You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2016.

In August, The Political Insider reported that Victor Thorn, 54, an anti-Clinton researcher and author of three books on Bill and Hillary, was found dead:

Police reports indicate he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The author of more than 20 books, he was best known for the Clinton trilogy, “three definitive works that delved into the history of the power couple including their sordid scandals, Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults of multiple women, and the drug running out of Mena, Arkansas while Clinton was governor of the state.”

Thorn’s most recent book is “CROWNING CLINTON: Why Hillary Shouldn’t Be in the White House” and is described as a serious prosecution of Hillary Clinton’s criminal activity …

Authors Roger Stone and Robert Morrow of the The Clintons’ War on Women dedicated their book to Victor in 2015.

Over the past 40+ years, many other deaths have been linked to the Clintons. Causes always appear to be plausible. Nachumlist has a list of them, complete with links to further reading.

So does Arkancide, which also explores other Clinton scandals (emphasis in the original):

The Arkancide website consists of a history of the Clintons and their misdeeds in Arkansas and the White House, a list of books about the Clintons, a section on Hillary Clinton, which is rapidly growing and becoming increasingly relevant to all of us, and a section on the press and their view of Hillary as “she who can do no wrong.”

If you’re in a hurry and can’t spare the week or two that it would take to follow all these links, at least read the three-part history of Hillary Clinton by Cockburn and St. Clair and the 29 episodes of The Real Hillary Clinton

Arkancide.com is run by someone who doesn’t believe in UFO’s or that the Moon landings were faked or that JFK was shot by a guy on the grassy knoll or that Elvis is alive (sorry!) or that Princess Diana was liquidated by MI6 or… well any of that type of nonsense.

Conspiracy theorists are idiots and I’m pleased not to be one of them. There was nothing “theoretical” about the Mena/ADFA conspiracy or the Whitewater conspiracy or the Cattle Futures conspiracy or Filegate or Travelgate or Bloodgate or… I’ll finish the list when I get a moment!

If we start reading now, we just might finish by November 8!

Advertisements

During the first presidential debate on September 26, Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of sexism and came out with several of his most outrageous anti-women quotes.

One of them concerned the 1996 Miss Universe, Venezuela’s Alicia Machado. Trump was less than flattering about her subsequent weight gain.

Hillary made a big deal about this, and she would have had a point were it not for two reasons.

1996 Miss Universe

Machado, who became a US citizen this year, sailed close to the wind with the law in 1998 in her native country. She was not indicted because of lack of evidence. The Daily Mail reports:

… two Associated Press reports from 1998 have revealed the Machado was accused of aiding attempted murder and threats to kill in Venezuela.

DailyMail.com has asked the Clinton campaign whether they knew about the accusations, which do not appear to have ended in conviction, before the candidate spoke about her at the debate.

The campaign also organized a conference call for reporters on Tuesday with the now 39-year-old actress, in which she spoke almost exclusively in Spanish to continue the attacks on Trump.

The Mail has the full story.

The article also says that, during her time as Miss Universe, Machado gained 35 pounds. Trump owned the Miss Universe pageant at the time.

Beauty pageant winners have to comply with certain terms and conditions during their tenure, weight gain being one of them.

Here is a CNN interview of Trump with Machado and her trainer in 1997. A CNN article that appeared at the same time explained she had gained 60 pounds during her reign. She was losing weight to appear in that year’s contest to crown the new winner. If there is a reference to Miss Piggy the Muppets star (all the rage at the time), I missed it. There is also no animosity between Machado and Trump:

On September 28, another Mail article appeared about her career in porn and relationship with a drug lord. The Conservative Treehouse also has a set of links. Gateway Pundit has a Florida Declaration of Domicile for her daughter who was born in Miami.

Billary Clinton

Hillary portrays herself as a champion of women’s rights, but, as I wrote earlier this month, in 1975 she successfully defended a middle-aged man who raped a 12-year-old girl in Arkansas. She even laughed about it. The audio recordings are available to the public at the University of Arkansas. Also:

Clinton’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable,” according to court documents first reported by Newsday in 2008.

Two decades later, she was in the White House and the ‘bimbo eruption’ took place.

If you find that term offensive, you should know that an advisor to Bill Clinton — a woman and feminist — coined it. Betsey Ross Wright came up with the words:

to describe rumors alleging extramarital affairs by Clinton.[2]

Wright met Bill and Hillary — unmarried, but an item — in 1972. In August 2016, The Daily Beast posted an excellent article by Professor Gil Troy who teaches History at McGill University and wrote The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s. Excerpts follow:

… these three new friends relished the possibilities they were starting to envision, a more open, liberal, egalitarian, and female-friendly world. 

“It was a nascent feminist movement then,” Wright would tell Bill Clinton’s biographer David Maraniss. Wright believed “that women were the ethical and pure force that American politics needed.” And Wright, a big, bold, bawdy powerhouse, recalled being “less interested in Bill’s political future than Hillary’s. I was obsessed with how far Hillary might go, with her mixture of brilliance, ambition, and self-assuredness.”

Bill’s presidential campaign rolled around 20 years later with (emphases mine):

Hillary Clinton and Betsey Wright determined not to let Bill Clinton’s promiscuity harm his White House bid. Wright, who monitored each piece of gossip – and frequently bullied Bill’s “exes” – coined the crude phrase “bimbo eruptions.” The term mocked the accusers and the reporters who believed them. Just a few years ago, Americans were more censorious about affairs but more forgiving about such sexist dismissals of victimized women. 

