Israel Accused Of ‘Disproportionality’ By Wicked World. This Is What Israel Would Do IF They Were Really ‘Proportional’ Fighting Hamas

I am beyond sick of the morally idiotic and intellectually disgraceful charge that Israel is somehow in the wrong in its fight to defend itself and its people against a DELCARED TERRORIST ENTITTY.

Israel is being accused being “disproportionate.”  Why?  Because Hamas wants its own people murdered and has found a way – by firing thousands of rockets at Israel, by using concrete that Israel gave Hamas to build homes to instead build dozens of tunnels located directly underneath hospitals, schools, mosques and crowded apartment buildings, by using their own people as human shields, by demanding that civilians sacrifice themselves and become martyrs when Israel warns them that an attack is coming while the terrorists who give the orders run away – to secure the deaths of their own people so they can blame Israel in their propaganda.

Here is what Israel would do if they were to actually BE “proportional” in their war with Muslim jihadist Hamas:

1) Israel would amend it’s constitution to include the following:

‘Palestine will exist and will  continue to exist until Israel will obliterate it.’

That would of course be “proportional to the Hamas Charter which says in its preamble:

‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.’

If Israel were “proportional” they would also have the equivalent of this part of Hamas’ charter –

‘[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the  principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem  except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.’ (Article 13)

– and so renounce any and all attempt at peace and give themselves the right to violate any true or peace accord whenever they wanted.

Israel would amend its constitution to include something “proportional” to what Hamas says in its charter:

‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’ (Article 7)

So let’s reword that into a “proportional” statement that would become official Israeli policy in a “proportional” Israel:

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Jews fight Muslims and kill them.  Then, the Muslims will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Jew, there is a Muslim hiding behind me, come and kill him.”

If Israel truly sought “proportionality,” they would add racism to the mixture by labeling Muslims as the descendants of apes and pigs.  and they would teach that dogma to every single Israeli school child the way the Palestinians indoctrinate every Muslim school child in order to guarantee that the hatred will last until every single Muslim on earth is dead.

THAT’S what a “proportional” Israel would actually look like.

Oh, and United Nations “proportionality” would be to help Israel indoctrinate its children to religious and racial hate the way UNRA is helping to indoctrinate Palestinian children to religious and racial hate.

That’s how EVIL the United Nations is today. fwiw.

If you want a “proportional” Israel, you United Nations demoniac, then you demand that Israel amend their constitution to call for the murder of every single Muslim the way Hamas has done to Jews in its charter.  Otherwise, kindly shut the hell up and realize that you are a sick, twisted, evil, diseased soul that belongs to the devil for your calls for “proportionality.”

2) A proportional Israel would have fired over 3,000 rockets into Palestinian areas and indiscriminately killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims.  And if Hamas hadn’t spent billions of dollars trying to defend their citizens against Israeli rocket attacks the way Israel spent billions defending themselves against Palestinian rocket attacks, that would just be too damn bad, would it?

I wouldn’t be surprised if a “proportional” Israel would have killed a million Palestinians by now.

If you truly demand a “proportional” Israel and you are NOT a demon-possessed hypocrite cockroach, then you have called for Israel to send at least 3,000 rockets into Palestinian civilian-populated areas.

But you ARE a demon-possessed hypocrite cockroach, aren’t you, United Nations???

3) A “proportional” Israel would use humanitarian aid sites such as Temples, schools and hospitals to locate weapons and dig tunnels with which they could enter Palestinian territory and murder and kidnap Palestinians.  Because that would be the obviously “proportional” thing for Israel to do, wouldn’t it???  At least unless you are so completely demon-possessed you don’t have a freaking clue what the real world actually looks like, it would be.

I pointed out in a recent article how the fact that the world condemns Israel for doing what it absolutely MUST against the most wicked terrorist entity on earth proves that there is a personal devil.  I said that because God created men and women in His own image and He simply did not make us to be this stupid, this blind and this depraved to be so incapable of so much as a shred of moral intelligence.

There has to be a Satan and an army of demons to blind wicked fools such that they cannot see what is OBVIOUS to any soul created by God.  Humanity simply cannot be this STUPID and EVIL on their own.

Satan is alive and well, and the United Nations and the existence of liberals proves it.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Israel Accused Of ‘Disproportionality’ By Wicked World. This Is What Israel Would Do IF They Were Really ‘Proportional’ Fighting Hamas”

  1. dougindeap Says:

    Here is my reply to your earlier comment on the separation of church and state post (which seems not to “take” there). As it is already long and offers more than enough for you to chew on, I’ll not lengthen it to address your most recent comment.

    Wow! You surprised me with that first point. Not often will one find someone who, when confronted with a string of citations to a sampling of the many Supreme Court cases holding that separation of church and state is a fundamental constitutional principle, nonetheless will insist (seemingly without embarrassment) that a statement that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held just that “WASN’T accurate” (shouting so in all caps no less). You even bandy about the term “lie.”

