment, like the U.K. did in little baby Charlie Gard's life and death case. Let's keep all health care services attainable for all Americans.

America is at a crossroads, and the Republican fight to repeal Obamacare is worth having, in order to halt any movement towards a catastrophic single payer system, by Democrats who are unwilling to accept any significant conservative reforms. Republicans have a brief window in time, to undo the damage to our health care system and stop Americans from being hurt further by the ACA, and great legislative leaders would not hesitate in the face of a hard task.

Failure to fully repeal Obamacare is unacceptable and a crime against America.

By Justin O. Smith
______________________
Edited by John R. Houk
All source links are by the Editor

© Justin O. Smith


Islam - Who, What, How. It's a GAMECHANGER. Here's why

Intro to ‘Islam - Who, What, How. It's a GAMECHANGER. Here's why
Intro by John R. Houk
By Elsa Schieder
Posted July 24, 2017


Elsa Schieder

Elsa Schieder’s latest eNewsletter promotes her latest activist website - Live Freedom – and that site’s premier education video about the true doctrine of Islam.

The video is an expose on the real teachings of Islam. It comes in the format of an elementary school teacher and her class of kids. At first glance, at least to me, it appears to be a promo for Islam – IT IS NOT.

If you watch and listen close enough you realize what Islam indoctrinates its kids will be vile to YOU, a non-Muslim. Watch the video and find out what Islam thinks of YOU – the non-Muslim, aka to Muslims as the kafir:


Published on Jul 8, 2017

Islam for kids, age 8 and up. For anyone who isn’t sure: what are the 3 core parts of Islam? For example, what is al Walaa wal Baraa? Short video - fun, simple, clear. Kids understand Islam in just 9 fun minutes. Adults too. Also great for teachers and parents, to explain Islam to kids. The 3 core parts of Islam: who, what, and how. Plus the outcome, according to Islam. Plus, some of the rules of Islam, which can’t be changed, according to Islam. All in just 9 fun minutes. Very easy. Very simple and clear.

For more, come to Live Freedom: http://LiveFreedom.net. Great membership site. FREEDOM FOR US. FREEDOM FOR ALL.

Take note that the video provided an excellent simple explanation of the Islamic doctrine of Walaa wal Baraa. A doctrine that teaches love all Muslims and despise all non-Muslims.

Here’s Elsa’s eNewsletter.

**************
Islam - Who, What, How. It's a GAMECHANGER. Here's why

By Elsa Schieder
Sent July 23, 2017 1:17 PM

2008. The year Geert Wilders came out with Fitna, a gamechanger.

2012. The year Bill Warner came out with Why We Are Afraidanother gamechanger.

2017. In its own quiet way, Islam - Who, What, and How is also a gamechanger:
https://youtu.be/vsN5lvu1SZk

Today: Islam - Who, What and How

- Why is the video important?

- Which major counter-jihad figures have shared it?

- And what can we do, beyond watching the video and sharing it? For instance, there's now a membership site.


By the way, this is all online, with pictures:

http://elsasblog.com/1707230-islam-who-what-how-gamechanger.html

Back to: gamechangers.

Fitna. 
Quran quotes. Devout Muslims calling for death to all non-Muslims. A plane hitting the World Trade Center. And the final images: the end of Europe by Hijrah, conquest by Islamic baby production.

Why We Are Afraid. 1400 years of Islamic violence against non-Islamics. 270 million non-Islamics murdered.

How could I even think of mentioning Islam - Who, What and How in the same breath? A kids' video. For age 8 and up. Fun, simple, easy. No images of violence. No quran quotes.

The video is a game-changer exactly because it's for kids - particularly non-Islamic kids misinformed about Islam. It's short, just 9 minutes. In those 9 fun minutes, kids learn:

- the 3 core principles of Islam,

- the outcome Islam aims for,

- and many of the rules of Islam.


Why does this matter?

I'm sure you know of the PC snowflakes who rage against anyone who disagrees, who cry out for safe spaces from the words of dead white men. On and on.

How did this kind of mindset get created? Who were their teachers? What non-facts and non-thinking were the PC snowflakes indoctrinated with?

More important, how do we stop the development of a PC mindset?

We stop it by getting to kids early - very early. For instance, we make sure they see Islam - Who, What, and How. It's gentle and mild. It's also TRUTH-FILLED. The simple easy truths act as a vaccine against the "Islam Is Peace" indoctrination found in schools throughout the West.

If you haven't already watched the video, here it is.
On the website:
On Youtube:

https://youtu.be/vsN5lvu1SZk


Far too many facts have been barred from the schools - without this being acknowledged. In other words, a core foundation of education has been barred from the schools - without this being acknowledged.

We need to both speak out against the blocking of facts, and to get fact-teaching back into schools - notably around Islam. Islam is, as we all know, currently a major force in the West, presented to Western children as a religion of peace while it is not.

How do we get back attention to facts?

We don't always get where we're going in one easy step.

Re Islam - Who, What and How. One goal is to get it into the schools throughout the West. But likely most teachers, school board officials, government officials, plus PC parents, will do all they can to barricade the schools against anyone who suggests bringing in truth, logic, good thinking, facts.

Let them have the schools, in that case.

In Communist countries, teachers drilled Communist ideology into students, class after class. Each class might even be started with Communist indoctrination - reading, writing and arithmetic, each with an initial dose of Communist ideology.

Did that work? No. Most students did not swallow what was shoved down their throats, but left the ideology taught in school, in school. Ugh.

If we can't get the video into schools, we need to immunize kids against what is inculcated into them in school. Right now, most students swallow the brew. One possible way [to] immunize them: get them to see Islam - Who, What, and How.


The video had had major boosts from top counter-jihadis.

On the internet, the greatest compliment is if someone shares. Islam - Who, What, and How has been shared by Bill Warner, Gates of Vienna, Vlad Tepes Blog, Bare Naked Islam, Kirralie Smith (anti-Halal, now in the Conservative party of Australia), as well as so many less prominent people. Thank you for anything you've done. [These embedded blog links are by the Editor.]

To see some of the shares:
http://livefreedom.net/praise-islam-who-what-how.html

With the support the video received, the video went from about 900 views on July 16 to 8777 on July 23.


More is happening. A wealth of sources for everything stated in the video is going online.

Then, several people offered to translate. There now are translations into Russian, Portuguese and French. The German translation is coming. If anyone is interested in doing any other translation, please let me know. The first 3 translations will be online within the next few days.

Finally - very important - there's a membership site for people interested in becoming a part of the movement to stop the indoctrination, to stop the brain wrecking, to get education back into the schools, to get all kids in the West aware of core facts about Islam. No one can do this alone. It will take all the support possible.

The first virtual meeting is July 26, 7 pm EST. To become a member, and get notified about the meeting:

http://LiveFreedom.net

How far and wide will the video reach? Will it reach all kids in the West? Will we get education back into the schools? That's up to us.

All the best to all who care and dare,

Elsa

PS. A reminder about a "diving deep" survey. Since 2012, I've been giving a lot of time and energy to writing about Islam and political correctness. I have a core question for you: When it comes to freedom issues (freedom of speech, Islam, political correctness, etc), what is your #1 problem or frustration?Here's the link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/B28RV6N

PPS. Please note that it isn't easy to reach all of you. Some email providers do quite a bit of subject censoring. For more info:
http://ElsasBlog.com/170716-go-viral.html#email

PPPS. To post any of this to Facebook, Twitter, etc:
http://elsasblog.com/1707230-islam-who-what-how-gamechanger.html



For lots more, come explore
http://elsasblog.com
and
http://ElsasEmporium.com 

posted July 23, 2017

elsa@worldtruthsummit.com
World Truth Summit - Updates



Saturday, July 22, 2017

Responding to Revisionist Critic


John R. Houk
© July 21, 2017

On June 26, 2013 I posted at my NCCR blog (one of three blogs) entitled “SCOTUS Continues to Push America into Ungodliness”. The Supreme Court had just struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enabling homosexuals to legally marry in the same manner as heterosexuals. I was very displeased that SCOTUS extra-Constitutionally circumvented traditional marriage that a majority of States upheld, meaning a majority of the voting We the People.

In the comment section to the post “SCOTUS Continues to Push America into Ungodliness” a person identifying themselves as Debbs was quite upset with my Biblical stand and embarked on a path of criticism of my interpretation of the Bible as unsound theology on July 17, 2017. I am assuming “Debbs” is a female.

Here is a refresher to my thoughts roughly four years ago.

I cited Scripture from the Holy Bible justifying my disagreement with SCOTUS and the American Left in general. I even found a photo of a Bible page highlightingLeviticus 18: 22:



I shared the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah from Genesis 19 (verses 1, 4-11, 13, 24-25 for brevity’s sake). In case you listen to Biblical revisionists, here is God’s perspective: God obliterated the two city areas because of moral depravity which included primarily but not limited to homosexuality. 

Now from the Christian perspective Jesus Christ the Son of God has Redeemed Believers from the curse of the Law which God gave through Moses. Redemption in Christ means the penalty of sin is not held as judgment for the person who has turned their life to Christ abandoning the ways of the unredeemed individual. (I just slipped into the realm of the politically correct to make the Left happy. The Bible uses the word “man” which means instead of “person” I could have written “man”. And yet, “man” is used as in the sense of mankind which is inclusive of both males and females. And yes, I realize the word “mankind” is repugnant to the PC Left who might rather use “humankind”. Get over it. 😊)

The Law’s penalty for homosexuality was death. Thank God Jesus has Redeemed believing humanity from that penalty. Enforcing that penalty would mean the State would have to locate a lot of rocks. Thank God Christianity has been an influence on Western Culture enough that our society has abandoned the penalty of the Old Testament Law in the Western Criminal Justice System.

You would do well to read all the Epistle to the Galatians, but here is the part on the Law, the Curse and Redemption in Chapter 3:

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[a] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”[b] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[c]

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[d]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Bold text Editor’s – Gal. 3: 10-14 NKJV)

And yet if one lives an unredeemed life (Christian or sinner), there is a price that one pays in the flesh. The Mercy of God is eternal for those who ask for forgiveness with a true heart (God knows the true heart from the false heart. It’s not like you can lie for forgiveness and fool God like you might another person).

The New Testament makes it quite clear on what is true morality from the false morality that claims if it feels good it is okay to do. Romans the sixth chapter is one place:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. (Bold text Editor’s - Rom. 6: 1-4, 12-19 NKJV)

I am perturbed on how activist Courts make laws rather than adjudicating the text of the Original meaning of the Constitution. Spiritual minded Leftists do the same revisionism to God’s Word, in this case pertaining to homosexuality. Romans chapter one affirms that God still is extremely displeased with homosexuality. AND God is the Creator of ALL that exists, thus He sets the rules:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Bold Text Editor’s – Rom. 1: 18, 24, 26-27, 32 NKJV)

Take note that “deserving of death” is the penalty under the Law. The Redemptive Blood of Christ expiates the penalty of the Law, but God Almighty still considers homosexuality a sin that separates a person from the Presence of God. Eternal separation from God is the Second Death that occurs at the Last Judgment when one is sent to hell in permanent separation from the Presence of God.

People! Always choose life rather than any rule of man that will separate you from God. That has been the path of Activist Judges for decades and not just in 2013 with DOMA. Revisionist theologians have been doing the same harm to the Holy Bible.

Debbs uses the standard theology argument that comes from Leftist theologians that are attempting to revise God’s intent much like Activist Judges are revising the Constitution’s Original Intent by creating law the Constitution reserves ONLY for Congress or Amended by the sovereign States via ratification or Convention.

Unlike the Constitution, God’s Word cannot be amended to suit the creation over the intent of the Creator. Hence, homosexuality was wrong in the Old Testament Law but only the penalty is forgiven in the age of Grace that Redeems humanity by faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God.

So, I am going to refute the revisionist theology that Debbs uses to contradict my agreement with the Word of God. From this point on, my thoughts and responses will be in bold text and Debbs comments at NCCR will be in plain text and indented as a quote.

First Debbs goes on a bit of a rant on me misusing “ORIGINAL words” because the English translation has a different meaning than the ancient Hebrew:

Only cowards print articles and don’t allow comments on the page.

Well, I guess I’m not a coward because her comment exists.

I could write plenty of things with conviction from the Bible that would cause people’s heads to spin. Anyone can copy passages from an ENGLISH translation of a bible (and anyone can use a variation of translations for key words to0); but the ORIGINAL words and what they mean are important and cannot be overlooked. If the Bible is the Word of God, then there is no other book that is more important to have its original Hebrew words translated correctly. Otherwise, they aren’t the God’s words, they are the words of the translators. Not only do you have to get the translation correct, but a study of the same word should include comparisons where that word is used again and again.

I actually concur with Debbs that the context of the most original manuscripts is quite important to making written content current, but as in the proper interpretation as opposed to revisionism.

And, is it not dishonest for “Christians”- those who follow His teachings, to completely ignore what Jesus said or didn’t say on any given subject? Is it not dishonest to draw a conclusion about one story, yet ignore the explanation from a biblical Prophet that contradicts that conclusion? And if one thing is an abomination and “Christians” go out of their way to demonize and dehumanize a group of persons (ignoring the Prophet Ezekiel and the Saviour) and even try to pass laws to subjugate and oppress that group based on their “Christianity”; should they not do the same with every single “abomination” listed in the same Biblical books? Shouldn’t they be even more aggressively attacking violations of the 10 Commandment or the things the Lord HATES and Detests?

Yes Debbs, it would be dishonest to ignore what Jesus said or didn’t say as long as you realize what He didn’t say is in context as being viewed as a fellow Jew by most of His listeners. Jesus does not terminate the Torah or the Tanakh, rather He affirms them. I also concur whatever was detestable in the Old Testament is still detestable before God today. As far as Christians are concerned, what is detestable in the Old Testament is forgiven in the New Testament by virtue the penalty of the Law is paid for by the Blood of Jesus.

Abominations (list sourced from All 613 Commandments in the Old Testament Law):

Ø Idolatry - Deuteronomy 7:25-26

Ø Women not to dress as a man (the context being to look like a man) - Deuteronomy 22:5

Ø Men not be like women, aka no transvestites - Deuteronomy 22:5

Ø No blemished burnt offerings - Deuteronomy 17:1 

Ø No offerings that are from the wages of female (“harlot”) or male (“price of dog”- including homosexual wages) - Deuteronomy 23:18

Ø Don’t burnt offerings sacrificed 3-days ago - Leviticus 7:18

Ø Not to eat any unclean fish; i.e. fish without fins or scales - Leviticus 11: 10-12

Ø Don’t eat unclean birds; example in Scripture: eagles, vultures, buzzards,  ravens, owls, storks, herons, bats and their kind - Leviticus 11:13-19

Ø Don’t eat creeping things that creep. According to Pulpit Commentary found at BibleHub.com: Verses 41-43. - The last class is that of vermin, which constitute a part of the un-winged creeping class already spoken of (verses 29, 30). Whatsoever goeth upon the belly indicates snakes, worms, maggots: whatsoever goeth upon all four, things that grovel, as moles, rats, hedgehogs; whatsoever hath more feet, or doth multiply feet, centipedes, caterpillars, spiders. - Leviticus 11: 41-44

Ø No homosexual male sex - Leviticus 18:22


Ø If divorce wife and she marries another and for whatever she becomes marriage eligible, can’t remarry her - Deuteronomy 24: 1-4

Some of these abominations seem quite ridiculous in this day and age. I have no idea if observant Jews adhere to the abomination list except I can confidently say the Temple burnt offering are not a concern today. Much of the dietary abominations could be reasoned with a gentile-Christian Redemption from Law’s penalty. A cursory examination shows that of the abomination list above only homosexuality (and some other sex no-nos) was a death sentence. Of the death sentences only homosexuality is a sex-sin abomination specifically listed. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out sex-sins are bad, but homosexuality is really bad – Leviticus chapter 20. Pertaining to homosexuality is Leviticus 20: 13 (NKJV):

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

++
And, if the religious right’s political support and beliefs are about cutting/eliminating social programs that have successfully helped the elderly, disabled, poor and hungry; and they distrust and do not want to “share” America’s abundance of food and wealth or offer protection and refuge to refugees and immigrants- then are they not “Sodomites” according to the Prophet Ezekiel?

Debbs you need to read Ezekiel a little better I think. In referencing sodomites and social programs to the poor, is NOT what Ezekiel said in which the context is the Jewish rulers living in Jerusalem:

46 “Your elder sister is Samaria, who dwells with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who dwells to the south of you, is Sodom and her daughters. 47 You did not walk in their ways nor act according to their abominations; but, as if that were too little, you became more corrupt than they in all your ways.

48 As I live,” says the Lord God, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.[a] (Ezekiel 16: 46-50 NKJV)

History lesson time: Samaria was the capital city of the 10 northern Hebrew tribes who retained the name Israel when the ten tribes separated from the two southern tribes which went by the name Judah. The northern tribal rulers had taken on the corrupt nature of their surrounding neighbor nations in becoming polytheistic which included temple prostitutes (male and female), sacrificing children in burnt offerings and other manners of social oppression.

Sodom had been destroyed long before the 12 Hebrew tribes formed a Jewish nation ultimately called Israel under the kings Saul. David and Solomon. Sodom’s destruction was in the days of Abraham. And we have already discussed the perversions that became so evil that God destroyed the people living in Sodom and its sister city-state Gomorrah. A clue to the most repulsive sin is that the homosexual sex-act of sodomy is named after Sodom.

In referencing Sodom and Samaria, Ezekiel is telling the rulers based in Jerusalem that they too will be destroyed as a nation. Sodom’s perversions resulted in obliteration by fire and brimstone. Samaria’s rejection of the God that freed them Egyptian slavery, resulted in a massive deportation of the ruling elite to an uncertain destination left to historical guess work.

Judah’s rulers had morally devolved as well and Ezekiel warned the end of the kingdom was coming unless they changed their ways. Judah’s rulers did not change and later during the days of the Prophet Isaiah the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar did to Judah what the Assyrian kings did to the northern tribes of Israel – deported the ruling elite:

The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian monarchs, Tiglath-Pileser III (Pul) and Shalmaneser V. The later Assyrian rulers Sargon II and his son and successor, Sennacherib, were responsible for finishing the twenty-year demise of Israel's northern ten-tribe kingdom, although they did not overtake the Southern Kingdom. Jerusalem was besieged, but not taken. The tribes forcibly resettled by Assyria later became known as the Ten Lost Tribes. READ ENTIRE HISTORY (Assyrian captivity; Wikipedia; page was last edited 7/15/17 18:04)

As to your accusation against Conservatives: “ the religious right’s political support and beliefs are about cutting/eliminating social programs that have successfully helped the elderly, disabled, poor and hungry; and they distrust and do not want to “share” America’s abundance of food and wealth or offer protection and refuge to refugees and immigrants”.

That is a load of hogwash. Cutting social programs is not the aim of Conservatives, rather ending fraud and waste inherent in the slave-making version of social programs. The religious right is highly involved in food for the poor and elderly without taxpayer dollars. The disabled will not have benefits cut and more than likely under Conservative management will have better access to effective healthcare rather than the bureaucratic delays and mismanagement occurring under Leftist management. AND your linkage of the poor and elderly in ancient Judah had no connection to the context Ezekiel made pertaining to Sodomites.

Ezekiel 16:49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. [They were Republican, right-wing conservative Christians].

Debbs a truer statement the “sister Sodom” was Dem Party Left-Wing morally depraved Secular Humanists

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
[Again, right wing conservatives, Donald Trump. Paul Ryan and Mitch Mcconnell]

Again, a better moral equivalence is the Left-Wing Dems like the corrupt Obama, Crooked Hillary, Loretta Lynch, other Obamaites and the lying Fake News Media.

My Republican Christian mother woke up in 2016 and was disgusted by all of the blatant lies, the hate, the racism, “religious people” ignoring their own moral standards, and her party’s determination to harm the middle class, disabled, and poor– while they give HUGE tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans and Billions in subsidies to corporations like Ford, GM, Intel, Alcoah, BofA, Exxon, Chevron, Goldman Sachs, etc. They serve corporations and only care about corporate profits- they do not serve the PEOPLE.

Your mother was lied to since most of 2016 was under the Leftist big government corrupt Obama, who taxed the crap out of the rich meaning he drove jobs to foreign nations further ruining the tax revenue to help support those bloated and often fraud-infested social programs you unwittingly serve.

Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.
So, every time a republican tells a lie, they should be stoned to death.

Again, the abominable lying lips are the Dems and Fake News propagandists trying to exact an unconstitutional coup against making America great rather than the empty and morally deficient such as Sodom, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Judah.

Clearly, if you look up the word “abomination” in an English dictionary, you will find that the word means “vile”, “wicked”, “wrong” and “hateful”. It is equally clear that the Bible was not written in English (but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic). The 17th century translation of the Bible known as the King James Version (KJV) translates the Hebrew text of Leviticus 18:22 in this way: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” The term translated as “abomination” is the Hebrew expression תֹּועֵבָה (tōēbā, a noun which may be pronounced toevah).

There is widespread agreement among Hebrew scholars that the word “toevah” as used in Leviticus is not, in fact, a moral term; instead, it is a cultic term which indicates “ritual uncleanness”. Any action that is said to be “toevah” is an action which requires a person to engage in ritual purification before they may come to worship. Sometimes, the term “toevah” can be used in the Bible to refer simply to sinful behaviour in general, but in the case of the text in question, scholars agree that ritual uncleanness is implied.

Debbs since you insist on using a theological revisionist evaluation of “abomination” translated toevah in Hebrew, I will use the respected and much touted Biblical lexicon (except among theological revisionists) called Strong’s Concordance (Make sure to click “Read More”):

it is abomination
tow`ebah (to-ay-baw')
something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol -- abominable (custom, thing), abomination
. (Leviticus 18:22; BibleHub.com)

Did you see the word “morally”?

Skip Moen has an interesting take on “toevah”:

Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. Leviticus 18:22 JPS [Blog Editor: Jewish Publication Society of America Version]

Abhorrence – When it comes to the Hebrew word to’evah (abomination, abhorrence), most discussions move immediately to this verse.  Why?  Because homosexuality is such a hot political/religious topic.  The incendiary comments on both sides offer plenty of garbage and confusion.  But little progress can be made without first understanding the framework and intention of the biblical concept of to’evot (plural).  After you have digested what we will discover, you might want to look at Jay Michaelson’s article claiming a mistranslation of the term (he misses the point of to’evot because he stands outside the culture).

To’evot are prohibitions within the cultural framework of Israel.  What is an abomination for those in the household of Israel is what God calls an abomination, period.  It doesn’t matter what the other nations do or what other arguments suggest.  If you are part of Israel, the things God calls abominations are prohibited to you.  Claims that other nations would not call some of these practices abhorrent are correct.  Other nations have different prohibitions.  But that is beside the point.  As followers of YHWH, we are not held accountable to the standards of other nations.  We are held accountable to the standards God sets for His nation.  In fact, the biblical record specifically demands that the followers of YHWH do not live as the other nations live in all kinds of areas, not just sexual practices.  With all of the contemporary fuss over homosexuality, we may overlook that fact that eating pork and forsaking the Torah are also considered to’evot.  The Tanakh lists several other practices, some considered perfectly acceptable in contemporary society, as abominations.  This should help us realize that we are not dealing with universalized human mores.  We are dealing with what God expects of His people.  And God expects that His people will not eat certain things, will not worship in certain ways, will not make certain vows and will not engage in certain sexual practices even if the rest of the world does so.  In other words, to’evot are marks of distinctive difference; the difference in behavior that accompanies being a citizen of the Kingdom.

Let’s set aside the claim that some people are born with homosexual proclivities. Frankly, it doesn’t matter.  The biblical issue with homosexuality is not about DNA, cultural mores or legality.  It is about identification with the tribe of Abraham.  Just as the tribe of Abraham is distinguished by its dietary restrictions, so it is distinguished by its sexual restrictions.  If you want to belong to the tribe, you live by the rules of the tribe.  You can live by other rules, but you won’t belong to the tribe.  You will belong to the “nations.”  You decide.  It’s still a choice.  It has always been a choice.  Of course, living by the mores of the nations ultimately means death, but that has always been the choice too. (Stepping In It – Rewind; By Skip Moen; SkipMoen.com; 11/17/16)

Moen’s assessment is that the Law of Moses is linked only to the Jews. His view is the Law has no applicability to people outside the covenant between God and Abraham. And he is correct. Except for one principle that makes people outside of God’s Promises to the Jews engrafted into a covenant. Ephesians 2: 11-18 tells how Jew and Gentile can be one through Jesus Christ. But for brevity read this portion:

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two

Thus as I said, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God making the practice extremely immoral.

Thus, according to the same book of the Bible, eating pork is also said to be “toevah” (unclean). According to Leviticus 11:10, as rendered in the KJV, “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.” This means that eating squid, prawns, lobsters and other shellfish is “toevah”. Similarly, according to this ancient text, any man who has sex with a menstruating woman has committed toevah (see Leviticus 20:18). [Blog Editor: I’m not Jewish but on a personal level I agree with the Bible – That is some nasty sex] And any person who commits toevah within ancient Israel could not join the community in its acts of worship until they had been ritually purified.

Answered with a combination of Skip Moen and Ephesians 2: 11-18 above.

Few today would regard shellfood [sic – she means shellfish] restaurants as abominations; not would most regard eating pork as an unclean act; and I don’t know anyone who believes a man has corrupted himself in any way by having sex with his wife during her menstrual cycle [Ibid. (grammar citation for dummies)]. Some may say that homosexuality is different, since the book of Leviticus also calls for the execution of those men who are found to have had sex with other men. But the Old Testament texts in question sanction the death penalty in all kinds of cases. The text tells us that a child (no age specified) who repeatedly disobeys his or her parents may be executed [ibid.]. The act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death. And even having sex with a menstruating woman is worthy of death, according to this ancient body of literature (see Leviticus 20:18; Ezekiel 18:13, and many other texts to that effect). Who today regards any of these acts as unclean or meriting execution? [At least as far as Christians are concerned: Ibid.]

All of which brings us to a more central question. Why does the book of Leviticus describe sex between two men as “toevah”? Many people offer may answers to that question, and many of those answers have been aired recently on radio and elsewhere. But one possible explanation I haven’t heard outlined should be added to the mix. It is suggested by (amongst others) Rabbi Arthur Waskow (see his article: “Homosexuality and Torah Thought” [Blog Editor: Same author but similar title, “Emerging Torah of Same-Sex Marriage”]). He argues that the text of Leviticus itself reflects the world in which it was written, and this ancient world was a culture dominated by men which subordinated women [Blog Editor: A typical Leftist perspective of ignoring the origin in favor of present Leftist mandated cultural acceptance of man-made norms over the Creator]. This was a culture in which righteous men prayed daily giving thanks that they were not created female. Those who wrote this text would have regarded men having sex together as tantamount to one man playing (what was considered) a culturally inferior role (that of a woman) during sex [Blog Editor: Or men and women accepted the ordinance of God in their Jewish culture as mandated by the Law of Moses]. This would make a man less than a man, since he was making himself comparable to a woman. This would also explain why sex between two lesbians is not condemned in the Old Testament, since all women were thought to be of such inferior status that “neither would be seen as adopting a dominant or a subservient role during sexual encounters” [Blog Editor: OR culturally the women assumed what was good for the goose was good for the gander. Thus, the mandate for males would be presumed the same for females in a Jewish cultural setting honoring obedience to God’s Word].

Debbs is big with saying many theologians agree with her Left-Wing perspective of revised theology. When citing Rabbi Arthur Waskow she precedes his name in parenthesis the phrase “amongst others”. If the “amongst others” are of the same metal as her cited Rabbi let’s look at his theological credentials:

Arthur Ocean Waskow (born Arthur I. Waskow; 1933) is an American author, political activist, and rabbi associated with the Jewish Renewal movement. READ THE REST OF WASKOW’S LEFTIST AFFILIATIONS AT WIKIPEDIA

My God, Waskow changed his middle name to “Ocean” probably due to the Marxist Globalist Green Movement of Climate Change (formerly called debunked Global Warming because the ice caps still exist and the East and West Coasts are not submerged by water).

Let’s examine just how revisionist the Jewish Renewal Movement is. This from a Jerusalem Post article that seems more favorable than critical. The JPost article is based on an interview with Rabbi i David Ingber of Romemu located in New York City (Manhattan):

On its website, Romemu describes itself as “attempting to transform the way Judaism is practiced and experienced by infusing aspects of Eastern spiritual practices with traditional Orthodox influences, so the ta’am, or taste, is unmistakably Jewish.”

Besides incorporating moments of meditation and early Saturday morning yoga, Romemu’s services are filled with music and Jewish chants in which the fully egalitarian congregation takes part, and to which it even dances or claps, as the mood strikes.

Several instruments are used each week, including a piano, darbuka drums, guitars and, on occasion, a double bass.

But the main characteristic of the Friday night and Saturday morning ceremonies, Ingber explained, is that the liturgy and traditional Jewish texts are made more accessible by juxtaposing Hebrew and English; focusing on less, but fully exploring prayers; and connecting texts with their meaning in modern times.


Romemu subscribes to a fairly recent approach to Judaism known as Jewish renewal, based on deep textual knowledge and a need to make the liturgy more accessible and relevant. (JEWISH RENEWAL: EXPERIMENTAL OR ESTABLISHED MOVEMENT? By DANIELLE ZIRI; Jerusalem Post; 12/26/16 01:51)

The key words and/or phrases that connect Jewish Renewal to a revisionist Judaism are: Eastern spiritual practices, modern times, fairly recent approach and relevant. All words justifying paths to replace the Creator with a human vision of spiritual reality. The same human attitudes that destroyed Sodom, the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. When humans defy God, God withdraws His protective Hand.

These are the kinds of issues being debated by scholars [Blog Editor: as in revisionist scholars] of the Hebrew Bible, and their considerations should be included in our continuing public debate about the use of an ancient text in the 21st century. [Blog Editor: I say NO to human revisionism and YES to the will of the Creator!] There is much more to be said, of course [Blog Editor: More said to stop revisionism against God’s Word] — and this post does not consider, for example, the New Testament passages concerning same-sex sexual intercourse [Blog Editor: Probably because they are more specific about homosexuality and Redemption from the penalty of the Law]. Nevertheless, if the Bible is going to be drawn into public debates about controversial social and moral issues, we can surely all agree that it is important to try to do justice to what the Bible actually says.

Doing “justice” is another Socialist/Marxist/Leftist synonym for transforming society into Leftist Secular Humanism in order to disregard that which God calls Holy and replacing with that which is human carnality.

JRH 7/22/17