U.S. Government Lays Groundwork for Talmudic Courts
"Our" government under Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton, has provided, under the euphemism of education (for example, House Joint Resolution 173 and Public Law 102-14), a groundwork for the establishment of Talmudic "courts of justice" to be administered by disciples of Shneur Zalman's Chabad successor, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.
Maimonides ruled that it is a Jewish court -- or a court appointed by Jewish authority --that enforces obedience and passes judgment on Gentiles, as well as promulgating
legislation by court order for that purpose. Maimonides further decreed that any non-Jewish nation "not subject to our jurisdiction" (
tahaht yadeinu) will be the target of Jewish holy war. (Cf. Hilkhot Melakhim 8:9-10; 10:11. Also cf. Gerald J. Blidstein, "Holy War in Maimonidean Law," in
Perspectives on Maimonides [Oxford, England: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991].
These courts are to be convened allegedly under the "Noahide Laws" (proscriptions against idolatry supposedly based on the covenant with Noah). The U.S. presidents and Congress urged the adoption of the "Noahide" Laws as interpreted by Chabad-Lubavitch Grand Rabbi Schneerson.
Prof. Easterly of the Southern University Law Center, a Jewish legal expert, has compared this Public law 102-14 to the "first rays of dawn" which "evidence the rising of a still unseen sun."
The
Jewish Encyclopedia envisages a Noahide regime as a possible world order immediately preceding the universal reign of the Talmud.
It has to be understood that we are not dealing with the Noah of the Bible when the religion of Judaism refers to "Noahide law," but the Noahide law as understood and interpreted by the absolute system of falsification that constitutes the Talmud.
Under the Talmud's counterfeit Noahide Laws, the worship of Jesus is forbidden under penalty of death, since such worship of Christ is condemned by Judaism as idolatry. Meanwhile various forms of incest are permitted under the Talmudic understanding of the Noahide code. (
Enziklopediya Talmudit, note 1, pp. 351-352).
Furthermore, all non-Jews would have the legal status of
ger toshav ("resident alien," cf. Alan Unterman,
Dictionary of Jewish Lore and Legend [London: Thames and Hudson, 1991]
, p. 148), even in their own land; as for example in occupied Palestine where newly arrived Khazars from Russia have an automatic right to housing and citizenship, while two million Palestinian refugees who either fled or were expelled by the Israelis, are forbidden the right of return.
Resident alien status has been clearly delineated in scholarly articles in leading Jewish publications. For example, Hebrew University Professor Mordechai Nisan, basing his exposition on Maimonides, stated that a non-Jew permitted to reside in a land ruled by Jewish law "must accept paying a tax and suffering the humiliation of servitude."
If Gentiles refuse to live a life of inferiority, then this signals their rebellion and the unavoidable necessity of Jewish warfare against their very presence. [Cf. Mordechai Nisan,
Kivunim (official publication of the World Zionist Organization), August, 1984, pp. 151-156].
At a symposium ("Is Autonomy for Resident Aliens Feasible?") organized by Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni, the Israeli Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren repeated the Talmudic teaching on resident aliens: that Judaism forbids "granting any national rights" to them. He ruled that such "Autonomy is tantamount to a denial of the Jewish religion." (Nadav Shraggai,
Ha'aretz, Oct. 14, 1992).
American taxpayers' subsidy of the so-called "U.S. Holocaust Museum" in Washington, D.C., is yet another indicator of the gradual establishment of a Jewish state religion in the U.S. This "Holocaust museum" excludes any reference to holocausts perpetrated by Jewish Communists against Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe, from 1917 onward.
The focus of the museum is almost entirely on Jewish suffering. Holocausts perpetrated by Israelis against Arabs in Lebanon and Palestine since 1948 are nowhere to be found in the exhibits of the U.S. "Holocaust Museum," which functions more like a synagogue than a repository of objective historical information.
It is through the rapid emergence of this ostensibly secular but all-pervasive "Holocaustianity" -- whereby the religion of Judaism is gaining enormous power and influence as mankind's supreme ethos and the creed of God's Holy People.
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is perfect in every way – perfect that is if you think the role of the highest judicial body in the United States is to ban free speech, indefinitely detain Americans without trial, resurrect command and control socialism, while urinating on everything the Constitution stands for.
We already discovered Kagan’s penchant for treating Americans as guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when
she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”
So under that definition, if you send money to a charity later linked with some nebulous terrorist group then you are financing Al-Qaeda and could be thrown in Gitmo or some other CIA black site never to be seen again. And this is the woman being forwarded to sit on a body that is supposed to
safeguard civil liberties? That would be like hiring Charles Manson to coach the high school basketball team.
But it gets worse. Now we learn that Kagan thinks certain expressions of free speech should be ‘disappeared’ if the government deems them to be offensive. On the surface that’s any opinion on racial, sexuality or gender issues, but since
criticizing Obama is now deemed racist, where will it all end?
-
In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (emphasis mine).“In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government,” reports World Net Daily.Kagan also argued as recently as September that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to engage in free speech, and that the government can censor things like newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters.Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument at the time, reports Newsmax.
“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.
Kagan’s standpoint on free speech, that it is subject to regulation and definition by the government, has no place in America, completely violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that even unpopular speech should be protected, and would be better suited for countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea.
Little surprise therefore when we learn that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton,
Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the U.S. as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”
If Kagan is approved she is going to find an eager ally in White House information czar Cass Sunstein,
who in a January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” called for the government to tax and outright censor political viewpoints it deemed unsavory.
http://www.infowars.com/kagan-disapp...-it-offensive/
Why Are Some People Allowed To Get Away with Crimes of Mass Destruction?
ers like Greenspan who created conditions which allowed the great Recession to happen and the regulators who allowed it to happen; all they ever got were some harsh words from some geriatric senators wanting to look good for the cameras.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Exarch