    It appears perhaps that your error is not one of analysis, but rather of terminology. You seem to suppose that if the Supreme Court once held that our nation is Christian (which, as I explained earlier, it did not) and later held many times that the Constitution separates church and state that it is “inaccurate” to say that the Court “repeatedly held” that the Constitution separates church and state. Is that roughly your meaning? I’ll just say that, at least as I understand the words (and I think the dictionaries will back me up in this), if the Court has held something many times, it has “repeatedly held” that something—and that remains an accurate statement even if the Court also has said some other things that may be regarded by some, e.g., you, as inconsistent with those repeated holdings. In that case, a rational discussion starts with recognition (not denial) of the fact the Court has repeatedly held as it has and then proceeds with arguments about whether the Court’s other statements somehow contradict, overrule, etc., its repeated holdings.

    While you don’t explain why, you seem to attribute some significance to the architectural treatment of the Supreme Court building. It may bear on your thinking, therefore, to know that your stated understanding, i.e., that “imagery of the Bible and Judeo-Christianity AND NOTHING ELSE decorat[es] that building,” is mistaken. While imagery of certain aspects the Bible and Judeo-Christianity pertaining to law does indeed appear, so also does imagery of other legal and philosophical influences, and moreover Christianity is not accorded any special prominence. Also, much of the imagery sometimes mistaken as religious is actually secular. All in all, review of the architectural details of the building reveals an effort to focus on concepts of law and justice and address religion only insofar as pertinent to those concepts, and avoiding unrelated displays about religion in general or any particular religion. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp http://ffrf.org/faq/freethought/item/15139-did-you-know

    You also apparently would make much of the Constitution’s date, which, in keeping with conventions of the time, is keyed to the Christian calendar, without actually offering any explanation why this trivial observation should be regarded as substantive or significant. You emphatically declare that the term “our Lord” in the date refers to none other than Jesus Christ, seemingly expecting some argument to the contrary. No argument about that. The question is: So what? As I said at the outset, the founders drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing SUBSTANTIVE of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment and no-religious-test clause. Indeed, that very aspect of the Constitution was noticed and discussed in the debates about its ratification, since some were disappointed the Constitution did not acknowledge a deity. Imagine their surprise at all you would now make of the Constitution’s date.

    You say that you “mock” me for observing that the variously phrased references to god(s) in the Declaration of Independence could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God. Yet you offer no argument or explanation, only your unspoken supposition that the references simply must refer to the Christian God you evidently have in mind. I, though, am hardly the only one to recognize that the Declaration’s terms are susceptible of meanings other than the one you have in mind. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304211804577504923449570972 http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2009/12/god-and-declaration-of-independence.html The founders astutely chose words that could mean different things to different people–that could fit with the thinking of Christians, Unitarians, deists, and others–so they could achieve political consensus.

    You further “mock” me for explaining that meaning drawn from the Declaration cannot simply be infused into the Constitution, yet again offer no argument against my explanation nor any explanation of your own other than your allusion to “THE OBVIOUS” (again with the all caps). You seem to suggest that the Declaration and the Constitution written twelve years later were drafted and adopted by one and the same persons or institution. That, of course, is simply not the case. While the documents plainly are related as a matter of history, the people and institutions that prepared each differed. Of the 56 or so delegates who participated in the Second Continental Congress, convened by the thirteen colonies, that drafted and adopted the Declaration of Independence, seven later participated in the Constitutional Convention, convened by the Confederation Congress, that drafted and adopted the Constitution.

    You say that I claimed the Bible doesn’t have all the answers, to what end is not clear. In any event, I said nothing of the sort—and never mentioned the Bible.

    Finally, you again say you mock me for noting that separation of church and state does not require one to deny that laws reflect moral principles. I could content myself, as you do, to tell you that it is obvious. You also invite me to discuss the source and foundation of morality (a major philosophical subject indeed), and offer your firm conclusion that it can only be religion. You offer lots of quotations by founders associating morality and religion; that indeed was a commonly expressed belief in their times.

    I think perhaps you misunderstand me and misapprehend the separation of church and state. I agree with what I take to be your overarching thesis that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions, which were largely Christian in nature. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government–in both the founders’ time and today–largely reflect Christianity’s dominant influence in our society.

    That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion and at odds with the Christian principle that people cannot be coerced to believe but rather must come to God voluntarily. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. As noted above, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people’s values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite–the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity’s influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that–and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow “lock in” (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    dougindeap,

    Okay, this is your last shot, let’s see what you’ve got. Although I immediately notice that you refuse to interact with much of what I say (which kind of makes arguing with you pointless). Anyway, I won’t return the favor and will respond to you point-by-point.

    You say:

    Wow! You surprised me with that first point. Not often will one find someone who, when confronted with a string of citations to a sampling of the many Supreme Court cases holding that separation of church and state is a fundamental constitutional principle, nonetheless will insist (seemingly without embarrassment) that a statement that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held just that “WASN’T accurate” (shouting so in all caps no less). You even bandy about the term “lie.”

    Just so you know, I’ll be bandying the term “lie” a couple more times, given how massively you misrepresent my arguments in at least a couple of places.

    My response is “wow” as well. You clearly live in a freaking hole somewhere and crawl out of it to use a public library computer. Because otherwise you would know by now that the Supreme Court is pretty well discredited these days by both the right AND the damn left. I have to remind other people who DON’T live in holes in the ground that it wasn’t that long ago that a sitting president invited the Supreme Court to excoriate them and literally tell them how terribly WRONG they were in their decision with the Citizens United Case. I recall a stunned Justice Alito mouthing, “That’s not true” as Obama demonized his SCOTUS. Chief Justice John Roberts discredited his own court when he rewrote a horribly bad and unconstitutional law to make what both the Democrats, the law itself and Obama had declared was NOT a tax a “tax.” I can’t pick up my Los Angeles Times without reading one of their continuing hysterical crying jags over the Hobby Lobby case. The left literally lost their minds over it and so viciously denounced the Court it’s unreal. And you are actually so completely IGNORANT that you are “surprised” that somebody would say maybe the Supreme Court could be wrong???

    Just in case anybody needs to see just how IDIOTIC your “wow I’m so surprised” garbage is, try this:

    Opponents filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to remove from the fall ballot a nonbinding question asking whether Congress should overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision.

    The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argues the advisory measure, which passed the Legislature on party-line votes and would appear as Proposition 49, amounts to an illegitimate exercise of legislative power because the ballot is reserved for lawmaking.

    “Legislative power can be exercised in numerous ways but this is not one of those,” said Jon Coupal, the president of the association.

    The organization dismissed the measure as a cowardly effort by the Democratic-controlled Legislature to boost voter turnout in what is expected to be an uneventful statewide election.

    So the Damnocrat Party in California actually PASSED a ballot measure to ignore the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, and you come to me with your utterly and appallingly ignorant bewilderment that there may be somebody out there who doesn’t view the Supreme Court as a panel of gods among men.

    Either you are incredibly ignorant or else you are dishonestly feigning shock reminiscent of that scene in Casablanca where a man is shocked, SHOCKED that gambling is going on in the casino. I don’t care which.

    And you actually wonder why I MOCK you???? You are the POSTER BOY for Romans 1:22 because you profess yourself to be so wise when you are such a FOOL. The only thing wrong with pretty much everything you think or believe is that it stands refuted by history and by reality.

    Let me educate others on what this dougindeap chump is doing here: you see, both as a Christian AND as a constitutional historical-grammatical literalist, I have grounds to hold the Supreme Court accountable to a HIGHER standard. As a “separation of church and state” turd, you have no such foundation. Government and the power of government is ALL you have. And if your government acts like a tyrant what higher power do you have to ground your complaint in? Certainly not God, ye who dismiss the founding fathers’ grounds for separation on the basis of rights that God gave man and the king was illegitimately usurping. So all you HAVE is your precious Supreme Court and whatever it decrees ought to be the FINAL WORD to the left. And it is evangelicals and conservatives ALONE who have the right to bitch about terrible SCOTUS decisions. But to be a liberal is to be a shameless hypocrite.

    Anyway, I have EVERY right to condemn the Supreme Court when it fails to carry out the Constitution as it was written by our founding fathers. It’s YOU who can only have government and the raw power of the State as your highest possible authority.

    You say you won’t “lengthen [your comment] to address your most recent comment.” In that comment, I brought up the FACT that “this nation under God” and ONLY under God was “dedicated to the proposition that all men were CREATED EQUAL.” Which was THE grounds for our abolition of slavery. But I shouldn’t be surprised: because I now find that you are FINE with slavery. After all, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks had no standing in federal court and that slavery was peachy dandy in the Dred Scott decision which was merely ONE of NUMEROUS INFAMOUS DECISIONS in which the SCOTUS was so wrong it is beyond unreal. You think that a Supreme Court ruling is sacrosanct – making you NO friend of Thomas Jefferson who said the EXACT opposite thing.

    Again, you won’t deal with it because you can’t, but I cite the words of Thomas Jefferson:

    “This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

    “The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

    To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

    Jefferson PREDICTED this sort of unconstitutional and frankly fascist crap would happen!!! I doubt very much if Jefferson would have been at all surprised that his OWN words – in spite of what he clearly said – would serve as the basis by which the SCOTUS would end up “declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution” and impose a doctrine of “separation of church and state” that they invented.

    The simple fact of the matter is this: if the Supreme Court refuses or fails to interpret the Constitution according to the intent provided by the founding fathers, it is an illegitimate body no matter HOW powerful it becomes. If you have the view that you can “do what you think is right and let the law catch up,” as Justice Marshall did, you are a disgrace to everything the Constitution says and you are a the greatest danger to our nation’s liberty.

    This separation of church and state crap did not rear its head until 1947. That, coincidentally, was the court that FDR had illegally tried to pack which goes to show you what the left thinks of both the Supreme Court and the Constitution. That court disingenuously dragged out the words of Jefferson, stripped them out of their context, and made a ruling which I demonstrated – and which you could not touch – that defied our founding fathers and their clear intent in their founding documents. Their doctrine of separation of church and state has NOTHING to do with either our founding fathers OR the Constitution they wrote. Which is why you are forced to ignore all the ancient writings that describe what kind of nation this was supposed to be.

    So you idiotically claim, “Not often will one find someone who, when confronted with a string of citations to a sampling of the many Supreme Court cases…” DUMBASS!!! It’s only been happening for over 200 years, starting at the very least with Thomas Jefferson. And given Obama and the left melting down as we speak, it’s kind of going on all around that little hole you live in when you’re not crawling out to bother me.

    I rest my case that your “surprise” is frankly asinine. Other than the fact that it proves how incredibly ignorant of American history you clearly are.

    So I just point that out to declare HOW DANGEROUS you are to freedom and to human dignity. Your beliefs lead necessarily to government oppression and to slavery. And I add the very slavery Lincoln brought us out of by declaring that your “separation of church and state” doctrine is vile gibberish.

    And why George Washington directly implied you to be a traitor for trying to destroy the two great pillars that America is based upon.

    I MOCK you, dougindeap. I said at the end of the piece you waved your hand at because it refuted you:

    So you cite the Supreme Court’s decisions all you want. You go ahead and say that the Supreme Court is your sole arbiter of right and wrong and good and evil rather than God when it comes to morality and religion and rather than our founding fathers when it comes to understanding the meaning of the Constitution. But I couldn’t care less and join Thomas Jefferson in yawning at your fondness for bowing down before black-robed masters.

    And how do you respond? you said, “That’s right. Because if the Supreme Court says wrong is right and night is day and good is evil and up is down, then that’s all I need.” As I pointed out, for you, the Supreme Court overrules the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence – which you declare as meaningless – the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, everything. You are EVERYTHING both Washington and Jefferson said is wrong and could go wrong with America. All we are now is whatever a Supreme Court decides we are, which is exactly where Jefferson warned when the Supreme Court illegally seized power for itself to decide the meaning of the Constitution. And when our Supreme Court doesn’t act and a lawless imperial president runs roughshod over the Congress that our SCOTUS has frankly gutted the constitutional authority of, we’re done for. Our founding documents – our Constitution – is no more important to people like you than you affirm he Declaration of Independence is meaningless to you. And ours is a nation that has drifted wildly out of control as a result.

    You claim – idiotically – that I failed to provide “any explanation why this trivial observation should be regarded as substantive or significant” that the founding fathers wrote:

    “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America…”

    You simply amazingly ignore that in fact I pointed out the FACT that the founding fathers DID NOT have to date the Constitution so. Because the “founding fathers” of the French Revolution did not. In fact, the French Revolution went the way according to you our founding fathers should have gone. They not only did not affirm “the year of our Lord” but in fact they created their own calendar to be a “separation of church and state.” And the “separation of church and state” of the French Revolution ended in an orgy of vicious bloodshed that wasn’t rivaled until the Soviet Union and the modern “separation of church and state” of state atheist communism which murdered 100 million people in peacetime.

    I did that right HERE and even documented the link describing the calendar of the French Revolution.

    So you flat-out LIE to claim that I failed to provide any explanation of the significance of “the year of our Lord.” I in fact provided a substantial argument. That the contemporaneous French Revolution not only refused to mention “the year of our Lord” but actually went so far as to create a calendar just to truly have “separation of church and state” makes it quite remarkable that the founders chose to work “in the year of our Lord.” Make light of that as you will, but history refutes you.

    And it was patently dishonest of you to claim I hadn’t provided an argument when I did so at length.

    The Constitution was “part two” of the founders’ words. Part one – the Declaration of Independence – literally grounds the entire existence of ANY nation in a Creator God and declares that the rights that aforementioned Creator God gave to humanity constitute the basis for ALL human government and that ANY government – including the United States of America – that doesn’t respect that God and those rights ought to be overthrown and replaced with one that will.

    Anyone who isn’t a fool knows that.

    Now, as to the Supreme Court building, I’ll give you that I overstated my case. Moses and the Ten Commandments Moses appear three times in the architectural embellishment of the Supreme Court building. Inside, Moses appears eight times in carvings that ring the Supreme Court Great Hall ceiling. It should have been more times, I suppose.

    As to the language of the Declaration of Independence, I referenced the first of your sources and your “expert” declared this about “Nature’s God”:

    “The phrase “Nature’s God” is not a product of traditional religious denominations, but is generally associated with 18th-century Deism.”

    I don’t deal well with liars. That is a LIE. And that lie disqualifies your “expert” and it disqualifies YOU. “Nature and Nature’s God” comes right out of John Locke and from Blackstone’s Legal Commentaries, which were THE legal commentaries of the day and for YEARS surrounding the founding fathers.

    Let me point out the difference between my argument and yours and you and I: you don’t bother with the founding fathers and produce an “expert” who provides an “opinion” that is blatant crap. I, on the other hand, refute you with history. So let’s consider the history of the phrase “Nature and Nature’s God” and how terribly wrong you truly are:

    The Source of Law and Order

    What did America’s Founding Fathers mean when they spoke of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God?”

    John Locke (1632-1704) was a Christian philosopher who had a great influence in America. He said:

    [T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.
    [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.
    Locke, Two Treatises on Government, Bk II sec 135. (quoting Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, 1.iii, § 9 )

    William Blackstone (1723-1780) was cited more frequently than Locke by America’s Founding Fathers. In 1810 Thomas Jefferson wryly commented that American lawyers used Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran.

    Blackstone described the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God in a chapter in his Commentaries entitled, “Of the Nature of Laws in General.” An excerpt is found here. Among the highlights:

    Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will.
    T
    his will of his Maker is called the law of nature.
    T
    his law of nature, being coeval [existing at the same time – ed.] with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity [happiness].
    U
    pon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

    The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court recently had an occasion to describe the influence of Blackstone and further explain the meaning of the phrase “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”:

    American law derives its principles from the common law of England, clearly explained in Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone. In 1799, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, James Iredell, charged the grand jury of the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania as follows:

    [F]or near 30 years [The Commentaries on the Laws of England] has been the manual of almost every student of law in the United States, and its uncommon excellence has also introduced it into the libraries, and often to the favourite reading of private gentlemen; so that [Sir William Blackstone’s] views of the subject could scarcely be unknown to those who framed the Amendment to the Constitution, ….”
    Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser, April 11, 1799, Philadelphia, 3 The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, at 347 (Maeva Marcus, ed., Columbia University Press 1990) (emphasis added).

    Because Blackstone’s Commentaries was the manual for law students in the United States during and after the revolutionary period and the drafting of the United States Constitution, we should consider his interpretations of common law not only as influential but also as authoritative for applying the common law today.

    Blackstone’s explanation of the common law is important because of the influence it has had upon the American legal system. In 1993, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

    “The conception of the judicial role that [Chief Justice John Marshall] possessed, and that was shared by succeeding generations of American judges until very recent times, took it to be ‘the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,’ Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis added) — not what the law shall be. That original and enduring American perception of the judicial role sprang not from the philosophy of Nietzsche but from the jurisprudence of Blackstone, which viewed retroactivity as an inherent characteristic of the judicial power, a power ‘not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one.’ 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 69 (1765).”
    Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 107 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring).

    Natural law forms the basis of the common law. (7) Natural law is the law of nature and of nature’s God as understood by men through reason, but aided by direct revelation found in the Holy Scriptures:

    The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.” (8)
    1 William Blackstone, Commentaries 42.

    Blackstone’s Commentaries explain that because our reason is full of error, the most certain way to ascertain the law of nature is through direct revelation. The ultimate importance of this law and its influence upon our law cannot be understated.

    “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There is, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former.”
    1 Blackstone, Commentaries 42.

    There are impeccable American sources for the above proposition. James Wilson, Associate Justice on the first United States Supreme Court and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, said:

    “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine …. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”
    James Wilson, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation,” in 1 The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, 104-06 (Bird Wilson ed., Bronson and Chauncey 1804).

    John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and coauthor of the Federalist Papers, declared:

    “[N]o sovereign ought to permit those who are under his Command to violate the precepts of the Law of Nature, which forbids all Injuries ….”
    “John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury of the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, May 22, 1793, Richmond, Virginia.” 2 The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, at 386 (Maeva Marcus, ed., Columbia University Press 1988).

    Our own Declaration of Independence refers to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”:

    “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (Emphasis added.)

    It would be an odd logic to assert that the American colonies could use the law of God “to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them,” but not to decide the fundamental basis of their laws.

    So I just want to state here for the factual record that you passed off a documented liar as your “source” and you stand REFUTED BY HISTORY. Your claim that “Nature and Nature’s God” stemmed from Deism is a documented lie of history. It rather came from profoundly Christian thinkers and thinking. And I hope by now other people can see why I am sick of dealing with your garbage. And what a complete waste of time your arguments or the conclusion you are trying to defend truly are.

    In the previous comment that you ostensibly are dealing with, I cite about a hundred founding fathers quotes that clearly revealed them to be CHRISTIAN. And I also pointed out the historical FACT that fifty-two of the fifty-five delegates to the constitutional convention were publicly sworn CHRISTIANS. So I just want to point out again for the factual record that you are nothing short of a blathering fool to so ignore the abundant history that so completely refutes you and everything you stand for.

    Your idiotic contention is literally that a body of men that were 95% Christian wrote about God but must have somehow meant something other than the Christian God. Even though all of their abundant writings say otherwise. I mean, just what kind of a jackass….

    So, yes, I mock you something FIERCE.

    Just as I continue to mock you for your idiotic disconnection between the document that founded our nation and the document that established what kind of nation we would have. You would probably refuse to consider which mother gave birth to a child in considering who the parent was. I mean, the birth of the baby (established by the Declaration of Independence) clearly has no connection with the child. I mean, unless you’re NOT a complete idiot.

    I already said it above, but I’ll say it again here: The Constitution was “part two” of the founders’ words. Part one – the Declaration of Independence – literally grounds the entire existence of ANY nation in a Creator God and declares that the rights that aforementioned Creator God gave to humanity constitute the basis for ALL human government and that ANY government – including the United States of America – that doesn’t respect that God and those rights ought to be overthrown and replaced with one that will.

    The Declaration of Independence provided the grounds and the foundation for our separation from England. What were those grounds? I cite the document itself:

    When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    The Declaration of Independence flat out STATES 1) there is a Creator God; 2) that our Creator God created us to have certain rights and freedoms; and 3) that any government that violates these rights and freedoms should be overthrown and replaced with a government that will honor the rights and freedoms that God endowed in mankind. That’s not my opinion; that’s just a blasted FACT for anyone who can read.

    And it STILL remains your bizarre, your idiotic, your foolish, and frankly your demon-possessed contention that the founding fathers who declared those three things only said them as an incredibly cynical ploy to seize power and had zero intention of implementing those three things in the government that they created. Such that they rebelled from England which took away the rights that God gave them only so that THEY could be the ones who would violate the rights that God gave man.

    I submit that you LIED about my argument yet AGAIN when you assert:

    “You further “mock” me for explaining that meaning drawn from the Declaration cannot simply be infused into the Constitution, yet again offer no argument against my explanation nor any explanation of your own other than your allusion to “THE OBVIOUS” (again with the all caps).”

    There is simply something profoundly wrong with you. Dude, I provided a very THOROUGH argument, which I represent here yet again. I block people who lie. And when you twice claim I offer no argument when I very clearly did, you need to go away because you are simply not an honest human being and there is no point trying to have any kind of meaningful discussion with someone who factually misrepresents you as you do to me.

    We’re getting close to the end, and you again reveal yourself to be a very special kind of fool when you submit:

    “Finally, you again say you mock me for noting that separation of church and state does not require one to deny that laws reflect moral principles. I could content myself, as you do, to tell you that it is obvious.”

    NO, you moral dumbass. The existence of moral principles is NOT “obvious” at ALL. Anybody who picks up a newspaper or watches the news knows that there are PLENTY of human beings whose lives deny the existence of any moral principle. Which again leads me to rightly conclude that you crawled out from under some rock. Moral principles ARE obvious to anyone who believes that God and divine religion is the source of moral foundations. It is NOT AT ALL obvious to anyone who does not so believe, as YOU do not.

    That is why George Washington and John Adams and so many other of our founding fathers were so dogmatic and adamant about demanding that we maintain ourselves as a nation under God. Because apart from being a nation under God, there ARE no grounds for morality or moral law whatsoever. And anyone who tries to subvert these two great pillars is therefore a traitor and a cancer to America.

    I challenged you to provide a moral foundation apart from God and from religion, and you utterly failed to do so. You CAN’T. And your complete inability to respond beyond your hand-waving “let’s pretend we can just assume that floating around somewhere is a moral foundation” proves you can’t respond.

    Morality and law come ONLY from the beliefs that you refuse to acknowledge or allow your secular humanist atheist state to acknowledge.

    You say:

    “You offer lots of quotations by founders associating morality and religion; that indeed was a commonly expressed belief in their times.”

    Which of course you refuse to engage with.

    And that’s because the founding fathers profoundly disagreed with you and profoundly agreed with me. You are completely wrong: there is no basis for ANY kind of morality apart from religion. And any country that separates church and state separates itself from the grounds for morality and law and has no other authority for them but their own raw, naked government FORCE.

    Which is what the quotes I provided from both our first and second presidents clearly illustrate that they understood.

    I’ll take a part of some of your last words and then take them in their larger context after I refute the part.

    You claim that:

    “I agree with what I take to be your overarching thesis that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions, which were largely Christian in nature. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government–in both the founders’ time and today–largely reflect Christianity’s dominant influence in our society.”

    But in point of fact that last part isn’t true at ALL. We are now a nation that has murdered more babies since 1973 (56,662,169) than the total number of human beings killed on both sides including civilians in the bloodiest and most vicious war in human history. In World War II, there were “only” 56,125,262 human beings killed.

    Contrast that with what a Christian believes according to Psalm 139:13 – “For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” And the context of Pslam 139 only proves to make that Christian reality even more clear.

    I submit it is patent blasphemy to connect anything “Christian” with a murder toll of humanity that is more than nine times worse than the damn HOLOCAUST.

    But we didn’t go far enough until Obama finished the damn job of severing any connection to Christ or Christianity altogether. Nope. But now we are the OFFICIAL NATION OF GOD DAMN AMERICA – to quote Obama’s “reverend” – according to Romans chapter one.

    Romans chapter one presents a crystal-clear picture of a process of a culture becoming sufficiently depraved to fall under the full wrath of God. The Bible describes a downward spiral of “exchanges” that take place: first as sinful humanity exchanges the worship of God to the worship of created things in verses 18-23 – which we did as a culture in our embrace of godless evolution. We exchanged the truth of God for a lie (verse 25). And therefore God gave this culture over to increasingly shameful lusts in which we exchanged natural desires for unnatural ones (verse 26). Those shameful lusts bottom out at open homosexuality (verse 27). And culture truly sinks to its rock bottom when it not only continues to do these things but encourages and approves of others who practice them (verse 32).

    So your claim that America somehow “largely reflect[s] Christianity’s dominant influence in our society” is unmitigated BULLCRAP.

    And your profoundly bullcrap claim underscores how pathologically and intrinsically and fundamentally and profoundly DANGEROUS your views are to America. Because it was the people who thought EXACTLY LIKE YOU who radically and dishonestly separated America from God with your damned “separation of church and state” feces.

    So now let me deal with your final words in their context and examine your final “argument”:

    I think perhaps you misunderstand me and misapprehend the separation of church and state. I agree with what I take to be your overarching thesis that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions, which were largely Christian in nature. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government–in both the founders’ time and today–largely reflect Christianity’s dominant influence in our society.

    That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government.

    Your “argument” amounts to “1 + 1 = 2. But 1 non sequitur with 1 = whatever the hell we want it to.” Your first paragraph I cite above fundamentally contradicts your second one. But you can fix that by waving your hand at an assertion that merely represents the very thing you are trying to argue in the first place.

    Given that you at least twice condemn me for not providing an argument for something, it’s kind of ballsy of you to conclude with such a patent piece of question begging and circular reasoning. You offer the thing you are trying to prove as the fact that proves what you are trying to prove.

    You wave your hand at “the Christian principle that people cannot be coerced to believe but rather must come to God voluntarily.” And yes, that IS a Christian principle. That in fact is my own Christian principle: do you know how few people I’ve beaten up trying to force them to become Christians? Actually, the number is ZERO. But for some bizarre reason having nothing whatsoever to do with logic or reason you conclude that since I don’t “force people to become Christians” that I therefore cannot believe 1) that Christianity is true; 2) that Christian truth applies to the world that God created; 3) that the morality of Christianity is superior to all other sources; or 4) that other people ought to be Christians and that I ought to have the right to persuade them. But I believe all those things, too. Just as our founding fathers did.

    The founding fathers did NOT intend to “force people to become Christians,” but they ALSO did NOT intend to separate church from state. What they clearly intended – even in Jefferson’s letter that was so wildly stripped out of its clear context by the Supreme Court you worship so – was that whether people were or became Christians or not, they would live in accordance with the morality that was established in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. You don’t have to BE a Christian, and you don’t have to practice the elements of Christian ceremony and ritual that a Christian practices, but in America you don’t murder, you don’t commit adultery, you don’t steal, and so on and so forth. And we are all able to live together as free men under a limited, benevolent government, so long as we live according to the virtues established by the morality that comes from Christianity even if we never become Christians ourselves. And we will all coexist together in an environment that is conducive to these “great pillars” of religion and morality. Because Washington went on to say that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Which is why Washington literally claimed it was the opposite of patriotism to try to sever America from religion as the project of “separation of church and state” clearly does.

    For the last 67 years since the 1947 case where your Supreme Court started pontificating about separation of church and state proponents of that philosophy have done everything they possibly could to disconnect, marginalize, isolate and even demonize proponents of the religion that our founding fathers explicitly declared was foundational to our nation and to our Constitution and to our form of government and to our way of life.

    I have a feeling based on your last words that you fall into the trap that liberalism invariably falls into as a worldview; namely, that human beings are intrinsically good. We humans don’t have a fallen and depraved human nature; we just need more education (which means of course more liberalism). The last thing that humans need, according to liberalism, is more God and more religion. That isn’t the view of the Bible and it wasn’t the view of the founding fathers. Rather, humans are by nature evil. We now have perverted natures. The Fall wired us to want what is wrong. True religion and morality doesn’t come easily to us. It has to be nurtured and allowed to grow.

    Liberals seem to want to restrict and limit religion and morality because they seem to believe it is just so intrinsic, so innate in us, to be moral and good apart from religion. Versus the founding fathers who clearly believed we needed to develop deep religion in order to develop deep morality so we could be a “moral and religious people” who could therefore be permitted to have a small and limited government rather than require a massive, big government apparatus to control our lusts.

    It is incredible for me to comprehend that liberals look at our overflowing prisons and can’t see that. It’s incredible that you CONTINUE to have a foolish and naïve view of man as intrinsically good. Yet you do. So you STILL hound God and religion at every turn and try to denounce, to isolate, to undermine religion at every turn when Washington called you traitors for doing so.

    Over the last several decades, thanks mostly to your separation of church and state dogma, we are less religious and therefore less moral and more out of control than ever before in our history.

    And the nation is dying because of it.

  3. truthunites Says:

    Israel Accused Of ‘Disproportionality’ By Wicked World. This Is What Israel Would Do IF They Were Really ‘Proportional’ Fighting Hamas

    Good article. And a fine rebuttal to your interlocutor above.

    With regards to the War Against Terrorism, what to do you think of this fellow’s response about taking it to the bad guys:

    My response to the execution by beheading of James Foley and others.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, truthunites,

    My favorite sentence in your article in bold:

    What the world needs now is a cleansing fire. Not like that of the ovens of Dachau, but rather like the one that burned through the streets and tunnels and environs of Dresden. Without apology. Without remorse. Without a care of what some phony sanctimonious journalist will write, or what the terror-enablers in the UN will decree. Stick your international criminal court. And get your goddamned filthy assembly out of our country. You want a Caliphate? Fine. Then we’ll attach a fuse to the end of it and set that bitch on fire.

    We saw evil like this in the 30s and we stood by and did nothing until it hit us in Pearl Harbor, thinking it wouldn’t find its way here. Today, it’s already found its way here and is secreting itself within our country thanks to a corrupt and outrageous border policy that has all but negated our national sovereignty.

    I was hoping the author would tell us a little more specifically what he would do. But he comes fairly close to what I’ve been calling for: in a word, a return to FIRE BOMBING.

    I mentioned that just a couple of articles ago:

    Ah, Vietnam. I remember it well. The military won every single battle. But it was LBJ’s Democrat War. And the Democrats surprised LBJ by viciously turning on their own president at war and demanding America be defeated.

    FDR and Harry Truman firebombed Dresden and Tokyo. I mean, bad as Democrats always were with money and debt, they at least used to share the belief in God and the decency of moral values that meant if you went to war, YOU ACTUALLY FOUGHT THAT WAR TO WIN.

    Those halcyon days before the Democrat Party turned into the party of pure, self-destructive evil have been gone since the 1968 Democrat National Convention when Democrats violently rioted. You know, for peace. Kind of the way Obama’s domestic terrorist buddy Bill Ayers planted bombs and murdered judges and police officers for peace.

    I said a little more about it in an article I wrote last month:

    At this point I submit that there is only one thing left to try regarding the Middle East: the World War II strategy.

    In World War II we did not concern ourselves with “collateral damage.” If you were a civilian and you were sitting on a Nazi tank, too damn bad for you.

    We FIREBOMBED Dresden. We killed something like 135,000 people.

    We FIREBOMBED Tokyo. We killed about 100,000 people – nearly as many as both the two atomic bombs combined did.

    We were able to do that because we were a people who had something to live for, something to fight for, and therefore something to kill our enemies for.

    We HAVE to respond to terrorist attacks. And frankly at the same time, we’re simply not prepared any more – for various reasons including sheer exhaustion – to conquer, hold and rebuild.

    All that is left is to bomb the populations that allow terrorism to fester into the stone age. And if they start to get nasty again, bomb the rubble into smaller particles of rubble. And DON’T GO IN. LEAVE THEM to the consequences of their evil ideology.

    Turn Afghanistan into “Lake Afghanistan” if that is what it takes to end the scourge of Islamic violence. Because at this point, if these people are going to act like cockroaches, they need to be STOMPED like cockroaches. And we don’t need to send in troops as long as we’ve got a big enough fly swatter from the air and our naval platforms out at sea.

    I truly believe that if the message – the clear, consistent message regardless of president or party – was, “If you threaten us or our interests, we will bring the fire of hell to you, to your women and to your children,” terrorism would become a lot less popular. All these Muslims would have to see is that yes, we DO mean business and we mean it in a very painful way. But as it is now, there is no down-side to fostering terrorism whatsoever. We do these precise, surgical strikes to avoid actually hurting anybody. And all our enemies have to do is put a hand-lettered sign that reads “Baby milk factory” and our destruction of a weapons-of-mass-destruction facility becomes a war crime:

    We FIRE BOMBED Dresden. We killed far more Japanese with fire bombings than we did with the two atomic bombs.

    The American people – according to polls – don’t want “boots on the ground” wars. I submit that a good portion of that is because 1) Democrats are traitorous cowards who undermined and backstabbled every effort to fight for YEARS now; and 2) because we have a community organizer rather than a LEADER as president. Obama has NEVER made a case for doing anything other than crawling out of our moral duties like the cowards that he is. And if a real leader were to explain that this is what we need to do and this is why we need to do it, the American people would rally behind it as they have rallied behind wars before.

    But I would STILL fire bomb. Which is to say that the policy of not daring to hurt “innocent civilians” would come to an END as we returned to a policy that stated, “If you bring hell to us, rest assured we will shove it back in your face and down your throat – with a huge interest penalty.”

    At this point, having voted for Barack Obama, America is a nation that has decided that it is not worth fighting for and it is not worth survival. And so come and kill us and let us bare our throats to your scimitars.

    Obama came out after the news of that reporter’s beheading for all to see and said that the U.S. would be “relentless,” that we’d bring everything we have. Bullcrap. Obama went right back to GOLFING after he said that. And he couldn’t even find the resources to bring a damn TIE to the press conference, let alone anything else. This is a nation that ought to perish and is moving toward that goal.

    Maybe at some future point the American people will decide otherwise, but that’s the way it is now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: