United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: the worst flood in recorded history
Source:
ABC News
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 28, 2017
Author: Barry Midyet
Post Date: 2017-08-28 00:31:07 by interpreter
Keywords: None
Views: 20906
Comments: 128
The news today is that the worst flood in recorded history is occurring right now, and right here (in my neck of the woods, the Houston/ Galveston area). Moreover, as with all of the other major events of the last 25 years, I predicted it. (See my book, The Revelation: A Historicist View and turn to the section on the seven last plagues, Plague# 4). I very plainly said that hurricanes and major weather events including floods would wax much worse in 2017. Katrina was just a dress rehearsal, folks. But Thank God I was fully prepared because like I advised everyone on earth to do, I am completely stocked up on distilled water and can goods, and mosquito spray, and (provided the police give me my gun back) on bullets also. And with all this water to breed in, I'm pretty sure the Aedes from Hades will be here next. And I am making that prediction once again, right here, right now. So get ready folks for much worse before the 7 last plagues are mitigated.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-33) not displayed.
.
.
.
#34. To: nolu chan (#32)
OK, I will try to answer all your nitpicking. The storm in the Phillipines was also a 1000-year storm. "You do realize that claims of more than one 1,000 year storm every thousand years is an irrational claim. If there were such a storm every day, it would be a daily storm." No, it is not an irrational claim, and it is pretty much all reputable scientists who are saying that and I am just quoting them. And I'm pretty sure they are not irrational, and I don't understand why you or any rational person would say that. What they mean is, storms that used to occur once in a thousand years are now occurring every year. Sounds rational to me. "Weather happens. God does not cause storms," That is not true and is just as irrational as your previous statement. But perhaps I should rephrase it for you and then you will understand where I am coming from. Mother Nature causes storms, and mother nature and God are pretty much one and the same. "And honest to Buddha, spare us the Paris agreement." Most irrational statement yet. What do you think is causing these 1000-year storms to come every year nowadays? At least 95% of it is man-made pollution, as almost all reputable scientists say, and about 5% of the cause is God's fury (I say). "I'm not sure why the Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments of 1965 has such high priority. I'll provide the content and you can identify the most seriously offending provision(s)." The most offending provision is the entire thing and the entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad. Until 1965, only Judeo-Chritians were allowed into our nation (officially, but a few non-Christians/Muslims snuck in undetected, beginning with the African slaves some of which were Muslims). And that is how our founders, who wrote the original immigration laws, intended it to be forever. Then LBJ came along, along with his followers/partners in crime in Congress and changed everything. Now we let in Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, anyone who wants to come. Since that year (1965), our nation has steadily gone down-hill. First, we took prayer out of schools (because they might offend the newcomers) and our schools went to hell. Then crime started increasing (a natural result of Godless schools). Now let's fast forward a bit to today. We are being attacked almost daily (on our own soil) by Muslims and other non-believers, but Muslims mainly and we definitely need to ban them. But we cant (according to the stupid alt- left judge in San Francisco). The only leg the alt-left judges are standing on (legally) is the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 which says we have to let Muslims in. So we must immediately repeal it if our nation is to survive. And I mean no offense to peaceful Buddhists like you who don't go around killing everybody, and when we get around to creating new immigration laws, I suppose we could make an exception for you guys. More later..
I live in SE Houston near Nasa. At 1900 on Saturday I put out a redneck rain gauge in my back yard. I was full Sunday morning at 0400. I emptied it. I has filled up 2 more times since.
I have come to the conclusion that God does not get angry. At all. Not even close. When someone becomes very angry, say a co-worker, fried or family member, the common Christian response is something like "We need to pray for Joe. He's having a very bad day". The reason for that kind of response is that we intuitively recognize that such a state of anger is a sign of distress, insecurity and ultimately, weakness. And clearly, the reason people get angry is because things happen to them that are out of their control which they once erroneously considered within their control. And that most certainly is a weakness. So, if God gets angry at man, it could only be because God is insecure and weak, possessing a false sense of control over man, which quite naturally contradicts all the positive attributes ascribed to him of being infinitely wise, loving, and perhaps most intriguing of all (depending on ones faith, perhaps) completely knowledgeable of all each of us will ever do. Please explain how God could or would become angry at us with anything we could possibly do when he knows in advance all that we will do, and why we will do those things? No, God does not get angry and to suggest so is to suggest he is weak. The reason Christianity and many other major faiths portray God as subject to anger is simply because of the practice of something called "personification". That is when one attributes certain human qualities upon another thing. People get angry so people decided that God must get angry too. It's also a very convenient way for historic religious leaders and kings to control the masses, as few things can be more influential on behavior than convincing a people that an all powerful deity is going to eradicate them for all eternity to a place of eternal torment. If they don't behave. No, God does not get angry. That's simply not possible, as the qualities of complete wisdom, love, patience and knowledge all prevent that. Of course this contradicts the standard Judeo-Christian thinking, but it's one point where Judeo-Christian thinking is wrong. Christianity is a good faith overall in terms of the morality it teaches, and people do well to subscribe to it. But on some doctrinal points such as the belief that God gets angry or has ever gotten angry, it is in error. Calamity and tragedy do serve a very pragmatic purpose and are generally beneficial for us in spiritual terms. Unfortunately, most people cannot fathom how that could be, so in the natural human search for satisfying answers, "God must be angry with us" is a common erroneous explanation that humans have historically settled upon. I am completely satisfied that God has no care one way or the other what laws a country decrees. Each of us are on this earth for the purpose of spiritual growth, and whatever circumstances or hardships we endure, even tragic ones, aid us in that growth. It's as simple as that. Obviously you won't agree with this. Indeed, it's readily apparent that people have an enormous ability to believe what we wish to believe, up to and including the point of inventing myriads of explanations for why things are the way they are, and subscribing to them with utmost fervor. That certainly explains why there are such enormous differences between the major faiths. (But then again, perhaps I've simply invented that explanation to satisfy my own need for understanding). The trick is to always be open minded about things, which is no small undertaking. And that's what I strive to do.
I hear you bro. I live just a few miles down the road from you (in League City) and I dont have a rain guage at the moment, but wish I did. So 3 full rain guages, that would be about 15 to 18 inches? Santa Fe has been the hardest hit and I have a daughter living there (along with my son-n-law and two grand daughters, and they keep moving to higher ground but the flood, continuously getting higher, keeps finding them and there is now no place in Santa Fe that is safe. Me and my other daughter are planning on rescuing them today, somehow, some way. My other son-n-law has a big truck, and I have a boat, so I am praying that with God's help we can pull it off.
That is among of the stupidest remarks I have heard on this crazy site. Yes, God is love, but His love is a very tough love. For every verse that talks about God's love there are 2 to 3 times as many that talk about God's wrath and the need to fear God. I know because I counted them. You cannot pick just 2 or 3 verses out of the Bible and build your entire theology around them. You have to read the entire Bible bro.
Good luck
don'T forgeT a shoTgun the obomba looTers will geT you love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
As for the rest of your post, I am glad that we fully agree on some things, i.e, the need to overturn Obergefell and Roe. As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb. That is murder (taking the life of another human being), pure and simple and there can be no debate, and no if ands or buts. As for your last remark, God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few. He is like that sometimes if He gets mad enough, and we must constantly fear Him else we too will feel His wrath.
But of course. It contradicts everything you have come to believe is true, so to you, it is stupid. Actually I already have. A couple times. But I am now convinced that the bible is simply a product of man, albeit a highly refined and artistic one, and does include some good things, particularly the new testament. And yes, it is revered by many as a holy book. But is it, in fact, the infallible and literal "Word of God"? No, it isn't. And I cite my reasoning on my prior post as one type of proof. Contrary to what the bible claims, God cannot and does not get angry.
LOL. The police at the present time have confiscated my gun (because I quite often actually use it instead of just carrying it), and at the present time I have to rely on God and the police to protect me from harm. But if I ever get enough money to hire a lawyer, I will probably try to get my Smith and Wesson back at some point. Nowadays, more than ever, all Christians need to carry a gun because there's a lot of Muslims and hoodlems/looters around.
No. Just as with anger, God is most certainly far, far above and beyond hating anything, and he does not hate for the same reasons he does not get angry. Only weak people fall so short as to hate others, and God is not weak.
You are insane. About two-thirds of the Bible is about God's wrath. And if you don't believe the Bible, as you have already said, naturally you are going to believe in some crazy things, like God does not get angry. You are not getting that crazy idea from the Bible, that is for sure.
Don't drink it! Distilled water is lacking in ALL minerals and nutrients to sustain life. Spring water, etc. is what you want. Use the distilled water to top off batteries, and in your humidor. It is just the opposite. We are to be like God and not be passive, but strong. Yes, we are supposed to love our personal enemies, but we are supposed to (i.e., commanded) to kill the enemies of Jesus and/or God. (See Luke 19:27) And Jesus commands us, if we do not have a gun, to sell the shirt off our back if need be and buy one. (Actually Jesus said sword but a gun is the modern equivalent)
We are to be strong in all ways. But sometimes, being strong means being passive. Stated more accurately, the bible claims Jesus said this in one particular situation, which Jesus may or may not have actually said, and for whatever it would be worth if he did, whether at the time or to us today. But given that, even though some people claim to be enemies of God as they perceive him, God himself, due to his innate qualities, surely could not possibly have any enemies at all. Your perception of God is not unlike a Muslim's perception of Allah. That is, a god who is so weak as to order the death of mere people who, in reality, could not pose any possible threat to him in any way whatsoever. So no, God does not command us to kill anyone. To suggest otherwise is to underestimate God.
Thank you for that reminder of the need to maintain our Purity Of Essence.
Use the distilled water to top off batteries, and in your humidor. Your post is so very very ironic, but also very very timely. The Bible says whoever drinks spring water or any kind of fresh water in the last days (meaning right about now) will become sickened from it and many people will die from it (last plague # 3). That means the only safe water to drink is distilled water, as I advise everyone on earth to do in my "2017 in Bible Prophecy" (found on the last page of my book, now out, called "The Revelation: A Historicist View." You may want to read it unless you want to be one of the many many people who die in 2017. And many many people in my neck of the woods have died from the worst storm/ flood in recorded history, just as I predicted in my book (part of last plague # 4). And the Gulf of Mexico even as this is being written is being struck by the biggest fish kill / dead zone in history (at least in the history of the Gulf of Mexico) which is last plague #2. Everything I predicted is coming to pass, and most of it is taking place right here, right now even as this is being written. The worst thing about is, I too might die right here right now (that is, by tomorrow) because, after several days of this, and being very close to running out of distilled water, I went to the only store that is open to buy some more distilled water, but the store was out of it, so against my better judgement I actually bought some Ozarka spring water (which I advised everyone on Earth not to do). But at the same time I also bought some beer so tonight I'm drinking beer. Tomorrow, or whenever I run out of beer I am going to be forced to drink some potentially very deadly spring water which I have already predicted will kill someone in 2017. Right now I am praying it is not me, but even if it is, and I fulfill my own prophecy, it is perfectly OK because I am ready to meet my maker whenever that time comes. Stay tuned right here. If I make a post tomorrow it means I'm alive. If I don't it means I'm dead. But I am leaving it all in God's hands, and I am not worried about it in the least.
Yes indeed, what Jesus commanded His followers to do is very much like what Mohammed (who is Satan personified) told his followers to do. The Good News is, the main difference is, we will win the final battle between the good guys (us) and the bad guys (the followers of Mohammed) that is even now being fought (called Ar Mageddon, which began on 9/11 exactly as prophesied). Then Satan wont be heard from again for a thousand years.
Only if you're talking to a Muslim. I am telling you the Gospel truth, straight from the Bible, and you cannot deny that. I can give you the chapter and verse for every thing I say.
No, that's not how things work. You envision battles and wars in the human context and project that into a perceived spiritual context. But things actually work far, far better than that. God is not so petty as to want to wage a war against his kids over silly religious ideology. You underestimate God enormously.
You are dead wrong and spouting off the devil's nonsense. Read the Bible.
Invocation of the sky fairy does not provide evidence that storms are plagues sent by an angry, hateful sky fairy. Assuredly, it does not move the time that a storm became a hurricane three days back in time to have it occur during an eclipse. Or perhaps God is just slowing down and His hurricane, therefore, arrived three days after the eclipse. Perhaps it was just celestial clerical error.
No, it is not an irrational claim, and it is pretty much all reputable scientists who are saying that and I am just quoting them. No, you have not cited or quoted anyone, much less reputable scientists. This is rather like your appear to the authority of all the history books. You have yet to name a single applicable history book, even with all of them claimed to be applicable. In like manner, you have not actually named a single reputable scientist, while appealing to the authority of all of them. That is not true and is just as irrational as your previous statement. But perhaps I should rephrase it for you and then you will understand where I am coming from. Mother Nature causes storms, and mother nature and God are pretty much one and the same. Mother Nature is not a sky wizard. People do not talk to the ceiling in an effort to commune with Mother Nature. Mother Nature is nature personified, sort of like Smokey the Bear. Most irrational statement yet. What do you think is causing these 1000-year storms to come every year nowadays? At least 95% of it is man-made pollution, as almost all reputable scientists say, and about 5% of the cause is God's fury (I say). You really have to stick that appeal to anonymous authority in Algore's Lockbox. There, fixed it. The most offending provision is the entire thing and the entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad. Until 1965, only Judeo-Chritians were allowed into our nation (officially, but a few non-Christians/Muslims snuck in undetected, beginning with the African slaves some of which were Muslims). And that is how our founders, who wrote the original immigration laws, intended it to be forever. Then LBJ came along, along with his followers/partners in crime in Congress and changed everything. Now we let in Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, anyone who wants to come. Since that year (1965), our nation has steadily gone down-hill. First, we took prayer out of schools (because they might offend the newcomers) and our schools went to hell. Then crime started increasing (a natural result of Godless schools). My appeal of the Scribd computer program report of copyright violation was upheld and I can provide the complete text of the 1965 Act, Can you identify the specific content of the Act that you find most seriously offending, either by paragraph citation or quoting the provision? That may help to identify the "entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad." I am hardly a peaceful Buddhist. I am retired military. Honest to Buddha is a time-honored military expression. As faith is the strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, appeal to one's personal belief absent proof is an appeal to authority not based on proof.
Can you please QUOTE the provision in Roe that you believe "allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb"? Murder is a man-made legal construct. If something is legal, it is not murder. Any act that does not meet the legal definition of murder, is not murder. If Roe were overturned, states such as California could, and likely would, have lawful abortion on demand. Your God may be a hateful, wrathful, avenging God. You are free to believe whatever you want. Resort to your invisible friend when your attempt at rational/factual argument fails is not persuasive.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3&version=KJV 2 Peter 3King James Version (KJV) 3 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
I think we have to take heart from the fact that God has said he will not destroy the Earth again by water, this is just a small indication of what a few days of rain is like, remember also he sends rain upon the just and the unjust
Another Jewish fable?
"No, you have not cited or quoted anyone, much less reputable scientists. This is rather like your appear to the authority of all the history books. You have yet to name a single applicable history book, even with all of them claimed to be applicable. In like manner, you have not actually named a single reputable scientist, while appealing to the authority of all of them." For God's sake, all you have to do is watch ABC News, or CBS or NBC or any other reputable news source, or just Google it. I am not going to do it for you because I don't have the time to be constantly humoring you. BTW, it is no longer being called a 1000-year storm on some stations. It is now sometimes being called a 1500 to 2000 year storm because it is still going and is now plaguing Lousianna as well. And after that it is predicted to hit Mississippi as it goes on down the coast. And the main reason I have not quoted any history textbooks that say what I said about the second coming of Jesus in 312AD is because none of them, not one, is currently in print because all school districts/ colleges in the US have replaced them with revisionist history. If you want to read one you are probably going to have to go to a used book store that specializes in very old textbooks. And I can assure you that none of them are on the internet, so that's not going to help you. That means you are going to have to do some serious digging/legwork on your own because I certainly dont have the time to do it for you. (But if you would for once be patient, I might do it for you after the big storm passes). "Can you identify the specific content of the Act that you find most seriously offending, either by paragraph citation or quoting the provision? That may help to identify the "entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad." Well, I could but sorry I am not going to. That's for two very big reasons. First of all, all bills/laws passed by Congress are many many pages long and full of legalize that I or no one on earth except lawyers can possibly understand. Secondly, lest you forget, I am in the middle of the worst hurricane/ flood in recorded history and I am fighting for my life, and the life/ well being of my loved ones. So no, I am not about to humor you this time except to say, you read it, and you tell me what it says, and in plain English please and no legalize, and then I will consider responding on this issue. "I am hardly a peaceful Buddhist. I am retired military. Honest to Buddha is a time-honored military expression." I am also retired military and I have never ever heard that phrase before. But I do apologize if I falsely accused you of being a Buddhist. Sorry. "As faith is the strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, appeal to one's personal belief absent proof is an appeal to authority not based on proof." Everything I say is based entirely on historical and scientific facts and not on any faith or myths because I don't have faith that there is a God, I know there is a God based entirely on historical and scientific facts. If something in the Bible does not agree with the facts, I cut it out of the Bible (literally and you should see my Bible if you don't believe me). But the vast majority of the Bible I have found to be 100% true.
He didn't destroy the earth with the Flood. After all, it is still here and perking along nicely. It does seem that He's planning to do us all by destroying the earth with fire someday though. Like burning up in fire is so much nicer than a simple flood.
Technically, the Roe vs Wade verdict does NOT say that, but the wording is kinda ambiguous, and what I said is how the alt-left judges and Planned Parenthood interprets it. The other alternative is simply to get rid of Planned Parenthood and all the alt-left judges and problem solved. (But to prevent any alt-left judges from ever ruling that way again, the wording of the verdict probably should reworded or amended or something, but I am in no way a legal expert so I have no idea how it should be accomplished. And the legal definition of murder should also be changed, and any other law if it disagrees with the Bible because that is what all English laws are supposed to be based on as everyone knows (except you apparently).
It is not that we should be looking for the signs of these troubles ahead but that we should be paying attention to them. Acknowledge them as signs from God and that Yehusha returns to fulfill that mission from His own Father which most of us have turned our backs on.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+12%3A4&version=KJV
[nolu chan #58] Can you please QUOTE the provision in Roe that you believe "allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb"? [interpreter #65] Technically, the Roe vs Wade verdict does NOT say that, but the wording is kinda ambiguous, and what I said is how the alt-left judges and Planned Parenthood interprets it. Actually, it says no such thing about partial-birth or third trimester abortions. Partial-birth abortion is illegal, your interpretation of Roe, based on alt-left sources and Planned Parenthood interpretation notwithstanding. What Roe actually says is, "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, it it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe abortion excep[t where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." One does not need to overturn Roe v. Wade to make partial-birth abortion a crime. It is already criminalized by Federal statute of 5 November 2003. What Federal law actually says is, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." - - - - - - - - - - S.3 — 108th Congress (2003-2004) Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and it became Public Law 108-105. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As it appears codified at 18 United States Code, § 1531 http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-74/sec.-1531/ 18 U.S.C. 1531 18 U.S.C. § 1531 (2015) §1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited (a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment. (b) As used in this section— (1) the term "partial-birth abortion" means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion— (A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and (2) the term "physician" means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion. (2) Such relief shall include— (A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and (B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion. (d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. (2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place. (e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section. (Added Pub. L. 108–105, §3(a), Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1206.) REFERENCES IN TEXT The enactment, referred to in subsec. (a), probably means the date of the enactment of Pub. L. 108–105, which enacted this section and was approved Nov. 5, 2003. SHORT TITLE Pub. L. 108–105, §1, Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1201, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as a note under this section] may be cited as the 'Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'." FINDINGS Pub. L. 108–105, §2, Nov. 5, 2003, 117 Stat. 1201, provided that: "The Congress finds and declares the following: "(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion—an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant—is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. "(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. "(3) In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000), the United States Supreme Court opined 'that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an 'undue burden' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the 'health' of the mother. "(4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures. "(5) However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care. "(6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court's findings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not 'clearly erroneous'. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous 'when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed'. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Under this standard, 'if the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently'. Id. at 574. "(7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge—the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures. "(8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the 'clearly erroneous' standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings—findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference—and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence. "(9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of congressional factual findings when it addressed the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [52 U.S.C. 10303(e)]. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in 'gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,' the Court stated that '[i]t was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations * * *. It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question in this case.'. Id. at 653. "(10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress' factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld the 'bail-out' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973c) [now 52 U.S.C. 10304], stating that 'congressional fact finding, to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are discriminatory in purpose'. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 472 F. Supp. 221 (D.D.C. 1979) aff'd City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156 (1980). "(11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to congressional factual findings in reviewing the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 [Pub. L. 102–385, see Tables for classification]. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II). At issue in the Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local broadcast television would be 'seriously jeopardized'. The Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, 'Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to "amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data" bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that presented here', 512 U.S. at 665–66. Although the Court recognized that 'the deference afforded to legislative findings does "not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law," ' its 'obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.'. Id. at 666. "(12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the 'must-carry' provisions based upon Congress' findings, stating the Court's 'sole obligation is "to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence." ' 520 U.S. at 195. Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that '[w]e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the institution "is far better equipped than the judiciary to 'amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon" legislative questions,' id. at 195, and added that it 'owe[d] Congress' findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.'. Id. at 196. "(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a 'health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned. "(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that: "(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, 'there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death. "(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum. "(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is 'not an accepted medical practice', that it has 'never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that 'the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that 'there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is 'ethically wrong,' and 'is never the only appropriate procedure'. "(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman. "(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman. "(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy. "(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life. "(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child 'in a state of being born and before actual birth,' was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a 'person' under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a 'person'. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child. "(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are 'ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb'. According to this medical association, the ' "partial birth" gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body'. "(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children—obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child—and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child. "(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child. "(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure. "(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain. "(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting—indeed it must act—to prohibit this inhumane procedure. "(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned."
[interpreter #63] For God's sake, all you have to do is watch ABC News, or CBS or NBC or any other reputable news source, or just Google it. I am not going to do it for you because I don't have the time to be constantly humoring you. I know you will not identify your imaginary reputable scientists, or your imaginary history books, because you can’t. You have the time to prattle on and on, but not the time to type the name of a book and its author, or the name of a reputable scientist. ABC, NBC, CBS, and Google are not reputable scientists. But I can do Google for one who is either too lazy, or just unwilling to do Google. Is the source of this claim spirit voices talking to you? http://www.newsweek.com/hurricane-harvey-katrina-monster-storms-understanding-devastation-657079 [...] If current estimates prove accurate, Harvey will likely end up among the 50 most deadly U.S. hurricanes according to government numbers. [...] In terms of the storm itself, Harvey doesn’t make much of an impression in wind speed, the standard way meteorologists evaluate hurricanes. When the storm first made landfall, it featured winds of up to 130 miles per hour, rendering it just barely a Category 4 hurricane on the five-step scale. Winds had tamed to 40 miles per hour for much of the storm’s duration. Hurricane Patricia in 2015 produced the fastest winds on record, reaching 200 miles per hour out at sea. Instead, Harvey packed its real punch in water. On U.S. land, only a couple of tropical storms have ever equaled its rainfall: 1950’s Hiki in Hawaii, with 52 inches, and 1978’s Amelia in Texas, with 48 inches. According to Hannover Re, one of the largest reinsurers in the world, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused around $80 billion in insured losses the the New Orleans area. Hurricane Sandy in 2012 caused around $36 billion to the New York area. “We are far from Katrina and Sandy in magnitude in the case of Hurricane Harvey,” a spokeswoman for Hannover Re told CNBC. A source with knowledge of the market estimates told CNBC that current inured losses for Harvey are estimated to be at less than $3 billion so far. However, the Insurance Information Institute gave a far different outlook on the damage cost. A source from the group told Fox Business that the flood damage alone caused by Harvey could end up matching the $15 billion caused by Katrina. On Monday, other estimates started to surface, and a Enki Research group reportedly said it estimates $30 billion in damage. Chuck Watson, a disaster modeler with Enki, told Bloomberg Markets in an email that the group took into account “the impact of relentless flooding on the labor force, power grid, transportation and other elements” when making its initial estimate. If that holds true, that would put the damage from Harvey as one of the top eight hurricanes to strike the U.S. https://www.livescience.com/60257-harvey-vs-katrina-storm-comparison.html By Mindy Weisberger, Senior Writer August 29, 2017 06:19am ET Tropical Storm Harvey's historic rainfall and flooding continue to batter the Texas coast near the Gulf of Mexico, and Louisiana's southwestern coast is bracing to similarly face an onslaught of heavy rainfall and rising floodwaters in the coming days. With significant rainfall and flooding still in the forecast, Harvey could rival the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina, which pummeled the Louisiana coast in 2005 and was one of the deadliest storms to ever strike the U.S. It caused 1,833 deaths and cost about $108 billion in damages, according to the National Weather Service (NWS). What shaped these two catastrophic events, and how do they measure up against each other? [In Photos: Hurricane Harvey Takes Aim at Texas] Harvey made landfall in Texas on Friday (Aug. 25) at 11 p.m. local time as a Category 4 hurricane, with maximum wind speeds surpassing 130 mph (209 km/h), The Washington Post reported. Later downgraded to tropical storm status, Harvey has since deposited more than 20 inches (51 centimeters) of rain in regions of southeastern coastal Texas, according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC). In the Houston area alone, reports estimate nearly 30 inches (76 cm) of rain have fallen over two days, NHC officials reported, and life-threatening flooding is underway across inland areas in south-central Texas, with storm surges of up to 5 feet (1.5 meters) anticipated in some areas, according to the NWS. At least eight people have been killed and more than a dozen injured thus far, The Washington Post reported. [...] Accompanying Katrina was a massive storm surge — an abnormal rise in coastal sea levels, generated by storm activity — with waters cresting at heights of 10 to 25 feet (3 to 8 m), which more than made up for the hurricane's relatively low rainfall. Floodwaters inundated coastal Mississippi and southeastern Louisiana, leaving 80 percent of New Orleans under water that was slow to drain and lingered for weeks. [A History of Destruction: 8 Great Hurricanes] It is still too soon to tell the extent of Harvey's storm surge, which is difficult to measure in real time while a storm is in progress, Michael Lowry, a scientist with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research — a nonprofit consortium dedicated to the study of atmospheric science — wrote in a tweet on Aug. 26. In fact, scientists might need weeks to calculate Harvey's storm surge, Lowry added. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/us/hurricane-harvey-compare-storms-trnd/index.html By AJ Willingham, CNN [...] SIZE When considering the damage a storm might inflict, size is only one of several factors. For instance, Harvey is relatively small when looking at the diameter of the tropical force winds it produces. It is also important to note that a large storm out in the ocean obviously is likely to produce much less damage than a smaller storm that travels inland. Hurricane Harvey: 280 miles Hurricane Katrina: 400 miles Sandy (2012): 482 miles Sandy, most commonly classified as a superstorm, was the second-largest hurricane on record by this definition. It caused significant damage to New York, New Jersey and other areas in the northern United States. [...] FLOODING POTENTIAL While the storm has significantly weakened, it is still lingering on the Texas coast after days of wind and rainfall. This has led to unprecedented flooding and could have yearslong impact on infrastructure and communities. As of Monday, Harvey has dumped more than 11 trillion gallons of rain on Texas residents. According to the National Weather Service, the 49.2 inches of rain that fell from midnight August 25 to 9 a.m. August 29 is a record for the continental US. The Hurricane Harvey rainfall is not the record for the world or the U.S., but is for the continental U.S. https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/the-eight-deadliest-storms-in-history/16402 Daniel Martins The world watched in horror as Typhoon Haiyan lashed the central Philippines last week, causing the worst humanitarian crisis in the country's history. Around 4,000 people have been confirmed dead in the aftermath of the typhoon, with thousands more still unaccounted for. As devastating as the storm has been, the sad fact is that it is nowhere near the deadliest storm to strike Asia. Here are eight tropical storms - known to us as hurricanes in the Atlantic, but called typhoons in the Pacific and cyclones in the Indian Ocean - that stand as the deadliest known storms of all time. 2008: Cyclone Nargis This was the deadliest storm to ever strike the Southeast Asian nation of Burma, also known as Myanmar. The cyclone was packing winds of up to 164 km/h when it came ashore, bringing with it a monster storm surge that reached far inland up along the low-lying and densely-populated Irrawaddy Delta. You can see what that means in the satellite comparison below: More than 140,000 lives were lost, and the number may be higher, given that many bodies were washed out to sea and never recovered. Infrastructure was also wrecked: The damage included 450,000 homes totally destroyed, hundreds of thousands more damaged, 4,000 schools and 75 per cent of medical centres, all in one of the poorest nations in Southeast Asia. To make matters worse: The military junta that had ruled the nation for decades refused to allow foreign aid into the country. French, British and U.S. warships, laden with much-needed relief supplies, drifted idle off the country’s coast. When the military finally allowed help in, it was three weeks later, and only civilian aid groups were allowed to the disaster zone, by which point the humanitarian crisis had only worsened. 1991: Bangladesh This storm marks Bangladesh’s first appearance on this list, and by no means its last. With winds of around 235 km/h, it was vastly more powerful than Cyclone Nargis when it came ashore. Storm surge of more than 7 m was recorded as the sea roared up the low-lying riverlands that make up the vast majority of Bangladesh’s territory. In the resulting floods, a little under 140,000 people were killed. To understand why the death toll in this cyclone, and others that struck the country, is so enormous you have to look at population, terrain and infrastructure. Territory-wise, Bangladesh is actually not much larger than our three Maritime Provinces combined, but it is home to around 150 million people, more than four times Canada’s population. Almost all Bangladeshis live in and along the rivers that flow through Bangladesh, in very flat and densely cultivated terrain. Add to that the fact that in poverty-stricken Bangladesh, much of the population also live in poor housing, so when the waters rise even seven metres, a huge and thickly populated area of land floods, leading to the staggeringly huge numbers of dead in this storm, and others like it. Making matters worse: When the 1991 storm’s waters subsided, 400,000 acres of cropland had been swamped or damaged, with the soil and fresh water sources contaminated with salt from the sea. 1876: The Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh Another catastrophe for Bangladesh, this one reaching back into the 19th Century, when the area was ruled as part of the British Empire. This unrated cyclone struck the country’s Meghna River, a part of the Ganges delta. At 12 km in width at its most broad extent, it flows into one of the largest estuaries on Earth. To the river’s normally calm waters were added a storm surge even higher than the 1991 cyclone, an estimated 12 metres according to this Bangladeshi government source. More than 200,000 thousand people were killed, either due to the storm surge and strong winds, or due to the resulting famine and epidemics that followed. It was déjà vu for the area: A similar storm struck the area in the 1500s, bringing violent thunder and lightning that reportedly lasted for five hours, killing thousands of people and livestock. [...] 1970: The Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh Given how often Bangladesh has been on this list, it is sadly fitting that the country itself was born in the wake of the deadliest tropical storm ever recorded. Everything we’ve discussed so far – large populations, low-lying terrain, poor infrastructure – were all on display with this cyclone rolled in. The strong winds and 10-metre storm surge left up to 500,000 people dead, including 100,000 fishermen. That blow to the fishery, along with on-land crops, helped contribute to a humanitarian crisis that may have been responsible for hundreds of thousands more deaths. Bangladesh at the time was actually part of Pakistan, an exclave ruled from Islamabad but separated by thousands of kilometres of Indian territory. Unrest had been brewing among the population of what was called “East Pakistan” for some time before the storm hit. So when the central government in West Pakistan bungled the response to the crisis, it was the last straw for many. Opposition parties won big in the national elections, and the region was in open revolt the next year. The bloody civil war ended after eight months when India intervened on the side of the rebels. Although Bangladesh won its independence, it continues to be a high-risk area for cyclones. For some context on that half-million death toll: When we talked about the deadliest Atlantic hurricanes last month, the worst of those storms caused 27,000 deaths at most. It’s safe to say that as devastating as the storms close to home can be, they pale in comparison to what people on the shores of the Pacific and Indian oceans face. So no, no Atlantic or Gulf storm ranks at or near the worst storm in history.
Can you identify the specific content of the Act that you find most seriously offending, either by paragraph citation or quoting the provision? That may help to identify the "entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad." [interpreter #63] Well, I could but sorry I am not going to. That's for two very big reasons. First of all, all bills/laws passed by Congress are many many pages long and full of legalize that I or no one on earth except lawyers can possibly understand. Secondly, lest you forget, I am in the middle of the worst hurricane/ flood in recorded history and I am fighting for my life, and the life/ well being of my loved ones. So no, I am not about to humor you this time except to say, you read it, and you tell me what it says, and in plain English please and no legalize, and then I will consider responding on this issue. I accept your representation that your objection to the Act was that the "entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad," but you are so incapable of reading that or any other Act, that your claim is meaningless. As for your feared many, many pages, I kindly provided a copy of 79 Stat. 911-922 which has the whole Act under consideratrion in twelve (12) pages. I can assure you that what you attribute to the Immmigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 does not exist in the Act. As you cannot identify the imaginary content you rely upon for your misbegotten claim, I cannot help you. On the positive side, you are not in the middle of the worst hurricane/flood in recorded history, but many miles and years removed from that storm.
Oh, the irony.
Darn, that is the best word salad I've seen in a while. If something in the Bible does not agree with the facts, you cut it out. But the vast majority of the Bible you have found to be 100% true. The divinely inspired word is almost always true, with exceptions you have identified and excised, where the divinely inspired word was contradicted by facts. Are you God? Just checking.
Uh huh. The KING was the head of the church. And right now the Supreme Governor of the Anglican church is Queen Elizabeth II. English laws were not supposed to be based on the bible. Your supposed knowledge of English law is absolutely abysmal. English law has no formal codification. Murder is a common law crime in England, not one established by Act of Parliament. You apparently espouse your own Sharia-like system of law, and proclaim that everybody knows that is the way it is supposed to be. The United States adopted the common law system, and every one of the original colonies, by their constitution or by statues, adopted so much of the English common law as was not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. Every state has adopted the common law system of law except Louisiana. Louisiana still has a thing for their old Napoleanic code system. The United States codified its laws and has no common law courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law English law has no formal codification: the essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts applying statute, and legal precedent (stare decisis) from previous cases. A decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest civil appeal court of the United Kingdom, is binding on every other court. Some rulings are derived from legislation; others, known as common law, are based on rulings of previous courts. For example, murder is a common law crime rather than one established by an Act of Parliament. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, for example, now carries a mandatory life sentence rather than the death penalty. [...] Common law Description Common law is a term with historical origins in the legal system of England. It denotes, in the first place, the judge-made law that developed from the early Middle Ages as described in a work published at the end of the 19th century, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I,[2] in which Pollock and Maitland expanded the work of Coke (17th century) and Blackstone (18th century). Specifically, the law developed in England's Court of Common Pleas and other common law courts, which became also the law of the colonies settled initially under the crown of England or, later, of the United Kingdom, in North America and elsewhere; and this law as further developed after those courts in England were reorganised by the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts passed in the 1870s, and developed independently, in the legal systems of the United States and other jurisdictions, after their independence from the United Kingdom, before and after the 1870s. The term is used, in the second place, to denote the law developed by those courts, in the same periods (pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial), as distinct from within the jurisdiction, or former jurisdiction, of other courts in England: the Court of Chancery, the ecclesiastical courts, and the Admiralty court. In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933) "common law" is described as "The unwritten law of England, administered by the King's courts, which purports to be derived from ancient usage, and is embodied in the older commentaries and the reports of abridged cases", as opposed, in that sense, to statute law, and as distinguished from the equity administered by the Chancery and similar courts, and from other systems such as ecclesiasical law, and admiralty law.[3] For usage in the United States the description is "the body of legal doctrine which is the foundation of the law administered in all states settled from England, and those formed by later settlement or division from them".[4] Early development Since 1189, English law has been described as a common law rather than a civil law system; in other words, no major codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive. This may be a legacy of the Norman conquest of England, when a number of legal concepts and institutions from Norman law were introduced to England. In the early centuries of English common law, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting the system of writs to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law. An example is the Law Merchant derived from the "Pie-Powder" Courts, named from a corruption of the French pieds-poudrés ("dusty feet") implying ad hoc marketplace courts. As the Parliament of England became ever more established and influential, legislation gradually overtook judicial law-making such that today, judges are only able to innovate in certain very narrowly defined areas. In 1276, the concept of "time immemorial" often applied in common law was defined as being any time before 6 July 1189 (i.e. before Richard I's accession to the English throne). https://www.gotquestions.org/Anglicans.html Here is an example of a 1700 English statute. I am at a loss to identify which part of the bible inspired it. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/I Whereasin the First Year of the Reign of Your Majesty and of our late most gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Mary (of blessed Memory) An Act of Parliament was made intituled [An Act for declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and for setling the Succession of the Crown] wherein it was (amongst other things) enacted established and declared That the Crown and Regall Government of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging should be and continue to Your Majestie and the said late Queen during the joynt Lives of Your Majesty and the said Queen and to the Survivor And that after the Decease of Your Majesty and of the said Queen the said Crown and Regall Government should be and remain to the Heirs of the Body of the said late Queen And for Default of such Issue to Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and the Heirs of Her Body And for Default of such Issue to the Heirs of the Body of Your Majesty And it was thereby further enacted That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever [incapable] to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same And in all and every such Case and Cases the People of these Realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their Allegiance And that the said Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such Person or Persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said Person or Persons so reconciled holding Communion professing ... as aforesaid were naturally dead [snip]
which part
Comments (75 - 128) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#35. To: interpreter (#0)
#36. To: interpreter (#34)
The most offending provision is the entire thing and the entire idea/reasoning behind it that caused such an abborition and has made God so very mad.
#37. To: XDMAR (#35)
I live in SE Houston near Nasa. At 1900 on Saturday I put out a redneck rain gauge in my back yard. I was full Sunday morning at 0400. I emptied it. I has filled up 2 more times since.
#38. To: Pinguinite (#36)
#39. To: interpreter (#37)
#40. To: interpreter (#37)
I have a boat
boris
#41. To: nolu chan (#32)
(Edited)
#42. To: interpreter (#38)
That is among of the stupidest remarks I have heard on this crazy site.
You have to read the entire Bible bro.
#43. To: BorisY (#40)
#44. To: interpreter (#41)
God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few. He is like that sometimes if He gets mad enough, and we must constantly fear Him else we too will feel His wrath.
#45. To: Pinguinite (#42)
#46. To: interpreter (#0)
I am completely stocked up on distilled water
#47. To: Pinguinite (#44)
#48. To: interpreter (#47)
It is just the opposite. We are to be like God and not be passive, but strong.
Yes, we are supposed to love our personal enemies, but we are supposed to (i.e., commanded) to kill the enemies of Jesus and/or God. (See Luke 19:27) And Jesus commands us, if we do not have a gun, to sell the shirt off our back if need be and buy one. (Actually Jesus said sword but a gun is the modern equivalent)
#49. To: hondo68 (#46)
Don't drink it! Distilled water is lacking in ALL minerals and nutrients to sustain life. Spring water, etc. is what you want.
#50. To: hondo68 (#46)
(Edited)
Don't drink it! Distilled water is lacking in ALL minerals and nutrients to sustain life. Spring water, etc. is what you want.
#51. To: Pinguinite (#48)
(Edited)
#52. To: interpreter (#51)
(Edited)
Then Satan won't be heard from again for a thousand years.
I get the impression I'm hearing from him now.
#53. To: rlk (#52)
(Edited)
#54. To: interpreter (#51)
#55. To: Pinguinite (#54)
#56. To: goldilucky (#33)
Oh noes, not this plague thing again. Why would an all-loving god punish all for the whimsical acts of the nine? The good of the many outweighs the whimsy of the few.
#57. To: interpreter (#34)
"You do realize that claims of more than one 1,000 year storm every thousand years is an irrational claim. If there were such a storm every day, it would be a daily storm."
"Weather happens. God does not cause storms,"
"And honest to Buddha, spare us the Paris agreement."
At least 95% of it is man-made pollution, as almost all
reputable government sponsored scientists say "I'm not sure why the Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments of 1965 has such high priority. I'll provide the content and you can identify the most seriously offending provision(s)."
And I mean no offense to peaceful Buddhists like you who don't go around killing everybody, and when we get around to creating new immigration laws, I suppose we could make an exception for you guys.
#58. To: interpreter (#41)
As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb.
That is murder (taking the life of another human being), pure and simple and there can be no debate, and no if ands or buts.
As for your last remark, God is NOT an all-loving God. He hates a lot of things, and a lot of people (like ISIS for example), and we are repeated told in the Bible about the need to fear God and His wrath. And despite your view of things, God often punishes a whole nation or city, etc. for the sins of a few.
#59. To: nolu chan (#56)
#60. To: goldilucky (#59)
(Edited)
#61. To: paraclete (#60)
#62. To: goldilucky (#59)
#63. To: nolu chan (#57)
#64. To: paraclete (#60)
I think we have to take heart from the fact that God has said he will not destroy the Earth again by water,
#65. To: nolu chan (#58)
(Edited)
#66. To: paraclete (#60)
#67. To: paraclete (#60)
#68. To: interpreter (#65)
[interpreter #41] As for Roe, if we cannot succeed in overturning the whole thing, we definitely need (at the minimum) to overturn the part that allows partial-birth abortions and third trimester abortions when the baby is fully formed and fully capable of living outside the womb.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
Sponsor: Sen. Santorum, Rick [R-PA] (Introduced 02/14/2003)
Cosponsors: (45) Committee Reports: H. Rept. 108-288 (Conference Report)
Latest Action: 11/05/2003
Became Public Law No: 108-105. (TXT | PDF) (All Actions) 2015 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005)
Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725)
Chapter 74 - Partial-Birth Abortions (Sections 1531 - 1531)
Sec. 1531 - Partial-birth abortions prohibited
#69. To: interpreter (#63)
[nolu chan #57] "No, you have not cited or quoted anyone, much less reputable scientists. This is rather like your appea[l] to the authority of all the history books. You have yet to name a single applicable history book, even with all of them claimed to be applicable. In like manner, you have not actually named a single reputable scientist, while appealing to the authority of all of them."
It is now sometimes being called a 1500 to 2000 year storm because it is still going and is now plaguing Lousianna as well. And after that it is predicted to hit Mississippi as it goes on down the coast.
Of the 25 most deadly hurricanes in the U.S. since the government began tracking storm fatalities, only Katrina occurred in the past 40 years. That storm directly caused 1,500 deaths.
While damage caused by Harvey is expected to total several billions of dollars, initial estimates are well below the totals caused by other major storms that hit New Orleans and New York. But as the storm continues, definitive estimates haven’t yet been totaled, and various research groups are gauging the total cost of damage all over the map.
Harvey vs. Katrina: How Do These Monster Storms Compare?
12 years ago today, Katrina hit. Here's how it compares with Harvey.
The eight deadliest storms in history
The Weather Network
Digital Reporter Monday, November 18, 2013, 11:56 AM -
#70. To: interpreter (#63)
[nolu chan #57] My appeal of the Scribd computer program report of copyright violation was upheld and I can provide the complete text of the 1965 Act,
#71. To: nolu chan (#69)
You have the time to prattle on and on, but not the time to type the name of a book and its author,
#72. To: interpreter (#63)
[interpreter #63] Everything I say is based entirely on historical and scientific facts and not on any faith or myths because I don't have faith that there is a God, I know there is a God based entirely on historical and scientific facts. If something in the Bible does not agree with the facts, I cut it out of the Bible (literally and you should see my Bible if you don't believe me). But the vast majority of the Bible I have found to be 100% true.
#73. To: interpreter (#65)
[interpreter #65] the legal definition of murder should also be changed, and any other law if it disagrees with the Bible because that is what all English laws are supposed to be based on as everyone knows (except you apparently).
English law is the common law legal system governing England and Wales, comprising criminal law and civil law.
The roots of the Anglican, or English, Church go back as far as the 2nd century, but the church traces its current structure and status back to the reign of King Henry VIII, who ruled from 1509 to 1547. The events that led to the formation of the state Anglican Church are a curious mix of ecclesiastical, political, and personal rivalries. Henry petitioned Pope Clement VII for an annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon but was denied. When Protestant Thomas Cranmer became Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry saw his chance to bypass the Pope’s authority and get what he wanted. In 1531, Henry compelled the English clergy to accept him as head of the church in England. In 1532, Henry forced the national convocation to agree in The Submission of the Clergy that they would not promulgate any papal bull in England without the king’s consent. In 1534, Henry led Parliament to pass a series of laws depriving the Roman Catholic Church of any authority in England. The Act of Supremacy declared the king to be “the supreme head of the church in England,” thus giving Henry the same legal authority over the English church that the Pope exercised over the Roman Catholic Church.
Recital of Stat. 1 W. & M. Sess. 2. c. 2. §2. and that the late Queen and Duke of Gloucester are dead; and that His Majesty had recommended from the Throne a further Provision for the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line. The Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, Daughter of the late Queen of Bohemia, Daughter of King James the First, to inherit after the King and the Princess Anne, in Default of Issue of the said Princess and His Majesty, respectively and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants.
#74. To: buckeroo (#61)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]