Now there is a new threat for us all to get upset about all over. Now they have a new and upgraded version on the "underwear bomb" and Al Qaeda is still trying once again to bring down a US airliner, something they have so far been unsuccessful in doing since 9 - 11. Only a few people such as Quadafi, whom is revered by people like Michelle Bachman and Pat Buchannon, is in that rarefied class of people who has actually sponsored the taking down of an airline such as the Lockerbee, Scotland downing in 1988. Stephanie Miller is musing that perhaps it WILL become litterally impossible to scan for today's stealth explosives on the body. Either the bombs will be surgically implanted, or perhaps they will be triggered off by such things as human sweat. It's a known fact that there are over a hundred Al Qaeda in Afghanistan whereas in Yemen and the Arabian peninsula there are over a thousand Al Qaeda. It's no secret of course that fifteen of the nineteen 9 - 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so that President Bush could be said to be more palsey with "the enemy" than President Obama has ever been. Personally I would rather that this whole terrorist stuff become a thing of the past and it not even be in issue in the 2012 campaign. But if it's going to be made an issue the least Republicans can admit is that the United States has continued the vigilance against Al Qaeda it has maintained for the last ten years both under Bush and Obama almost seamlessly.
The Problem with Romney is that he has actually no Core Principles. There seems to be no line that Mittens will not cross. We remember John Mc Cain rebuking a woman for saying that Obama was a foreigner and a Moslem sympathizer. But yesterday a woman began her remarks by saying "We know that this President has dealt widely outside the constitution and is guilty of treason - - " and the crowd exploded in applause. But then when it came time for Romney to respond to her, he didn't. You must keep in mind in that accusing the President of Treason you are accusing him of a Capital crime for which we still have the Death penalty. You are in essence saying that this President is deserving of Death. That's pretty serious. If someone were to accuse Romney of for instance being for overturning Roe vs Wade how would he respond. Romney would not DARE go against the Tea Party on this issue and I'd "demonstrate" this fact in the first Debate. No woman is going to give up her right to an abortion since women under forty have known all their life and can't even imagine an America where she LACKS this right. For women the right to an abortion is viewed the same way as men on the second amendment. "I'd never carry a gun myself but Lord help the person who would ever take this right away from me.". In terms of the Supreme Court two very Different statements are being made by republicans. On the one hand they agree with our side saying "The Supreme Court is getting just too powerful". On the other hand they are saying "But if we ever get into power we are going to get all of OUR people in there so WE can be the ones who are treading on the rights of others". What this philosophy ammounts to it would be like a football game. Normally you figure which team is stronger or where the game is being played or what the odds makers say. But for Mitt Romney the all consuming question would be "Who is refereeing the game". If Football ever degenerates to where WHO the Referee is - is the most important element of the game- - then NFL football will have degenerated to a level where I no longer care to watch it. Don't you agree? Romney won't step up to the plate when he is wrong. There IS on "inner referee" in Romney's mind that opporates as a "gate keeper" to guard what comes out of his mouth. So he cannot even Admit that he was Wrong about the bail out of General Motors. These tea party people continue to call it a "disaster" that General Motors was bailed out. They say it's bad because worker's jobs were SAVED - - and so Unions were helped. And they call it "Government Motors". Romney will NOT he was just dumb ass Wrong about something. And on the whole idea of calling the President a Moslem- - is being a Moslem per se a bar against ever becoming President? That's an interesting question. Are there no good and moral people of the Islamic faith living in these United States?
Scott Walker will be recalled on June 5th or four weeks from today. But today there will be picked a democratic contender for him to run against. In North Carolina they are voting on that anti gay marriage constitutional amendment. It seems even though N C already bars gay marriage that it is the only "southeastern" state that does NOT have a constitutional amendment to make it official. Much as the proposed 27th amendment - - the Equal Rights Amendment was fought by the right because it would institute such thing as Unisex restrooms and the drafting of women - - so those on the left now say that there would be "unintended consequences" to proposition one being passed by the Voters of North Carolina. We'll find out later to day but those in the know say it's an almost Certainty that proposition one will pass. Certain things become a fad as the Tea Party issues an edict and all the states have to fall into lock step, such as this whole thing about "Stand your ground" gun laws, where the burden of proof falls on the State to prove that you Deliberately killed someone. They say the count of "stand your ground" gun laws is up to 27 states. Of course incidents of certain types of gun shootings are not up tripple in Florida, and the courts won't even try these cases but sumarily dismiss cases before they get that far because the LAW requires some special "gun court" that bypasses the usual grand jury thing all together so that the Grand Jury has the decision on whether to charge a crime is taken preemptively out of their hands. Welcome to Mitt Romney's World! It's interesting that Mittens Romney has NO experiance in Foreign Policy and NO experiance in any Government Legislative body either the House or the Senate. All he has is experiance firing people. We know he loves to do that. He's good at it. You love what you're good at as the adage goes.
The following material is about that Egyptian named "Crestus" and NOT about Yeshua the Nazarene. They were two different people. If you doubt me read for yourself. Tasitus and this guy here are saying about the same thing. Perhaps one of them got it from the other. The notible thing is that in AD 96 that the Roman government differentiated between "Crestus" followers and your garden variety Jew. Keep in mind once again Crestus did not die in 30 AD but continued to live on in Egypt for perhaps several decades. Whether Crestus was dead or alive in 50 AD is a matter of speculation. The whole ministry of Crestus is that there was a "shadow Israel" or "spiritual Israel" if you will where things of Heaven are more REAL than the things of EARTH and so the Temple in Jerusalem on EARTH could not be the "REAL Temple" because you had to have this physically transforming experiance of somehow living in Eternity- - - in a world envisioned somewhat like the book of Revelations where all the physical stuff down here has a spiritual counter part- - right down to thrones and the twelve tribes - - and crowns and Elders and streets of gold and gems and pearly gates and the whole shebang. So here it is from the horse's mouth, before the Tea Party gets to do a rewrite.
The emperor Claudius reigned 41 to 54 AD. Suetonius reports his dealings with the eastern Roman Empire, that is, with Greece and Macedonia, and with the Lycians, Rhodians, and Trojans. He then reports that the emperor expelled the Jews from Rome, since they "constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Christ" (Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit).[4] The name appears in manuscripts of Suetonius as Chrestus, a form also used by the Roman historian Tacitus to refer to Chrestiani. Chrestus (Χρηστός, "Useful" or "Good") is a not uncommon Greek personal name,[5] and may not refer to the man known as Jesus Christ; however, it is just as likely that a Roman, through linguistic assimilation, would hear Christus as the more familiar Chrestus. The passage suggests that in the mid-first century, the Romans still viewed Christianity as a Jewish sect. Historians debate whether or not the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of the Fiscus Judaicus in 96. From then on, practising Jews paid the tax, Christians did not. See also: Great Fire of Rome and Tacitus on Christ In 64 AD, the Great Fire of Rome destroyed portions of the city and economically devastated the Roman population. The emperor Nero (reigned 54–68) was himself suspected as the arsonist by Suetonius,[8] who claims he played the lyre and sang the Sack of Ilium during the fires. The historian Tacitus, however, says that Nero was in Antium when the fire broke out. Tacitus accuses Nero of diverting the blame to the Chrestiani, a form that has been related to Suetonius's use of Chrestus.[9] If the followers of Jesus are meant, Nero's is the first documented case of official Imperial persecution of Christians. Suetonius does not say that any persecution of Christians occurred as a result of the fire. He does mention the infliction of punishments (afflicti suppliciis) on Christians among other abuses perpetrated by Nero, in a passage several paragraphs earlier than his account of the fire. In this passage, he describes Christians as "a group of people of a new and maleficent superstition" (genus[10] hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae).[11] In Roman usage, the word superstitio refers to any type of religious observance that could not be incorporated into traditional Roman religious practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment