u.s. was a republic

recently a republican politician, lee-r, emphasized that the u.s. was a republic. why? because truth is important as i will explain.

the opposition to rnc, often dnc followers as well as those not supporting dnc either, responded with DEFIANCE vehemently criticising: how dare he even mention that u.s. was established as a constitutional republic; as defined in the constitution document, that set the goal undisturbed pursuit of happiness not a goal to acheive democracy... democracy was never the goal nor even worth mentioning.

there was never a need to "mention to voters" that the voters have power. the PROBLEM with calling the goverment "representative democracy" is... that it is not one and "we must not tell a lie" as harry potter told the centaurs referring to umbridge. it is a republic. period.

i interpret the phrase "rank democracy" as ranks in army, "rank democracy can thwart that" referring to the levels in society who is a protected minority and who is not... the divisive rhtoric of dnc. who has authority over businesses like a higher rank... which is too much power. rnc stands for "manage with small government". rank could also mean "abused democracy like misused"... because:

even majority rule must not make laws to trample the "political minority who lost" the election. if they would misuse majority like that, it would be tyrrany... as we see dnc is already going that way: getting too much involved in businesses and limiting fuel production that caused reliance on imports truly weakening the u.s... but also controlling like totalitarian tyrrany.

noone was saying the senate dnc "is the minority" they have half and a vice president but equally the House is now "dnc the few". when lee said "excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few' did he say minority? nobody lied that senate dnc is minority. he meant, few, a small group controlling businesses. 

some suspect lee was planning to block an elected majority, sounds scary but that is the unrelated part. calling the u.s. a republic has nothing to do with blocking the election results. we ALREADY SAW when the College said biden won... senator lee-r did not block anything... it already happened but the dnc used fear mongering even misleading fears, even when biden was ALREADY not blocked... whatever will make rnc look bad... and afraid of democracy, because... dnc does not have ANYONE GOOD for whom to say look how good he is.

child Neglect OR Abortion are not related

Until recently i would never connect those two issues abortion with child neglect, but at least child neglect the kid lives, as i will explain. only recently a saw someone here TRY to justify abortion, to prevent child neglect so: first briefly we can test the claim:

a toddler terrible twos is Screaming about everything. shouted no no no about everything wrestles as much as he can; throws food everywhere and breaks stuff. now we test: a parents said "MY HANDS are my body my choice so i will clean the windows and rooms instead of feeding toddler and changing and bathing and cleaning the wrestler... does the excuse "my body my choice" work? that is called child neglect, a crime, and not her choice despite her body. 

"i do not want to be a SLAVE to the baby" so abort him... at age 2? we know that cannot justify at age two years nor at two days... nor the day of birth but... a minute before? the SAME baby that came out was the same one inside.

my point has nothing to do with religion just logic which can seem cold-hearted but is actualy the only way to be fair. a 14 week fetus is far more complex than a clump of cells and even three layers with different patterns and purposes is more complex than a clump of cells.

we will test each abortion claim with logic to be fair:

1 is abortion harmful? yes it harms the fetus every time. but ma danger is not every time.

2 is abortion painful? a fetus can feel in brain pain, like a child, long before it was born. maybe 14 week? nervous system. also even earlier the "burn reflex" localized reaction, even before the nervous system grows completed.

3 the fetus is NOT the mother body as EVERY cell testified the D.N.A. differs from ma and often the blood type differs from ma too. so undoubtedly even if female fetus a different body and undoubtedly human from the momemnt the "zygots" or whatever they are called combine into the human d.n.a. pattern with 46 or whatever chromosomes. not before join but when join it is human cells so cannot kill a human etc. 

4 birth defects, if we can be rational? if a two year old has birth defects we cannot "end its suffering" with our action and same baby was the same one inside, a day before birth. nothing changed about the infant at birth it was the same one and as above different d.n.a. from ma even if girl... and more obvious if male fetus not her body. i read a "heart tearing" story of abortion where parents wanted an abortion, for birth defects, but could not hold the corpse. huh? if you wanna hold the child let it live, born when born hold it? they could choose not to abort.

but it will die soon? that is not YOUR action. abortion is direct causal action killing it. and anyway such instances are RARE statistically among births, we cant allow all unwanted baby for such rare instances. i doubt making a law for rare instances.

5 the fetus of rape? ALREADY conservatives compromised, in a law that passed see below, but that does not justify the many abortions that are not rape.

i also have moral obligation to compare: a two year old, i cannot bear that my daughter needs to give weekly custody of my grandson toddler to the guy who raped her... can i prevent that for a two year old? certainly not and not even two days nor two minutes after birth... and again the SAME one outside was the one inside that came out in birth... and the same even a month before it came out, even then more complex than a "clump of cells" but ALREADY conservatives passed a law in The House compromising for instances rape and danger to mother, showing in action they are not uncaring to real danger to mother and real health care... but still the many unwanted, when not danger to mother, is not "health care of mother". and my argument is futile about after birth when both sides agreed. it still is worth mention for logic and to show that the conservatives and rnc are not as the pro-choice deceptively described them "uncaring for the danger to mother."

6 the PLACENTA is my body my choice", seems true but still the fetus is not her body as above. but what if i am a lady and my palcenta etc. is serving the fetus. my body my choice not to be a slave to the fetus... only if it would not die, but abortion kills it, therefore logic is same as after birth that claim does not justify neglect "my hands are my body my choice" to do other chores but not justify neglect, because crime neglect so must not neglect, same and worse than neglect before birth because the fetus will die. at least neglect it will live and still a crime certainly if the fetus will not live. a theoretical compromise would be to take out and put on life support? but i doubt that is practical so no option to kill the fetus unless danger to mother as above.

each of the reasons to try and justify abortion can be tested on the two year  old... even if we completely ignore religion, and two day old we see these do not justify when protected but the one that came out, born, was the SAME one inside.

7 the newest attempt i only heard recently later than the previous complaints, but this was new to me. but the same method: if i do not want the baby and i am forbidden to abort him then when i raise him i will feel resentment and that is trauma... to ma and the child too. that is PART of the truth but what about the other part? does that justify killing the toddler? to prevent its trauma? no option to kill the child after birth to prevent that same trauma. therefore logicly the same child that was born was the same one inside before birth... month before month until it was just a clump of cells before the mother knew it was alive and growing. 

so in the end the issue is not pro-life, although religion does motivate many, in contrast to religion i have shown even without any religion by logical comparison, that the issue is WHEN is a fetus more complex than a clump of cells. so even if pro choice in the first 4 weeks when ma does not even know yet, still logicaly must be pro-life from fifth week logically and if that is the goal then the first step can be: now change the law like french 14 weeks just for a year as adjustment and then in december 2024 to obey logic. 

god's Beard and Justice

 god's Beard and Justice

Some people think that god, if exists sees our teeny planet with its human ants like a kid with an ant terrarium box. but just because the first part is true, like ants, does not equate the child with god... despite children have terrariums.

if God did not "care about our messy sins" he would not teach a way "out of the mess and away from hell fires." instead religions teach he gave "fair warning" and sent teachers for people to "change direction and accept" the gift of grace by a certain defined faith that was sent. he did not abandon humans without messengers for guidancce. some claim, that he cannot possibly "be concerned with the actions and affairs" of each of a billion ants.

however then justice would be fake. the idea of justice is either the humans catch him or god will. "a god of vengeance, is yahweh" both teaching the human not to chase revenge... similar to bond in "for your eyes only" and also faith in the concept of justice.

in fact DESPITE the first part of the ant farm can describe us, that does not mean the second part equated accurately, kids have glass ant farm therefore god is the "delinqiunt kid" who shakes the terrarium. that is not how earthquakes start.

uncoubtedly an "infinite god" can notice any billions of people and every move whether neutral or benefit or harm or sins.

recall in the fiction world harry potter, snape and harry read each others thoughts... but infinite gods would not need magic to do the same... he knows our thoughts and the debate is will he punish for them or not. some say his mercy is to WAIT and if person does not ACT will not punish but others claim god will punish for thoughts too. easier than knowing thoughts is hearing anything spoken.

some think of god as the "car assembler robot" creating cars equally creator of life, planets and plants... we know about robots but we do not know if that describes the creator. a wise creator is more likely to send messengers for guidance if wise than let people blunder "lost with no direction" i refer to its the climb lyrics but can describe the alternative to prophet messengers.

i admit the planet LACKS the precision of a product assembled by the robotic car assembler... but that is due to random genetic mixing causing varied products including "ugly assymetrical trees".

i know that the orbit of the earth is a slight oval... relativde to its diameter and that the summer now we are MUCH FURTHER from sun thean in winter... and that refurted the "too hot too cold goldilocks" idea. the earh=ths atmosphere does trap heat DESPITE much further away than in winter we are not the "just right PRECISE distance from sun" because it does change and can change.

now we talk about the beard and name calling, dawkins on page 59 said "poor tom paine" was called names... the victim we should pity and snarl at the viciously harsh name caller but if so equally the "poor victim god" called names by dawkins and others "deinquint psychotic" on same page and many more in his books and lectures, "morbidly obssessed, ruthless of which some i bothered to demonstrate werre false accusations. well what ABOUT the beard of god?

one of the lists of psychotic is thinking "i am god" they stop "grooming" themselves. if so yahweh SEEMS to be psychotic because yahweh let his BEARD grow and by claiming "i am your god" yahweh exhibited the psychotic symptom of "they think they are god". the difference is, a delusion is when they are wrong about something impossible. only if we assume god was wrong can we say he had the delusional psychosis of saying "i am god" wrongly... "even after proving" he is not... but that assumed he is not real but if POSSIBLE that yahweh is god, as even dawkins admitted on his chart, that is neither deluson nor psychosis... effectively self-destroying his own sensational title.

in conclusion: we do not know if god "saw hallucinations, believed impossible stuff, thoughts out of control and stopped grooming" as above so believing god was pychotic is baseless name calling.

and if we should feel pity for "poor paine" page 59, the victim of name calling therefore snarl at the mean christian name-callers, then equaly pity the "victim god" who is mocked by athe-agnostics who are so harsh and mean. seeing the harshness should be enough to drive any thinker away from agnosticism that relied on lazily insulting using mocking and name-calling.

compare animals to Americans

 animals protect young kids.

i once tried to push a bird away from its eggs... it did NOT flee, from me, somehow the "birdbrain" knew to stay and block me from its eggs.

even before birth and also after birth, when other animals come near , or we do, we know animals are AGGRESSIVE,  FIERCELY  AGGRESSIVE to protect their kids.

if i tell ma, i just wanna pet your kitten , CLAWS SWING.

but american parents have lost even basic animal love. they do not FEEL the loss and pain related to the circumcision for which they PAY someone to cut a good piece off their kids. ignored that European know intact is better, but society is so used to it they lost the most basic instincts !!

so we must learn from animals and europeans must not cut,  circumcision and do not retract the foreskin, it should stay natural until nature decided.

potter stone chapter analysis and fan fiction

 rowling wrote an AMAZING story, created a wonderful world with dangerous adventures. i cannot do better but i can write a summary and add a bit of fan fiction. this time chapter by chapter

one: The Dursely family had a lone young son, named dudley. mrs. dursley, a blond named petunia, pretended that she did not have a sister. on a usual morning, Mr. Dursely, named vernon, who kept a mustache, started driving to his job. that was when he could not believe his eyes. he saw a cat reading a map? impossible! 

At work's break, he heard people talking about the potters, his wife's sister's family. after work he bumped into a man dressed oddly in a violet cloak. the guy spoke in unintelligible words like some nut, "dont be sorry. nothing could upset me today. you-know who is gone!" but he did not know who. He went home, and asked petunia about her sister so she was very annoyed. vernon wondered if the cloak guy had anything to do with his sister in laws "kind".  j

near midnight, on an empty corner, a man suddenly appeared. he was wearing long robes under a purple cloak. he flicked open a metal cigaret lighter and clicked. each click the light of a lamp vanished. in the darkness he sat by a cat that was now a lady, wearing an emerald green cloak. she also said "you know who has disappeared, after killing the potter family. only their son lived". the man, named albus dumbledor, replied that he arranged to bring that child harry to his relatives the dursleys.

they heard a roaring engine overhead. a motor bike fell from the sky. a giant rode it and sobbed about the potter's deaths. he laid harry on the doorstep. dum' clicked the darker once, so the balls of light flew back to the street lamps. in the morning petunia found harry on the doorstep. and ten years passed as harry's eleventh birthday neared.

analysis: the conversations here were mysterious and intended as a hook to cause curiosity to continue but it can be a turn off due to so much without a story so it can be a turnoff of uninteligible talk. even the cool magic which was wonderful was distracted by vague phrases that contained a story in broken bits.

finally a boy on a doorstep from midnight to morning can only be a true documentary because an imaginary story they would put the baby in the house. despite this one event that was real most of the chapter was fiction except the stuff both in the video and the book.

F fan fiction: i could not write a better story but i can be a hindsight critic. do not introduce magic motorbikes so soon. it is great but not in the first chapter with so much stuff that is hard to understand and not even mentioning it was enchanted.

chapter one: "at midnight, the dursley parents heard a baby crying, so they went to check on their son dudley. in his room they found he and a second child were crying. in shock they read a note: "Harry is your relative. his parents died, tonight, so he is your responsibility now." ma said, "we should bring the orphan to an orphangae." pa said "he will do chores" so they raised harry for ten years. chapter two." 

analysis: this would tell the dursley perspective. harry indoors with a brief mention of his parent's death without introducing magic yet nor contrasting the usual world with mysterious rejoicing and avoiding the mysterious talk, replaced by common conversation.

spreading by sword

 the opposition, who TARGETED christianity, as i will quote, used association to criticize christianity, because of the failure and inability to use truth , nor find ANY real flaw.
some monotheisms AUTHORIZED, directed, ordered using force and death to spread but not all. so the opposition "lumped them all together" quote: "unless otherwise stated i shall have christianity in mind... the differences matter less than similarities... ALL THREE abrahamic religions [were] INDISTINGUISHABLE etc." dawkins, delusion page 58 but capitals mine.
we can distinguish between the religious book and some ugly actions which were not OBEYING the book and never directed ordered by the book. the whole list of Emperor constantine and crusades and more were not obeying the book and not pure christianity not even real christianity.
who did he target here? he has christianity in mind while talking about spreading by sword, in that context, but KNOWING the religious book NEVER directed that, so he used association suggesting to the reader to follow his lead all three "indistinguishable" and ignored "differences". if that alone does not convince you christianity is flawless... then read the quote again, before continuing, he just admitted, EVEN the opposition, that christian BOOKS are SQUEEKY CLEAN.
which monotheism is MOST well known as spreading by sword? in our generation among the terrorist groups one used quran words "islamic jihad" for its name, but i will elaborate. [parenthetically, the other terrorist groups that target civilians, (including well known P.L.O. famous for hijacking terror, and whose leader organized bombing attacks and those same "bloody hands" held by bill clinton gasp, during one treaty with israel,) did not use that word for the group's name, they just use their book sources to recruit, but just parenthetically.]
the METHOD TECHNIQUE to target christians is to ASSOCIATE christians with the famous terrorists by "not distinguishing the differences" in books as above that was the revealed technique. but we CAN distinguish the books.
the oldest of the abrahamic religions, is any violence obeying the book? deuteronomy chapter seven SEEMS to say spread by the sword, as i will bring but first, exodus 32.27: "said yahweh, [by] sword kill brothers" for sinning. as you see i needed to add a word... to connect. he only said to wear a sword. this matched deuteronomy chapter 30.14: "to do it with your mouth and heart" THAT is the doing by reading but never ordered by hand. claiming "swing swords by hand" violated the text "by mouth". based on the text itself, they were commanded to read the words "kill brother" while wearing swords. or read the words "wear a sword and kill" and by mouth it was done. the sinners probably lived. the sacrifice was fulfilled by reading.
EVEN in deut. 7.2 "and hit them" past tense like "he hit them", with a grammar switch to future. not command and in CONTEXT defined by SAME book Deuteronomy as above 30.14 "by mouth to do" specifying to do by mouth not by hand. the "sword" is the TALK of the missionary, not relying on external bias to corrupt, but by the SAME same book and similarly in new testament wear "your sword of faith etc." indeed jesus "sent apostles to heal" and i specify "not lead threat squads"... but for the opposition the "differences matter less than the similarities" gasp.
all three were associated with the news reports of plane hijack and bombs and gruesome decapitations shown on tv. because all three truly are abrahamic but that is not the contents.
we can contrast: joshua 24.2: "so said yahweh , father of abraham served idols" it is the ONLY instance in that book joshua, with that prophecy phrase. the other details, as in the game simon said, simon never said so you are out. for example joshua 6.17 "only rahab will live and her family etc." [ i am certain that i am not the first to notice but i point out, their home was in the wall... that collapsed? the wall of jerico came tumblin' down. hmm, indicating by contents, something here is not literal anyway] seems to hint only she lived implying kill? but "simon never said" by contrast. even joshua never claimed as in 24.2 god said. nor could he base himself on deuteronomy which may not have been generated until hasmonean days in 150 b.c. as indicated in book jeremia 7.... but even if book did exist, in the order commonly published, still as above self-defined "by talking" so not the usual activity. in fact the same book joshua that undeniably HAS the ugly part in 6.21 "from man to woman by sword" also said AFTER the conquest in 24.12, "NOT BY YOUR SWORD" seems contradiction... so a denier can say this book has contradictions is not reliable. if so no source to accuse using chapter six... an accuser would ignore the context of the books themselves in joshua 24 and deuteronomy 30 as above. .
a god follower can say "we assume god does not contradict himself" therefore any book with contradiction is not from god... including book joshua. this book must not be from god. they can say, "church founders were wrong to trust rabbis to include it" .OR interpret by the book itself: truly not by sword as in chapter 24 but the added word by "the mouth of the sword" hebrew of 6.21 using a symbol for missionary talk to end the idol-sculpture-culture. still to prevent possible error, a literalist may say look at chapter 6... the book BOTHERED to specify NOT by your sword in 24.12.
whether people used sword or not "simon never said" because the phrase of prophecy was only once in book joshua not by the seeming deaths, and even bothered to add several indicators and added words CLARIFY not swinging swords in action, for me to point out.
even the "law of death" almost always used indirect grammar and only ONCE "the JUDGE will hit" never... not even once mentioned judge by kill, because by heaven as i will quote sources, [not by mob, without judge, that would be baseless mockery]. almost all the deaths are "will die" indirectly as i will explain, never "judge will kill nor you will burn" the grammar DID differ. for example telling the israelites "they will burn" SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED not you but they. apparently the meaning is passive they will get burned. but certainly not you will burn them.
even the word stoning SEEMS to be a mob throwing rocks... the story of jesus telling them not to throw stones... has both these angles, but truly was used, in book isaiah 62.10 to "excise from stone, clearing path" so by USAGE that word meant hard labor until death. in other words when jesus said do not throw rocks and HIMSELF did not throw rocks, he was not sinning, not violating, but the opposite teaching by example and showed by action the application and meaning is NOT to throw rocks... an obedient would "submit to god " and have an excuse to throw rocks.
this exhibited the rabbinic error and corruption because truly by the word usage, not a basis for the rabbinic claim "we can kill fifty sinners in court." the grammar is always "will die" and EVEN the talmud specified "die by heaven" is the traditional MEANING of that phrase the one example it matched the grammar.
furthermore, that talmudic interpretation DOES match the grammar, in contrast to other talmudic claims, hence destroying the other "so called sources that seem to say" the court kills for around fifty sins, that do not match the grammar in bible nor traditional interpretation preserved in talmud. [parenthetically i found another clue to reconcile the contradiction but it is too talmudic for here and the American public of this generation.]
anyway when the accusers say LOOK how ugly deuteronomy 7... my job is to remind the SAME book chapter 30 said do not interpret as usual HAND action. it specified "by reading do it" and that may apply not only to every detail in book deuteronomy, due to context, but a direction for the entire set of five books... and i specify not because an EXTERNAL bias said "i can't accept death" so change from the words, but the opposite, by the grammar WITHIN the book and the specification in chapter 30 as above.
after judaism came christianity. the only sword violence there is in book john gospel chapter 18.10-11. a student used a sword to defend jesus who said stop. the opposition used implication "christianity is less ruthless" as if still ruthless, he can say "zero is less" but used deception, so we caught the opposition lying. the whole ugly list on page 58, of the opposition is never OBEYING the directions in the book, no source in new testament and even the previous covenant law of death called old testament that SEEMS to say "you kill" that is not the correct grammar within the book just rabbinic corruption for self power, and false self authorization.
so the opposition said IGNORE the differences... never quoting the book new testament because it is squeaky clean so the ONLY option available was association of those gruesome decapitations to christianity by "ignoring" the fact that it was never directed by the book nor by god and by ignoring the differences between christianity and the book quran of islam. luckily he was honest enough to write "the differences are less important" exhibiting the technique so we can identify the false propaganda.
admittedly the recruiters do have quranic sources, or else they could not convince the terrorists, to join and do the ugly stuff, but the attempt to associate that, is false propaganda as we see in the books new testament and not even the law of death as above.

jesus birth year and abortions

 

Jesus was born 2027 years ago

i expect the few intellectuals to panic and mock "dont you know what ad means?

i do and more.

we have 3 clues to identify the year of jesus birth.

jesus was born "when herod was king" so that gives us the possible years of birth. 2, jesus died when pilate was governor so we know when.

the book bothered to write he was "around age 30" yes with the word around.

we know from history that herod was king until 4bc so jesus birth is known at latest 4 bc maybe 5 or 10 bc?

we know from history that pilate started governing in 26a.d. TAH-DAH 30 years. 26ad-30=4bc

before 26ad is not an option because pilate was governor that year and started governing in 26 a.d. . after 26 a.d. also not an option because he was born during herod's kingdom before herod died in 4bc.

the clues indicate december 25 of year 5 bc by end of year before herod died in 4bc jesus was born. but earlier in herod's kingdom is not an option because around age 30 when pilate was governor and the gap as above is 30 years until pilate started governing.

if we would count from jesus birth the year number would be 2027 so we are not counting from jesus birth. if so even non christians can rejoice that they are not submitting to jesus the count is not from his birth anyway.

around 30 years later pilate started governing and ordered the soldiers to kill jesus 

abortion

did you know? a fetus can feel pain before it is born? many weeks before. we must not ignore the CRUELTY inflicting pain on another human when considering an abortion. details...

two types of pain cells. the nervous system can feel "pain in the brain" like a child around 16 weeks. ALSO the burn reflex feels pain even before nervous system to brain the localized system i mean the one that tells your nearby muscle pull your hand away from the burn even before your brain knows why the hand is moving, that is even before the nervous sytem is complete.