Care Home Murders Whistleblower – It’s Real & It’s True – https://brandnewtube.com/watch/care-home-murders-whistleblower-it-039-s-real-amp-it-039-s-true-please-share_d1sJV9YUT9aweQR.html
I saw this video some time ago. When I tried to find it again, I was unable to. But it appears on new video platform I’ve been using.
My question is why this video won’t embed like a Youtube video. No, that’s not it. Well, not the important question.
If what the woman claims is true, then would it be considered murder? The withdrawal of food and medication from the elderly?
Donald J. Trump: Champion of Noahide Law – https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/290464
I will not react. I choose to respond. But at least to say, if the writer is a Jew, it is further evidence why Jews shouldn’t interfere with Gentile affairs. Whether the writer is Gentile or Jew, it is evidence that politics poisons and corrupts everything it touches.
In this article, the writer attempts to advise Orthodox Jews, the “Noahide movement” and all “Americans of faith” to support Donald Trump for reelection. Let me quote him to show this.
This article is dedicated to observant and traditional Jews, to the growing Noahide movement in the US, and to all Americans of faith. My call to all of you is to personally go to the polls on Tuesday and to support President Donald Trump for reelection, and I will explain the reasons for this in the coming paragraphs.
I am not putting words into the writer’s mouth. And it should be fairly clear that the writer begins with an empty statement. Who the hell are “all Americans of faith?” People of faith normally means people who are part of a religion. Any religion. Idolatrous religions. Or it can just mean a God-rejector (atheist or agnostic) who feels spiritual. But isn’t this supposed to be about championing the seven laws? Isn’t one of those laws against idolatry? Why is the author then using this overly-vague term that even includes idolators, people who break the law of idolatry? Something is a bit fishy, kinda like the author has an agenda other than the actual “noahide laws”.
Another sign of the dubious nature of this article is what the author chooses to write about as is evidence by the titles of each section. There is a section on same-sex marriages (related to the prohibition against certain sexual partners), a section on abortion (included in the prohibition against murder), a section on theft and a section on the law of justice. That’s all. The problem with this is that there are seven laws that were given to all non-Jewish humanity, while the author focuses on subsections of four laws. There is absolutely no meaningful mention of the law concerning idolatry, cursing God’s name or eating meat taken from a living animal. How can it be said that he champions the “noahide laws,” which means the seven laws, when he doesn’t champion the seven laws but rather, at best, parts of four laws? The seven laws are not a buffet where a person picks and chooses what they want to champion.
Let me be blunt as well. As far as I know, Trump has made no claim to champion the noahide laws. And, to be even more blunt, if he cherishes the american constitution, then he can never, NEVER, champion both the american constitution and the seven laws. You know why, right? Because the constitution states that government can’t make or enforce any law that would impinge on freedom of the practice of religion or freedom of speech. In other words, the constitution protects idolatry as freedom of religion, and cursing God’s name as freedom of speech. But the seven laws prohibits idolatry and cursing God’s name and its law of Justice states that the seven laws must be enforced by courts. Trump could never allow this in obedience to the holy scriptures he upholds, i.e., the constitution. Can a man be faithful to two masters?
So I haven’t even touched the body of the author’s content, and I already sense the strong odour of bullshit. I won’t add more to that conclusion until I start really digging in. So, next paragraph says the following.
This Tuesday’s election presents two clear choices of how to shape the American moral landscape: one which is based on God’s eternal law (while allowing for individual freedom) and another one based on the globalist dogma imposed by the social media and the mainstream media. When Orthodox Jews are asked why they support President Trump, they often list his support for Israel and his defense of religious freedom (including the call to keep houses of worship open during the pandemic). An often-ignored aspect of his administration has been its promotion of Noahide law and values. (emphasis mine)
This paragraph makes an extraordinary claim (amongst others): that Trump being president represents a system based on God’s law?!? What??? What sense does this make? If he’s talking about the seven laws, it’s already clear that the American law system contradicts God’s seven laws. Many of its principles contradict the seven laws. Many of its regions prohibit the death penalty, even for premeditated murder. It loves the rule of the ignorant so much, namely, democracy, that they use it to judge important cases using something called “a jury,” a number of plebs off the street, a group that is controlled by the marketers and advertisers called “lawyers,” both in the selection of this jury, and how evidence is presented. Wow, I never realised how similar that system is to their political system. Damn! But the seven laws included a law of Justice, where it is forbidden to use an ignorant judge (a form of the perversion of justice). I don’t hear Trump declaring these eternal laws. So Trump’s administration is against idolatry and based on its prohibition??? Yeah, right.
This claim is utter falsehood. The author of this article uses the same tactics as the American political spin-doctors, painting Trump vs Biden, or Republican vs Democrat, as a battle between good and evil when, historically, they are both two wings of the same evil bird, that of government. And he’s deceptively painting Trump as some angel of God, some ruler who serves God, basing his administration on the seven laws. Again, what utter crap!
Take careful note! The author says that Trump promotes religious freedom. The problem here is that the seven laws don’t. The law of idolatry prohibits the practice of idolatrous religions. That is antithetical to religious freedom. Another clear and obvious contradiction that the author ignores for the sake of a few votes for just another politician.
Trump’s administration promotes “Noahide law and values?” Really? I’ve already briefly gone through a number of ways that it goes against the seven laws. My question is this: what are “Noahide values?” I know God commanded seven laws. But values? Right now, without clarification from the author, it’s just another Barnum statement, something that may sound specific, but really has no clear meaning.
Every Torah-observant Jew has heard of the Seven Noahide Laws. These are seven very broad universal laws (with many ramifications) that God imposed on all the nations when Noah came out of the Ark. They include the prohibition of idolatry, forbidden relations, murder, eating the limb of an animal while alive, theft and blasphemy, and the obligation to establish courts of law to punish violators. (emphasis mine)
Remember, the author is trying to show that Trump is a champion of the seven laws. Look at what I highlighted. There is an obligation to establish courts of laws to punish violators. Violators of what? Since this phrasing echoes Maimonides’ version of the law concerning this obligation, let me quote a translation of the uncensored edition of his Mishneh Torah, from the Book for Judges, section called Kings and Wars, chapter 9, law 14.
What must they do to fulfill their requirement regarding the Law of Justice? They have to set up magistrates and judges in each district to judge the people with regard to these Six Commandments; and they must issue warnings (about them) to the people. A non-Jew who violates one of the Seven Commandments is executed by means of the sword. How is this so? Anyone who worships idols or blasphemed or murdered or had sexual relations with one of those forbidden to him or stole even less than the value of a small insignificant coin or ate any amount from a limb or the flesh of a live animal or saw someone else violate one of these and failed to judge and execute him, is himself executed by means of the sword.https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Kings_and_Wars.9.14?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
So when the seven laws refers to punishing violators, it refers to punishing those who violates the seven laws. Excuse me, but I see no sign whatsoever of Trump setting up courts to punish violators of the seven laws, especially using the sort of capital punishment described there. Again, the author trips himself up with more vacuous claims.
By saying that the President supports Noahide law, I do not mean to say that he has imposed these laws on the US public, but rather that he has contributed to dismantle the liberal agenda to impose their secularist dogma on the entire population and has defended the rights of Americans who want to live by God’s law.
So the author makes it plain that Trump doesn’t actually support the seven commandments for humanity, but instead, Trump is battling a liberal agenda with a secularist dogma? … Huh? And he’s also defending the rights of Americans who want to live by God’s law? What sense does this make? Again, to be blunt, this paragraph helps break the backbone of this whole piece. Both of these agendas are no sign that Trump supports the seven laws. This is pure non sequitur. The conclusion (Trump’s support of the seven laws) doesn’t follow from the premises (his claimed contribution to battling some agenda and defending rights). Also take careful note of that last point, defending the rights of Americans who want to live by God’s law. This is another take of “religious freedoms.” The same rights he’s defending to allow Gentiles to keep the seven laws (which isn’t a religion in and of itself) are the same rights that allow an idolator to pray and give public worship to his false god. That muddies the waters of any claim that he simply wants to protect the God-fearer rather than just being another follower of the foolish American constitution.
The author of this political marketing piece now attempts to go through the sections of four of the seven laws to make his promotion for the politician, Trump. First he goes into murder, picking out the law of idolatry. After using four paragraphs to show the way Biden and the Democrat party has supported abortion being made the law of the land and placing pro-abortion judges in their supreme court, the author spends one paragraph showing how Trump has been against abortion. I will try to pay attention to what the author does and does not say.
Trump’s abortion policy represents a 180-degree shift from what the Obama-Biden era. He stopped abortion funding to Planned Parenthood and appointed 220 federal judges who favor returning to the states the power to decide on abortion and many other social and criminal matters. Textualist and Originalist Judges appointed by Trump believe that judicial interpretation should be limited to a reasonable reading of text of the constitution, and therefore they don’t see an inherent constitutional “right” to abort a fetus, as there is no indication of such right in the text. This jurisprudence allows for a fair playing field where both Americans of faith and their opponents in each state can compete for votes in order to decide on this. As soon as Roe vs. Wade is overturned, we will see the issue of abortion on the state ballots.
Now just to say, according to the author, “Joe Biden stated in a recent interview that, if elected President, he will make Roe vs. Wade the “law of the land.”” So let me pretend that the author has said something true, that this is what Biden has clearly said (although the fact that he’s a politician should add doubt to such a promise). In the paragraph he wrote about Trump, where does he claim that Trump made such an outright comment in the opposite direction? Absolutely nowhere.
Now let me not be overly negative. If Trump really stopped payments to Planned Parenthood, good! But all I see in this Trump paragraph are mainly possibilities and promises. Oh, some judges are said to believe something about states determining their stance on abortion. The author believes that Trump has simply put people in place that have certain feelings. What’s the problem with this? All this is still on the level of “maybe”. Where’s the actual action? Nowhere. The paragraph just ends with a political promise. And once again, at least I know how much political promises are worth: nothing!
He makes claims about “Texualist and Originalist judges believing in so and so.” How does he know what individuals believe? It’s a bit like claiming that all christians believe that God is a trinity. It’s like a stereotype fallacy, simply grouping individuals and assuming they have beliefs, but there’s no actual evidence for this claim.
Also, imagine that Trump truly simply allows freedom for states to figure out laws. If the people in those states still choose to legalise abortion, then what? “But at least people of faith have the ability to compete.” There we go again with a Barnum statement: “people of faith.” Is that another stereotype fallacy, assuming religious or spiritual people are opposed to abortion?
The author has not sufficiently proven that Trump is this champion concerning the law of murder.
If the guy had just done some research, a little bit, and looked for Donald Trump’s statements about abortion, at least he could have shown that he appears to oppose abortion. See https://www.azquotes.com/author/14823-Donald_Trump/tag/abortion and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-of-the-2015-gop-debate-9-pm/. It is recorded that he said that he’s pro-life and is opposed to, that he hates, the concept of abortion. But does that then make him a champion for “noahide law?”
My issue with this question, as with other aspects of this article, is that I’ve seen people very much opposed to the seven laws, calling them Talmudic lies, opposed to the existence of Jews, yet are opposed to abortion. Would the author call such people “champions of Noahide law?”
To put it like this, if someone claims to uphold a certain principle in the seven laws, yet opposed another principle in the seven laws, then it cannot be said that he upholds the seven laws.
On a final note about this murder section, how has Trump done with regards to war and dropping bombs on people? Or selling weaponry to Saudi Arabia? Prince of peace is he?
Now the Trump marketing article turns to same sex marriages. Now this part is very odd. The author writes three full paragraphs, 412 words, on this topic. He spends the first paragraph trying to lay down a principle that isn’t in the seven laws, homosexual marriages. The seven laws prohibit male homosexual penetrative sex. But at least he tries to show a connection. I won’t fault him for that. He spends the whole third paragraph talking about things unrelated to Trump’s actions, things that happened decades ago. It’s only in the middle paragraph that he writes one sentence of 36 words that shows what Trump apparently did. Do you sense something wrong here as well? Shouldn’t this have been a section packed with actual deeds of Trump to support the law against forbidden sexual partners rather than a measly 9% of three paragraphs talking about an issue only linked to the seven laws, but not the actual seven laws???
And what is this powerful sentence that the author uses to show that Trump supports “noahide law?”
By appointing three Originalist Justices to the Supreme Court and creating a solid conservative majority, President Trump has paved the way to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that imposed same-sex marriage on all 50 states.
Wait, what? Is there any evidence that the placement of this judges was for the purpose of actually overturning this ruling? Nope. Is the presence of a conservative majority evidence of actual positive active change? Nope. Again, republican/conservative and democrat are two wings of the same evil government.
Doesn’t the author’s arguments seem weak, as if pointing to things incidental, subordinate? Did Trump actually and purposefully act in a way that goes towards actually forbidding homosexual marriages? Was that his stated purpose?
Again, this whole section is a non-argument, an argument lacking any true substance. It is weak in that it tries to assume too much in an unclear act by Trump. And it doesn’t deal directly with the seven laws but rather a side issue.
The author’s attempts to show Trump in a “noahide” light doesn’t fare much better in his section about Theft. Now just to say, the law of theft is about it being forbidden to steal. You are not allowed to take another’s property without the permission of the owner. Now I know many feel the government is exempt from this prohibition; for them it is fine for the government to rob a man, take his money under threat of force in the name of taxation. But let me see how this article deals with Trump and theft.
Again, three paragraphs. Again, one sentence about what Trump actually did. And his support of the law against theft?
After the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020, mobs from Black Lives Matter and other radical left-wing groups have stormed American cities with violent protests, including massive looting of local stores. President Trump reacted by sending federal troops to stop the looting and damage of private and federal property.
Now just pause with me. Four years. Four years, Donald has been in office. And the best argument the author can give is that he sent troops to stop theft and damage at one time. This is one of those things that highlights how “single issue” this author is. No, not even single issue, “single speck in time.”
If anyone dares come to me and say “hey, he lowered tax, therefore he lowered theft,” … hmmm, I couldn’t do much about that. But it’s a stupid argument. It’s like bandits raiding a home, and the chief one telling his boys to at least leave a chair. The theft is still going on. And it’s not a statement against the action of theft, which should be the point, but rather it endorses the concept of theft and keeps it in place.
Added to this, think about it: a person opposing theft is not therefore a supporter and champion of the seven laws. Again, this is “buffet” thinking. And that’s also political marketers’ trickery: focus on the minor points that help your cause and ignore the fact that the whole system of violence and evil is mainly intact.
To combat a single point with a single point, wasn’t Trump the one that spoke of taking, stealing, a person’s guns first and then, afterwards, doing due process? Statements like that only buttress the unjust “Red Flag laws” that are in the law books in various places in America. Oh yeah, I forgot: the government can’t steal, right?
The author is also prone to shaping each of his sections into the right-left paradigm, the lesser of two evils way of thinking. He makes it seem like people should vote for one rather than the other. What makes his endeavour worse is that he doesn’t paint it as the lesser of two evils, but instead as “good vs evil,” “God’s law vs liberal secularism.” And it’s a terrible thing to call evil “good.” And it’s a lie to claim God’s law for a man who has never made such a claim, nor has he really stood for it.
Just to let you know, because of the fake virus people are afraid of, Donald Trump plunged his nation into vastly more debt. Who do you think has to pay such a debt? Isn’t it the constitution that says that the US government can create debts and then force the people to pay those debts? Can anyone spell “indentured slaves?” But he’s against theft, right? It’s ok to do bad things for the greater good, right?
But at least he sent troops, right? To stop the looting on a number of occasions, right? Makes him a champion for the seven laws, right?
The author titled the final section thusly, “Dinim (the Obligation to Establish Courts of Law that will enforce Noahide law) and other commandments: Ever min haHay [meaning the prohibition against eating flesh taken from a living animal], Blasphemy and Idolatry.” This section that is supposed to deal with four laws only has one paragraph. Amazing brevity, huh? You may see why when he makes a telling admission.
With the exception perhaps of [the prohibition against eating flesh taken from a living animal], the US legal system does not allow the imposition of these laws, as the federal government is prevented by the first amendment to regulate religious practices.
So let me get this straight. This sentence says the US legal system cannot enforce the seven laws, but the title of the section refers to making courts that will enforce the seven laws. So in essence, the author wastes the time of the reader, trying to convince one to support a political system that not only cannot enforce the seven laws, but actively undermines it by legally protecting what the seven laws forbid. Thank you, author! (*sarcastic slow applause*) Thank you for advising people who love God’s law or who at least want to keep it to support a system that perpetuates the breaking of God’s law. Thank you for telling them to take a course of action that, by taking part in that voting system, should they “lose” (they’ll lose either way), will still be seen as supporting the side they oppose. Remember, in democracy, a vote is not simply asking for a certain thing, but also legitimising the system and the “authority” of the victor, even if it’s your enemy. Well done, author! Well done, you treacherous betrayer! How can a man stab himself in the back without a “friend?”
I won’t bother with the details of this most shoddy section that says nothing about the prohibition against cursing God, only giving a title mention to the prohibition against eating the meat taken from a living animal, and contradicting the law of “Dinim,” only to say that the author claims to address “idolatry” by talking about religious freedoms again. Yes, for the author, who seems to see the seven laws as some religion equal to Hinduism or Christianity, he’s just glad that people who don’t normally have places of worship (“noahides”) can have places of worship open during a “pandemic” as do idolators. Great!
In his conclusion, the author shows us just how he promotes philosophical idolatry and personal irresponsibility.
If Trump loses, his political death will carry the propagation of Noahide and Biblical ethics to his coffin
Trump is not some messiah. The message about the seven laws and the truth of Torah, God’s truth, propagated way before Trump took the American throne, was never dependent on him, and will carry on, God willing, after his political and physical death.
You want good messages distributed throughout the world, throughout your community? Do it yourself! At the very least, live as good a life as you can. A message learned from the seven laws and from Torah is personal responsibility. No stranger can take away your responsibility or purpose unless you, like this author, give it up.
Both before Trump became a politician and when he became one, I never saw him as a mentor, a role-model, in terms of being a good person. He was and is insignificant. I never saw him as a beacon of hope and the world still went to shit with him as prime political parasite of his land thereby validating my reluctance.
The best compliment I can give to this article is that it was treacherous and displayed outright disloyalty to the seven laws. It was thick with Barnum statements and light on substance. And the purpose? To win a politician some more votes, so that people would betray their own standards by participating in a system that undermines those standards, so that more voices can fill the empty man sitting on a throne built on violence and threat, so that murderers, thieves and robbers will continue to feel legitimised.
To be clear, yes, I detest both sides of socialism, socialism-lite(ish) or republicanism, and socialism-heavy or democratism.
I may run a risk in writing this opinion, but hardly anyone reads this blog, so I don’t think there’s a terrible risk.
So I see the protests about lockdown in various countries where the populace have been disarmed by the government, because previous generations thought that the best way to keep society safe was to disarm everyone except the government. *chuckle* Think about it. Disarm the populace mentally using state “education,” and disarm the populace physically through the forceful removal and enforced withholding of arms. Oh, those well-intentioned generations. What idiots! See how it has turned out! Now when people want to oppose the government, if the government wants to flex its muscles, they can send in the domestic army, the police, who are armed. The sheepish-populace will shout “FREEDOM! FREEDOM!” in total contradiction to how their protests are controlled and shepherded by the armed thugs of government. Just look at the pathetic attempts of the people of Australia.
Now imagine a place – I don’t think it exists – where protests were taken with deadly seriousness by the protesters, where they choose to organise not as helpless sheep, but as soldiers for a cause, where they’re not looking to simply get a message out but also where they protect their own in a similar or stronger manner than the domestic terrorists (the police) protect their own.
You see, I believe bullies and mercenaries are impacted or possibly deterred by two things: a stronger and more fearsome force; or what negatively impacts their income. The normal protest does nothing to either, so, when it’s time for the government to flex its muscles via its terroristic branch (yep, still talking about the pigs), then there’s no risk of deterence.
But if a protest group were a lot more strategic, more focused and purpose-driven than the disparate rabble, then there may be hope of a greater impact.
The problem with today’s partially braindead protester is that one will show some mercy to their abuser-in-costume. They’ll praise their abuser and bruiser for their service, saying that, as an individual, on a personal level, the protester understands the enemy soldier is only following orders and therefore can be shown kindness. The enemy has shown and will show no sign of indecision, but continues to snatch people away, attack, send message of threats, and the meek and humble protester waits like an English gentleman, armed only with an empty promise of clemency, while the pig has a full belly, gets his pay cheque, and has the “permission” to use whatever force he deems necessary to gain compliance.
It’s the perfect picture of being kind to the cruel allowing them to be cruel to the kind. It reminds me of so many superhero stories where the heroes are summarily routed, many being killed savagely, even the fictionally-powerful Superman. And why? Because they try to save everyone, including their enemies. They hold back and only strike as a last resort. The merciful will always fall to the merciless, one way or another.
If protesters “cared” as much for their opponents as their opponents “cared” for them (if you don’t understand the sarcasm, order-followers care more for following orders than for the people who they damage), if the people got their priorities straight and stopped trying to act like benevolent angels, if they remembered that king David’s hand had to be full of blood because he didn’t treat the Philistines as innocents, that even Abraham the Kind was a warrior who defeated kings in battle, then maybe there’d be a better chance of an impact.
But one of the problems with this approach is that such an uprising couldn’t simply stop at protesting a certain point. It must end in the total transformation of the system. The government and the police would have to be removed totally and replaced. Leaving a significant enough remnant will mean that they can retaliate once the crowd has dispersed, targetting key individuals.
Yet, the present weakness of the protesters, their ineffectual babbling and bleating in groups, their kind and gentle manner with their oppressors gives the tyrants and order-followers no real reason to change. Bellies full, paycheque and power, their base of comfort remains intact. For the most, they are safe.
When are they gonna feel unsafe?
Hmmm … am I thinking about revolution? Because even I know that breaking to pieces an idol without breaking the belief in the idol only means that it, or something similar, will be rebuilt in its placee