Gil Troy explains that ‘bimbo’ comes from bambino and originally denoted stupid men. By the 1920s, it began being used to describe women. A song of that decade was called My Little Bimbo Down on the Bamboo Isle. In the 1930s, ‘blonde’ prefaced the word. I knew a man in the 1980s who often referred to a group of women out for a night on the town as ‘the bimbo squad’, but I digress.

Gil Troy concludes:

The ironies abound. Betsey Wright the feminist boosting a sexist slander. Hillary Clinton, the betrayed wife, not just standing by her man but trashing his accusers – no matter how true their story. Wright’s odd contribution to history, then, is sharpening the Clinton conundrum: how can a couple so committed to doing good behave so badly so often?  Wright’s tale highlights the moral blind spot of the Clintons and their enablers. Their idealism, their liberalism, their faith in the good they hope to do, makes them excuse all kinds of lapses, from libeling innocent women to following their own rules regarding emails and government secrecy … 

The investigation into the Whitewater scandal, which ran deep once Kenneth Starr was in charge, brought out more details about philandering which dogged Bill’s presidency. Then there was the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 1998, Hillary appeared on Today — NBC’s breakfast show — and said this:

I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.

The following year, the New York Post featured this quote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtaHnrBUkAIutHu.jpg

I don’t know who created the graphic, by the way.

Last year, a book called The Clintons’ War on Women was published. The Political Insider summarised the detailed work done by authors Roger Stone, a Republican strategist and Trump insider, and Robert Morrow. 

I strongly urge everyone to read The Political Insider article, most of which I cannot quote here because of the adult content. Here are two excerpts:

For 41 years, Hillary Clinton has worked tirelessly to discredit and destroy women like that. Since 1982, she has been hiring private detectives to look into their lives and find anything that could embarrass them …

Juanita Broaddrick was alleged raped so severely that he nearly tore off her upper lip, then raped her a 2nd time …

Conclusion

Donald Trump must make it calmly crystal clear at the next debate that Hillary Clinton is no women’s advocate. Whilst he should not discuss Miss Universe, he can mention other topics. For a start, Europe’s mass immigration problem has brought with it a large increase in sexual attacks on women. Yet, Hillary wants to up migrant intake from the same countries in the Middle East. American women will be at risk.

The rest of us can spread the word about her misogyny in the remaining weeks before the presidential election.

It is essential that younger voters be aware of the Clintons’ past. Sexual crimes are only one part of it. As one of my readers says, it would take a lifetime to chronicle all their evil. More to come tomorrow.

Entrepreneur — PayPal co-founder — and Donald Trump supporter Peter Thiel is currently under investigation by the Department of Labor.

Thiel gave a moving speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. He described his childhood as a German immigrant watching the first moon landing in 1969 from their home in that city. He said it was a time of wonder and hope for him and his parents. They went on to live the American dream. He said he was proud to be a Republican and came out in support of Donald Trump.

On September 26, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Department of Labor began an investigation of Palantir Technologies, of which he is a co-founded and current chairman, for discrimination. Palantir is a software and services company specialising in counter-terrorism and anti-fraud technologies. The company has contracts with the federal government as well as banks and financial services firms.

CNN Money reports that Palantir is alleged to have discriminated against Asian job applicants (emphases mine):

According to the Labor Department lawsuit, Asian job candidates “were routinely eliminated in the resume screen and telephone interview phases despite being as qualified as white applicants.”

In one example highlighted in the suit, nearly three-quarters of the 130 or so candidates who applied for a position as a QA Engineer Intern were Asian, but Palantir hired 17 non-Asian candidates and only four Asian applicants.

“The likelihood that this result occurred according to chance is approximately one in a billion,” the suit says.

In a statement, Palantir called it a “flawed statistical analysis” and pledged to “vigorously defend” itself.

Curious. One could turn the highlighted statement around to the lawsuit itself.

The Conservative Treehouse says:

Do you think it is coincidental that Peter Thiel is suddenly sued by the DoL a few months after publicly putting his influence on the line politically?   If so, that’s a very naive position.

The President Obama Treasury Department already admitted to the targeting of political opposition, Tea Party Groups, through the IRS

Recall that Michael Savage’s show was yanked off the air because the conservative dared to speculate about Hillary Clinton’s health.

The Conservative Treehouse rightly warns:

To our brothers and sisters who might generally disagree with our politics, we ask you to think carefully about this rapidly dangerous political construct so many have ignored too long.

This vote on November 8th isn’t just about selecting a president, you are making a critical decision about your own freedom.

Everything may seem like competitive snark and Brangelina quibble until there’s a knock on your business, your livelihood, or worse yet – the door to your home….

That’s why my current focus is on politics.

Michael Savage is the third person to be censored for discussing Hillary Clinton’s health.

In August, Dr Drew lost his show at CNN for doing the same thing. Around the same time, Huffington Post contributor David Seaman was sacked for writing an article about the Democratic candidate’s health.

Clearly, no one from larger media outlets must question Hillary’s health.

Can you imagine the censorship if she is elected president? She has already said she would shut down the alt-right Drudge Report, Breitbart and Alex Jones.

With regard to Michael Savage, The Conservative Treehouse has this:

Wow. This is quite remarkable.

Michael Savage is a very well known radio talk personality. The Savage Nation is a nationally syndicated talk show that is the second most listened-to radio talk show in the country with an audience of over 20 million listeners on 400 stations across the United States.

On Monday, September 26, Savage was discussing Big Media bias regarding the presidential debate that evening. Then, he brought up Hillary’s health (emphases mine):

… the broadcaster began discussing Hillary Clinton’s mysterious health condition that Savage believes might be Parkinsons.

Almost immediately, and without any notification, New York (tri-state area) radio station WABC-Radio TV cut Savage off the air and replaced him with the lesser rated  Curtis And [Ku]by Show.

It wasn’t just New York, either:

Shortly thereafter, as Michael Savage discovered the issue and began discussing what was going on in/around the New York broadcast area, all Savage affiliates nationwide cut off the broadcast and replaced the live transmission with a recording of a previous show.

Updates to follow.

The audio below carries Savage’s discovery of what was happening, particularly at 23:00 in:

These are dark days for freedom of speech in the United States.

Under a Hillary Clinton administration, they will get even darker.

On September 21, Hillary Clinton gave the world her worst optics yet:

hillary-weird

(Image credit: The Conservative Treehouse)

She said, ‘Why aren’t I 50 points ahead, you might ask?’

She then went into a tirade against Donald Trump and the right to work. Note the point in the video where she aims her forefingers at the camera, suggesting the Gunfight at the OK Corral:

When I first saw this, I thought she wanted someone to film a private rant.

However, it turns out that she was speaking via videoconference — indicating she was too ill to attend — to the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) in Las Vegas.

She heard her audience and ramped up her voice and rhetoric.

However, for the rest of us, because there is no sound other than her voice in the video, she looks and sounds seriously affected by Donald Trump, as if he were occupying real estate in her mind.

This has not gone unnoticed.

Fox News’s Monica Crowley tweeted:

Mr Nolte from North Carolina gave us a voter’s view:

He is right. Not good.

Here’s a compare and contrast set of photos that are positively dire. The one on the left was taken on her plane when she took questions about the bombing in Manhattan on September 17:

Last week Sarina Fazan, a reporter for an ABC affiliate in Florida, asked Clinton about her recent bout with pneumonia and hoped she was feeling better (emphases mine):

She added: “Some doctors have said because of your age, as well as your opponent’s age, that you could be at higher risk for dementia or even Alzheimer’s, and have suggested that you take some neurological test. Would you be willing to do that?”

Clinton laughed at the suggestion, pointing to a recent detailed look at her health history that found her in excellent mental condition.”

“I’m very sorry I got pneumonia, and I’m glad antibiotics took care of it, and that’s behind us now,” Clinton said. “I am physically and mentally healthy and fit to serve as president of the United States.”

When Fazan pressed, Clinton clarified that she would likely not release a neurological test.

There’s no need for that. The information is very clear, and the information, as I said, meets the standards that every other president has ever had to meet,” Clinton said.

By contrast, on September 15, Donald Trump released a full set of health data to Dr Mehmet Oz on his television show:

Dr. Mehmet Oz told NBC News after the taping he was “surprised” Trump provided him with the information.

“I looked at them and tried to process it pretty quickly and I got to say as a doctor, if he was my patient, they are good for a man of his age,” Dr. Oz said.

Those in the audience told NBC News after the interview that Dr. Oz gave Trump a clean bill of health.

Monday, September 26, sees the first of the presidential debates. Which Hillary will appear?

A nation holds its collective breath, especially because both candidates must debate from lecterns.

For a good laugh that’s so close to the truth, check out the Townhall cartoon, ‘2016 Debate Prep’.

A while back I criticised the increase in Big Media closing their sites to readers’ comments.

It’s censorship.

On September 14, Damian Thompson — who worked at The Telegraph for many years and has been at The Spectator for the last few — posted an article ‘Comment threads are closing, thankfully – but the underpants brigade have won’.

It’s one of the laziest pieces of journalism I have read this year. He gives no indication as to why he is saying that comments are closing. No what, where or when, either: standard journalistic questions every article should answer.

I learned about that in primary school English class.

Yes, every year our books included a series of journalism lessons with in-class assignments where we had to write a short news, features or sports story. We had to compose them the way they would appear in a newspaper. The teacher would come around to grade them and the best were read out in class.

Not only did we learn something useful; we also began reading newspapers more frequently.

But I digress.

Several years ago, Thompson, a practising Catholic, got into a Telegraph comments row with a group of Catholic traditionalists. One weekend in May, he deleted all their comments from one of his blog posts. I remember it well, because I saw it happen in real time. They soon turned to WordPress, where they have been maintaining their sites since 2009. Sorry, I cannot remember their names, but maybe one of them will come on here to comment!

Bearing that in mind, it’s interesting that Thompson writes this (emphases mine):

For five years I was editor of Telegraph Blogs. Every day, from the moment we switched on our computers, we had to live with the drone of the ‘underpants brigade’, as one colleague called them.

To the casual reader, these Y-front warriors were obvious fruitcakes. But they had a sharp eye for the fragility of the journalistic ego.

Yes, they certainly did, Damian. And you lacked the professionalism to buck up and allow them to voice their opinions.

After he deleted the Catholic traditionalists’ posts, I never read another article by Thompson again until this particular one.

But enough about Damian Thompson and his paltry journalism. What did the readers say in response?

First, he received over 1,480 comments. Well played, readers!

Secondly, one reader offered an eloquent defence of comments:

Since the Telegraph turned off comments, I’ve largely stopped reading it. Funnily enough, Damian, I used to comment on your rather excitable pieces in that paper. I’m mostly on the Guardian now, but I don’t click on articles which don’t allow comments for the same reason I won’t on the Telegraph: most of the articles present a very slanted view of the world, with claims which don’t stand up – and are not above trotting out downright lies

Comment threads aren’t welcomed by professional writers because they remove their privileged position: embarrassingly, they allow scrutiny of articles to be placed in situ. This doesn’t really affect careful writers who produce well-researched and analytical articles, at worst they’ll get a tide of childish bile from people unwilling to listen to their viewpoint; but for the many charlatans who’ve based their careers on spewing (previously unchallenged) polemic, there’s an almost inevitable payback below every trashy article they produce: comment after comment pulling apart their tawdry arguments. Consequently, comments are the best thing which has ever happened to news media.

Finally, another reader said that any media outlet that drops comments will lose readers:

Like many I stopped paying a sub to the Telegraph and now hardly visit even for the free articles. Other places will get the traffic of the excluded.

That’s definitely true. I, too, stopped reading The Telegraph after they dropped comments. I read a lot more Guardian articles now.

Someone else agreed:

Me too! I didn’t contribute much in the comment sections, but they were the main reason I used and subscribed to the DT. I no longer subscribe and it isn’t even in my Favourites folder any longer. I stopped visiting the site altogether.

it was the comments that entertained, not the articles!

Yes, I used to read the comments for useful responses and links rebutting or adding more to the articles.

Ironically, that’s exactly what happened with Damian Thompson’s article. A reader sent in a blog link discussing the Catholic Herald‘s suppression of comments.

The Catholic Herald article attempts to strike a regretful tone in announcing its new policy and ultimately sends readers to Facebook. What about readers who don’t want to be on Facebook yet would like to contribute?

we are a small team. Our three full-time editorial staff (including me) work round the clock with a little army of part-timers to produce an up-to-the-minute news site and a weekly magazine (we made the change in 2014, after 127 years as a broadsheet).

Inevitably, time is scarce. And that is why we’ve decided to close comments on our articles (in common with many other Catholic websites).

The decision has been a difficult one. Readers have, over the years, offered insightful, funny and heartfelt responses to our articles. But moderating comments is a time-consuming daily task. We believe that time could be better spent on offering readers more news and analysis.

This does not mean the end of dialogue with our readers. We know that this bond is vital. When major issues arise we will post items that allow for comments. Meanwhile, our Facebook page is always open for discussions.

The Catholic site discussing this new policy has this:

Shame. The Catholic Herald had done so well for so long. It is so sad that it has finally capitulated to various pressures at such a crucial time in the Church’s life.

Whatever financial rewards come their way, I’m sure it won’t be through their print edition since whenever I go into a Church there are always a good few copies to spare.

Certain people, however, will be happy about this decision. This decision is a slap in the face to their readership. I won’t be reading it anymore. What a self-defeating decision. Their writers – talented as some of them are – are not the main attraction of blogs. The main attraction of blogs is that others can contribute to the issue being dealt with. I would have thought that to those interested in gaining an audience in the Catholic world today that this was self-evident.

But you know, what do I know?

Pray for blogs, pray for bloggers and pray for journalists and the Catholic Press. I guess you could say we’re all up against it in one way or another.

Every person hungry for the truth, whether it be religious or secular, laments every occasion when yet another major media site closes comments.

Now imagine if The Spectator had closed comments on Damian Thompson’s article. Nearly everyone reading it would have wondered what he was talking about. He had no news at all to support his headline. We would have walked away none the wiser.

However, that one comment linking to the Catholic Herald policy adopted in August helped flesh out the matter.

That is, if that’s what Thompson was referring to.

Bible kevinroosecomThe three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Matthew 22:23-33

Sadducees Ask About the Resurrection

23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

————————————————————————————-

Matthew 22 records the continuation of theological tests from the Jewish hierarchy and Jesus’s lessons to them.

These took place on Wednesday of His last Passover, which we commemorate during Holy Week.

Matthew 22:1-14 is the Parable of the Wedding Feast. This is an allegory for God’s invitation to share eternal life with Him. The king in Jesus’s parable prepared a wedding feast but those he invited turned the celebration down because they were otherwise occupied. Some even killed his servants, the king’s messengers. The king then instructed his servants to invite all and sundry, both ‘bad and good’ (verse 10). One man was not wearing a wedding garment, not because he could not afford one but because he did not care, a reference to the state of our hearts. The king threw him out. Jesus concluded the parable:

13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Jesus meant that, through Him, God extended an invitation to the Jews to eternal life through belief in His Son the Messiah. The Jews rejected Him, so God invited the Gentiles instead. However, those who do not honour God, like the man not wearing a wedding garment, face His condemnation to eternal death.

It is useful to add that this parable refers to God’s condemnation of them and their people in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple.

Matthew Henry gives us the takeaways of the Parable of the Wedding Feast (emphases mine):

… this feast, a heaven upon earth now, and a heaven in heaven shortly. God has prepared it in his counsel, in his covenant.

Gospel calls and offers are represented by an invitation to this feast. Those that make a feast will have guests to grace the feast with. God’s guests are the children of men.

none are excluded but those that exclude themselves … They are bidden to the wedding, that they may go forth to meet the bridegroom for it is the Father’s will that all men should honour the Son.

Note, Making light of Christ, and of the great salvation wrought out by him, is the damning sin of the world. AmelesantesThey were careless. Note, Multitudes perish eternally through mere carelessness, who have not any direct aversion, but a prevailing indifference, to the matters of their souls, and an unconcernedness about them.

Observe, Both the city and the country have their temptations, the merchandise in the one, and the farms in the other so that, whatever we have of the world in our hands, our care must be to keep it out of our hearts, lest it come between us and Christ.

The prophets and John the Baptist had been thus abused already, and the apostles and ministers of Christ must count upon the same.

Such were some of you or, some that after their conversion proved bad, that turned not to the Lord with all their heart, but feignedly others that were upright and sincere, and proved of the right class. Ministers, in casting the net of the gospel, enclose both good fish and bad but the Lord knows them that are his.

Observe, This hypocrite was never discovered to be without a wedding garment, till the king himself came in to see the guests. Note, It is God’s prerogative to know who are sound at heart in their profession, and who are not. We may be deceived in men, either one way or other but He cannot. The day of judgment will be the great discovering day, when all the guests will be presented to the King …

Those, and those only, who put on the Lord Jesus, that have a Christian temper of mind, and are adorned with Christian graces, who live by faith in Christ, and to whom he is all in all, have the wedding garment.

They who never heard a word of this wedding feast will have more to say for themselves their sin will be more excusable, and their condemnation more tolerable, than theirs who came to the feast without the wedding garment, and so sin against the clearest light and dearest love.

they are few, very few, that are chosen many called to the wedding feast, but few chosen to the wedding garment, that is, to salvation, by sanctification of the Spirit. This is the strait gate, and narrow way, which few find.

The Pharisees then asked Jesus paying tax to Caesar (verses 15-22). They wanted to trap Him into taking one theological side or the other. The Pharisees despised Roman rule and opposed paying tax to their oppressors. Their theological opponents, the Herodians, supported Roman rule. They did well out of it as a result. The people, in turn, loathed the Herodians.

Here they mocked Jesus by calling Him ‘Master’ insincerely. Jesus called them out:

18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?

He asked them to produce a coin, which they did. He asked them whose it was, and they replied, ‘Caesar’s’. He answered them (verse 21):

“Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

They marvelled at His response and went away.

However, Henry makes this distinction:

Note, There are many in whose eyes Christ is marvellous, and yet not precious. They admire his wisdom, but will not be guided by it, his power, but will not submit to it. They went their way, as persons ashamed, and made an inglorious retreat. The stratagem being defeated, they quitted the field. Note, There is nothing got by contending with Christ.

Then it was the turn of the Sadducees to approach Him, which brings us to today’s verses.

There were four groups of Jews in Jesus’s time. John MacArthur explains:

Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes. Essenes were sort of hermits down in the desert who spent all their time copying scrolls and most likely copies the Dead Sea Scrolls, which we have found. Then there were the Zealots who were political activists, who were very nationalistic, who were sort of the terrorists, who were giving trouble to Rome. And then there were the Pharisees who were the religionists. And then there were the Sadducees.

And I’ll give you a little bit of information about them so you’ll understand what’s going on here. They were not many in number. They were a very small group. They were extremely wealthy and very influential. They were the aristocratic ruling class in Judaism. They were the highest echelon. In fact, the chief priests, the high priest, the noblest of the priests were SadduceesThe majority of the members of the Sanhedrin, the ruling body in Israel were also Sadducees. So they had great power, they had great influence, they had great prestige, and they also were wealthy because it was they who ran the temple concessions, the money changing, the buying and selling of all sorts of things that went on there were under their power.

They were not popular with the people. First of all rich people who tend to do things for the expediency of their own personal gain don’t tend to be very popular. Secondly, their theology was not the theology of the people, for it denied the resurrection. The Pharisees were more popular with the people, and so the conflict between the Pharisees and the Sadducees even added to their unpopularity. They had structural power, they had money power, they gouged the people with the money changing, they gouged the people with the selling and the buying of the animals for the sacrifices, they were not a popular group.

Now politically they were pro Rome, which even added to their unpopularity. They were pro Rome for this reason: they were fat cats

MacArthur says they were also very literal in their interpretation of Scripture, which helps us make more sense of the hypothetical situation they put forward to Jesus.

Now MacArthur says we do not know how the Sadducees got their name, but Henry did. He tells us:

These heretics were called Sadducees from one Sadoc, a disciple of Antigonus Sochæus, who flourished about two hundred and eighty-four years before our Saviour’s birth. They lie under heavy censures among the writers of their own nation, as men of base and debauched conversations, which their principles led them to. As the Pharisees and Essenes seemed to follow Plato and Pythagoras, so the Sadducees were much of the genius of the Epicureans[;] they denied the resurrection, they said, There is no future state, no life after this that, when the body dies, the soul is annihilated, and dies with it that there is no state of rewards or punishments in the other world no judgment to come in heaven or hell. They maintained, that, except God, there is not spirit (Acts 23:8), nothing but matter and motion. They would not own the divine inspiration of the prophets, nor any revelation from heaven, but what God himself spoke upon mount Sinai. 

The Sadducees held that only the Pentateuch — the first five books of the Bible, those credited to Moses — were the only valid Scripture. Everything else — Psalms, prophecies and others — held no validity for them. They also rejected the whole body of Jewish traditions from generations before.

In verse 23, we are told they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. They presented a scenario to Jesus involving the Mosaic Law which said that a widow must remarry a single brother of her late husband’s so that the family lineage — and God’s chosen — could continue and multiply (verse 24).

Henry explains:

They suggest the law of Moses in this matter (Matthew 22:24), that the next of kin should marry the widow of him that died childless (Deuteronomy 25:5) we have it practised Ruth 4:5. It was a political law, founded in the particular constitution of the Jewish commonwealth, to preserve the distinction of families and inheritances, of both which there was special care taken in that government.

MacArthur tells us of Ruth:

You remember Elimelech had two sons and Ruth had married one of the sons and that son had died. You remember his name was Obed and there was no child. And along came Boaz into her life and Boaz took her as his wife and raised up a child and we’re very interested in that because you must remember that the line of Elimelech was the line of whom, of Messiah. And so that very idea of a near kinsman coming into the line to take up the place of a dead husband to raise up seed fits right into the line of Messiah Himself.

God blessed Boaz and Ruth for their obedience.

On the other hand, God killed Onan for not marrying his widowed sister-in-law. That was before God instituted this law via Moses. Even so, there was a God-given expectation to Jacob’s sons — the twelve tribes — that everyone would play a role in their continuance:

You go back into the time before the law in the 38thchapter of Genesis in the time of the household of Judah, the son of Jacob, and you will remember that there was a situation where Onan, you remember the name Onan, Onan refused to comply and to raise up a child to his dead brother’s wife, and the Bible said Onan spilled his seed on the ground. He refused to give a child to his brother’s wife, to go in and become her husband, and take that role. And it says that God killed him, Genesis 38:8-10. God took his life, because in those early years in the formation of that people and keeping that identification pure that Messiah might come to His people, God maintained these kind of laws so that names and families could be passed on.

MacArthur says it was not clear how strictly this law was applied in Jesus’s time, however, it would have been important to the Sadducees. They asked Jesus a mocking question about the afterlife (verses 25-28). What would happen if a woman married all the brothers of one family in succession with no children: whose wife would she be after the resurrection?

Jesus point blank told them they were wrong in their thinking and their question (verse 29), because they knew neither Scripture nor the power of God the Father. MacArthur says:

He really discredits them. You are mistaken and He uses the word planeo. We got our word planet from it. It means to cause to wander, to lead astray and it’s in the middle voice reflective. It means you are causing yourself to wander. You are leading yourself astray from the truth. You are mentally cut loose from reality. That’s really what He’s saying. To put it in the vernacular, you are spaced out.

Because:

Had you known the Scriptures you would have known God promises resurrection. Had you known the power of God you would have known that God can raise people in a state where that’s not going to be an issue. If you knew the power of God you would know that He wouldn’t recreate people with the same problems here. He’s not limited to that, as if God has spent all His creative power on the way we are and can’t improve on it? If you knew the power of God and if you knew the Scripture you wouldn’t be so spaced out in your thinking.

Jesus then went on to say that when we are resurrected, marriage will be finished; we will be ‘like angels in heaven’ (verse 30). MacArthur explains:

There will be no two people who have an exclusive relationship. There will be no intimacy in that sense, and I mean that in the sense of marriage. It could even extend from there to friendships. Nobody will be closer to anybody else because we’ll all be perfectly close to each other and all perfectly intimate with the living God Himself.

We’re not going to be the angels, but be like them. And they were glorious eternal heavenly creatures whose number was fixed who never died and never reproduced. Marriage is necessary in this life for reproduction, preservation, propagation for the race. In [heaven] it will be as unnecessary for us as it is for angels. That’s why Luke in his parallel passage says, “We will be equal to the angels.” Equally deathless, equally spiritual, equally glorified, equally eternal, who have no longer any need to reproduce.

More importantly, Jesus took the Sadducees apart over their unbelief regarding the resurrection. These men who held the Pentateuch so dearly really didn’t know it, because Jesus cited Exodus 3:6 (verses 31, 32).

MacArthur unpacks this for us:

You say, well wait a minute. Is that supposed to be a statement about resurrection? It is. Is indeed a statement about resurrection. He quotes Moses because that’s what they demanded and the statement is an emphatic statement. In the Greek it’s egome I am, present tense, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And the argument here is an argument of the verb tense. He doesn’t say I was he God of Abraham, I was the God of Isaac, and I was the God of Jacob. You see in Exodus 3:6, Abraham was dead, Isaac was dead, and Jacob was dead already. How then can He say I am the God of Abraham, I am the God of Isaac, I am the God of Jacob, which is exactly what the Hebrew of 3:6 implies?

Well you can see it also in Genesis 26:24, Genesis 28:13, God says I am the God of Abraham and in both of those passages Abraham is already dead. And in Exodus 3:6, Exodus 3;15, Exodus 3:16, Exodus 4:15, God says I’m the God of Abraham, I’m the God of Isaac, I’m the God of Jacob, and they’re already dead. And His point then, at the end of the verse, is God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, so if God says I am the God of these people they must be, what, alive, alive. God is not worshipped by corpses. He’s not the God of people who don’t exist. Who wants to be the God of people who don’t exist?

Now note that each is individually singled out there, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and He’s talking about personal intimate relationship of each of them. Now the genitive here of the God of, the God of, the God of, can be seen two ways. It could mean this: the God to whom Abraham belongs, the God to whom Isaac belongs, the God to whom Jacob belongs. Or it could mean the God who belongs to Abraham, the God who belongs to Isaac, the God who belongs to Jacob, and I like to see both. I am the God to whom Abraham belongs and who belongs to Abraham. I am the God to whom Isaac belongs and who belongs to Isaac. I am the God to whom Jacob belongs and who belongs to Jacob. In other words, I am the God who continues to have an intimate relationship of life and worship with these who are dead, which means they still must be, what, alive.

When the crowd heard that, they were ‘astonished’ (verse 33). This is because Jesus was able to answer His enemies perfectly. Remember, most of those people did not recognise Him as their Messiah.

MacArthur says this passage should leave us with three messages about Jesus:

… one, I see here the majestic deity of Jesus.

Second thing I see is His commitment to Scripture.

And thirdly I see his affirmation of resurrection. Whenever I might be prone to doubt the resurrection I’m reminded that Jesus never doubted it for a moment, never for a moment, and affirms here that those who are dead are still alive because God is the God of the living. And so I’m encouraged with another view of Jesus as God, with another view of His dependence on Scripture, with another view of the hope of everlasting life. Instead of them discrediting Him, He discredited them and exposed Himself in all His majesty one more time.

After two more unsuccessful religious tests, Matthew 22 ends with this:

46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

Matthew 23 recounts what Jesus did next. He condemned the hierarchy with seven woes.

In closing, there are two parallel accounts of this exchange. Mark 12:18-27, about which I wrote in 2013, is not in the Lectionary. However, Luke’s — Luke 20:27-38 — is included.

Next time: Matthew 23:13-15

On Monday, September 19, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump met separately with Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in New York, where world leaders gathered for the UN General Assembly.

Politico reports:

Clinton met with Sisi on Monday evening; the Egyptian leader told her at the start of the meeting that he wished to talk to her “about the path that we are taking in order to build up a new civil society, a new modern country that upholds the rule of law, that respects human rights and liberties. And as a matter of fact we are taking this path that is eventually leading up to this target,” according to a pool report of the event.

Trump’s team released an account of his meeting with Sisi that was striking in how much praise the Republican heaped on Egypt. Trump expressed to Sisi “his strong support for Egypt’s war on terrorism, and how under a Trump administration, the United States of America will be a loyal friend, not simply an ally, that Egypt can count on in the days and years ahead.”

A full statement of Trump’s meeting includes a mention the presence of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (Ret.).

Whilst Sisi is seen as a controversial leader, The Conservative Treehouse points out:

Al-Sisi has been one of the voices within the Mid-East, along with Jordan’s King Abdullah (both pictured right), who has consistently advocated for secular governance and minority religious protection. In short, both Abdullah and Sisi have been lone calm voices amid a fury of chaos unleashed by Obama’s policy.

At the core of their leadership perspective, and when comparing their views and perspectives toward national governance as it relates to larger global issues, both al-Sisi and Donald Trump have much in common. Which raises the possibility of a very real and reasonable realignment within the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

…Think about Fatah al-Sisi, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas and Donald Trump meeting together in Camp David and finding a real estate solution possibly including part of the Northern Sinai region.

Lastly, if you think about the current construction enhancements, and changes taking place with the Suez Canal zone, there’s an outline -tenuous though it might be- of something entirely possible.

The Treehouse included this 2012 photo of Egyptians hostile to Clinton which could indicate difficulties to come if she is elected in November:

Egypt Freedom Loss 2

Egypt Built has this tweet regarding Clinton:

That’s says a lot.

When the explosive device went off in the Chelsea area of New York on Saturday, September 17, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump called it a ‘bomb’.

News reports were later edited to show footage of Trump saying ‘bomb’ and Clinton advising caution. British media carried this same omission on Sunday’s news. I watched Channel 4, by the way.

Media analyst Mark Dice has full coverage of both using the word:

Trump’s running mate Mike Pence gave an excellent radio interview on Monday, September 19, to Sean Hannity. Early in the segment, Pence referred to the events in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota as ‘radical Islamic terrorism’. In order to combat that, he said that America needs a change of leadership:

That morning, Fox and Friends interviewed Trump, who also gave an outstanding interview on the terror threat as well as a variety of other topics, such as John Kasich’s lack of endorsement, despite having signed the Republican Party candidate pledge to support the nominee.

Fox and Friends rightly credited Trump for saying last year that the United States could expect more terror attacks.

Trump ably discussed the weekend’s attacks and lauded Israel for its profiling policy:

On profiling, CNN deliberately distorted Trump’s words. At no time did he ever mention ‘racial profiling’. He spoke only of ‘profiling’.

Scott Adams, Dilbert’s creator, rightly called out Clinton News Network:

This is yet another example of distortion in Big Media reporting.

Are you picking up on the bias? I know a lot of people offline who aren’t.

Add to that the blame Clinton piles on Trump — a private citizen:

On a brighter note, this is a great little video featuring Germaine, a Starbucks employee, taking drinks and food to New York policemen investigating last Saturday’s bombing:

New York is a great city with great people. Long may it remain so.

On Monday, September 19, the main suspect in the New York and New Jersey bombings at the weekend was finally arrested.

Ahmad Khan Rahami, 28, of Elizabeth, NJ, was found asleep in the neighbouring town of Linden. He was slumped in the doorway of a tavern there.

The owner was at another establishment across the street. He thought Rahami was a drunk until he recognised him. He rang the police.

When police awakened Rahami, the suspect opened fire, wounding one policeman in the chest. The other officers pursued him on foot. Rahami shot at a police car. The bullet ricocheted and grazed another officer’s face. The chase ended when police shot him several times and took him to hospital.

Rahami was not particularly forthcoming when questioned after surgery.

The investigation is ongoing and, as I write, it is unclear whether there is a terrorist cell in greater New York and whether Rahami had help. CNN has full details of what happened at the weekend.

There have been extremist Islamic terror cells in the United States for many years. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that they exist. The map below, courtesy of Free Thought Nation, shows terror activity and compounds dating back to the 1980s:

CNN reported that Rahami’s family accused the city and police of Elizabeth, NJ, of discriminating against their First American Fried Chicken restaurant because they had to close at 10 p.m. while other establishments in the neighbourhood could stay open later. However (emphases mine):

In 2011, the city council voted to close the restaurant at 10 p.m. because of “all the people hanging out there” around the clock, Elizabeth Mayor J. Christian Bollwage said Monday.

Owner Mohammad Rahami and his two sons filed a lawsuit claiming the city conspired to “discriminate” and “illegally harass” them by subjecting them to citations for allegedly violating a city ordinance on hours of operation.

The case alleged the Rahamis were “threatened and harassed” by a police officer. It argues that officers and city representatives said “the restaurant presented a danger to the community.”

It also accused a neighboring business owner of telling the Rahamis that “Muslims make too much trouble in this country” and “don’t belong here.”

The defendants, including police officers and city officials, denied the allegations.

Federal court records show the case ended in a “statistical closing.” Bollwage said Monday the 2012 ruling on the case favored the city, adding that the family’s restaurant was “disruptive in the city for many, many years.”

Rahami’s sister put up a post on Facebook asking for privacy at this time.

The Daily Beast reports that Rahami and members of his family have freely travelled to and from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Investigators are now trying to piece together his activities abroad.

Rahami’s father last travelled to Pakistan in July 2011 and stayed until September that year. Rahami had to appear for a court case — possibly the one connected with his restaurant — and, while he was present, his lawyer:

informed the judge that while the father had returned, his “family is in Afghanistan” but was expected to return within days.

Rahami’s brother is currently in Pakistan.

Rahami has a wife in that country:

U.S. Rep. Albio Sires told the Bergen Record that Rahami contacted his office via email in 2014 seeking an immigrant visa for his wife in Pakistan who was 35 weeks pregnant and whose Pakistani passport had expired. 

The Rahami family arrived in the United States in 1995 as asylum seekers from Afghanistan:

There has been some confusion over when Rahami or his family were officially granted legal residency in the country, but it may have taken some time for their application to be processed and approved.

In 2013, one of the suspect’s brothers, Mohammad K. Rahami, posted a Facebook message in 2013, accompanied by a photo. It read:

I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life.

In another Facebook entry in April that year:

Mohammad posted a photo of himself with a man identified as Ahmad in a comment. The two men are sitting outside, grilling kebabs.

Currently:

Authorities have not named either brother as suspects or persons of interest.

Ahmad Khan Rahami is known to the police, with:

a series of escalating run-ins with the law beginning in 2008, when he spent a day in jail for unpaid parking tickets, and another in 2012 after he allegedly violated a restraining order, The New York Times reports. In 2014, Rahami spent three days in jail on weapons and aggravated assault charges, after allegedly stabbing a person in the leg, The New York Times reports. A grand jury dropped Rahami’s charges for the fight, which allegedly began as a domestic dispute.

Before Rahami was arrested in Linden, authorities raided his family’s home in Elizabeth at 3 a.m.:

according to time-stamped cellphone footage reviewed by The Daily Beast. The video, taken by a neighbor across the street, shows heavily armed officers at the family’s Elizabeth home waiting for family members to come out, one by one. Two of Rahami’s brothers came out first, followed by a woman and a young child. The father came out last, the neighbor said.

At the same time:

A Perth Amboy address linked to Ahmad Rahami and brother Mohammad Khan Rahami was subject to loud banging at 3 a.m., a neighbor told The Daily Beast. Police later confirmed they had investigated a Perth Amboy address. Maintenance workers were changing locks on the front door late Monday morning.

The explosive devices:

track closely to what was suggested in al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine in an article titled, “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom.” The guide was written by Samir Khan, a U.S. citizen born in Saudi Arabia who fled to Yemen to join Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric turned al Qaeda propagandist.

Khan advised aspiring bomb-makers to make pipe bombs and link them together for greater effect, just as Rahami is alleged to have done at two sites in New Jersey. Khan advised building larger bombs using pressure cookers.

Similar devices were used in the Boston and San Bernardino attacks.

The First American Fried Chicken restaurant in Elmore Avenue became a magnet on Monday for patrons and friends of the Rahami family:

Patrons and public records say the family appears to have five sons and three daughters. Two of the children are minors. The status of their mother is unknown, the customers said.

A 60-year-old musician named Jacob said that he has known Rahami — the father — for 14 years:

“When I met them [the Rahami siblings], they were kids. But lately they’ve been holding down the store,” Jacob told The Daily Beast, as he watched police work the scene. “They seemed like normal people.”

The longtime neighbor called Ahmad Rahami’s father, Mohammad, a “pretty decent, guy” and “real quiet and laid back.”

The dad talked of visiting Afghanistan on vacations and would hook Jacob up with turkey sandwiches and gyros, he said.

“He was cool. I’m just sorry that this happened to him,” he said.

Saul Asian, a 21-year-old classmate of one of Rahimi’s brothers:

described the Rahimi chicken spot as a hangout for middle-schoolers of the nearby Abraham Lincoln School. He used to see Ahmad work as a cashier.

“I didn’t want to believe it… until I saw it on the news,” Asian said of Ahmad’s arrest.

But not everyone was so positive.

Fox News reports that a young woman named Maria fell in love with Ahmad when they were both in high school. She has a little girl. He is the father. She says that he:

didn’t pay child support and often railed against American culture. The 26-year-old, who spoke after her grandmother called her for a reporter who produced his press credential and identified himself at the grandmother’s home in Elizabeth, said she had not seen Rahami in two years.

He would speak often of Western culture and how it was different back home,” she said. “How there weren’t homosexuals in Afghanistan.

“He seemed standoffish to American culture, but I never thought he would cross the line,” she added.

The boy who was once a ‘class clown’ at Edison High School grew into a man who:

demonstrated his hatred for the U.S. military.

“One time, he was watching TV with my daughter and a woman in a [military] uniform came on and he told [their daughter], ‘That’s the bad person,'” she said.

Maria also told Fox that:

Rahami would often go back to Afghanistan to see family, and would stay for weeks, or even months. Right before their daughter was born, Rahami was in Afghanistan and had trouble returning because authorities in Afghanistan confiscated his passport for unknown reasons, Maria said. The last time Maria knows that Rahami visited his homeland was nine years ago. He brought back a wife and another child, she said.

She ended the interview by expressing why her former love made her afraid and why she cut off his visits:

My greatest fear is that he would try to take my daughter.

But, readers, as we all know, none of us must dare to call this man a terrorist.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post -- not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 -- resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,042 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

September 2016
S M T W T F S
« Aug   Oct »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,183,315 hits