RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: MOOA definitions at 15 USC 55; Defining “Individual” at 5 USC 552(a); more

07 Apr

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-855-566-3738.

 
132 Comments

Posted by on April 7, 2015 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags:

132 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: MOOA definitions at 15 USC 55; Defining “Individual” at 5 USC 552(a); more

  1. Lite Rex

    April 7, 2015 at 4:30 PM

    The subject re; USC 15 ….. is this Equity or Common Law? …. I filed a Common Law Lien with the County Recorders Office and they rejected it… !! Do they have the power to do that?

     
    • Adask

      April 7, 2015 at 4:37 PM

      Do they have the power? Yes. Do they have the authority? I don’t know.

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 20, 2015 at 1:26 AM

        @ Do they have the power? Yes. Do they have the authority? I don’t know.
        Power overrides authority. The Good LORD has authority but he is going to have to use his power so authority can be understood as to what authority means. You have the authority to tell anyone to not make certain comments, etc. Maybe he/she will not get what you mean & repeats what you asked him/her not to do.Then you have to use your power to explain it in a way he/she will understand. I think you call it, bye bye. Maybe he/she still will not get it, & will then try to let you know so. THEN he/she will know what you meant. Know what I mean? If people do not know what authority means, they will know what power means? (:< D

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 21, 2015 at 2:53 AM

        @ > Do they have the power? Yes. Do they have the authority? I don’t know.

        Originally, Government was elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they, today, frequently like to claim.
        The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) was the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed, and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on/in our behalf. Today’s governing bodies have slowly developed into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves. Knowing this really helps tho, doesn’t it?

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 28, 2015 at 11:49 PM

        Do they have the power? Yes. Do they have the authority? I don’t know.
        The following is an excerpt from a previous post.
        “Having determined the district court lacked authority to issue its injunction, we must now decide whether that order was enforceable, nonetheless, by the court’s contempt power.”
        Unanimously they all agreed the lower court DID HAVE THE POWER to enforce the made without AUTHORITY INVALID Order.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 16, 2015 at 3:27 PM

        From Latin Humanus= “a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man “. A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction –that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior “animal” man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century–to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as “humans” –therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.
        ALSO SEE: http://one-evil.org/glossary_legal_terms/glossary_a.htm

         
  2. Toland

    April 7, 2015 at 7:09 PM

    What’s a reasonably reliable method for determining which definition of “animal” was intended by the legislature that wrote 15 USC 55?

     
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 20, 2015 at 10:03 PM

      Toland, Roger, Henry, Colin, et al.,
      @ Given this near-zero evidence, it is arbitrary and misleading to simply assume an unconstitutional definition of “animal” and pin it on the MOOA legislature.

      WHEN we ALLOW “common sense” to enter the equation, we get or should see this, Chickens or other Fowl, e.g., Turkeys, Ducks; Bass or other Fish, e.g., Rainbow Trout, Salmon, Brim; Pecans or other Nuts, e.g., Peanuts, Almonds; Cashews Oak or other Trees, e.g., Pine, Spruce, Sycamore. Get the picture?

       
  3. Adask

    April 7, 2015 at 7:25 PM

    I don’t know how they defined “animal,” but I do know that the “man or other animal” definitions define “animal” to include horses, cows, pigs, goats, etc.–and man. The government offers a single definition that includes both man and animals.

    The definition provided at Genesis 1:26-28 defines man and animals to be two, separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive categories. The freedom of religion provided by the First Amendment entitles me to choose to use and believe the Genesis definition. Insofar as I am not an “animal,” I should not be subject to definitions and laws that define me to be an “animal”.

     
    • Colin

      April 7, 2015 at 10:22 PM

      Insofar as I am not an “animal,” I should not be subject to definitions and laws that define me to be an “animal”.

      Except that mankind has been defined as a kind of animal since at least the days of Linnaeus, if not Socrates. The government has never said that animals don’t have souls or aren’t made in God’s image or that you can’t define yourself however you like. The government has only used a common definition that does not affect your religious practice in any way. Your choice to read that definition in an idiosyncratic way that is neither required nor implied by the statute is not a Constitutional violation on the part of the government.

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 19, 2015 at 11:58 PM

        Mr Colin you said, on The Great Debate thread, > So maybe the MOOA argument does have a use: it might have signaled to the state that you were going to be a pain in the lawyers’ butt by filing nonsensical motions that would have to be read thoroughly each time.That might have encouraged them to leave you guys alone. But only because the argument is fearsomely nonsensical, not because it actually means anything legally.

        Mr. Colin, IF those “motions” would have been even more “fearsomely nonsensical” than the”motions were” do you think this might have helped “this state” to dispose of the case sooner than they did? OR, was the reason for the long drawn out time delay putting a few bucks in somebody’s pocket? What IS the BEST way to be a REAL PAIN IN THEIR BUTTS? This is probably not important to you, cause you are not in my shoes, but, if you can, please tell me how to be an excruciating, agonizing, gnawing PAIN in their BUTTS. I will not “bore” you by explaining why I ask you these questions butt your answers will be most appreciated.Thanks Colin.

         
    • Colin

      April 8, 2015 at 12:31 PM

      I don’t know how they defined “animal,”

      Then the MOOA argument has to fail, doesn’t it? Because it’s not a Constitutional violation for you to make up a definition, if you can’t show that it’s the definition actually being applied to you.

      The freedom of religion provided by the First Amendment entitles me to choose to use and believe the Genesis definition.

      It prevents the government from exercising your religion. It does not give you the right to insist that the government interpret its laws according to your own idiosyncratic definition and then protest the application of the definition you insisted they must be using in the first place.

       
      • Gene

        April 11, 2015 at 3:43 AM

        Alfred says, I don’t know how they defined “animal,”
        Colin responds,Then the MOOA argument has to fail, doesn’t it? Because it’s not a Constitutional violation for you to make up a definition, if you can’t show that it’s the definition actually being applied to you.

        It doesn’t matter HOW the Legislators DEFINE ANIMAL. It’s clear that, Man or other animals are one & the same thing in that they ARE ANIMALS. The only thing different is the name. Camels/Donkeys are animals. A Camel is not a Donkey. A Donkey is not a Camel. BUT they are BOTH animals. Camel = ANIMAL. Donkey = ANIMAL. Man = ANIMAL. ANIMAL ANIMAL ANIMAL. GET IT

         
    • Bobby G Getahaircutnow

      April 8, 2015 at 10:35 PM

      AL – In Genesis the KJV bible writes that animals were created after “his” (God) kind. Read for yourself >

      Gen: 1:24 – 25. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

      25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

      So if man was created in his image (after his kind), and animals were also created after his kind, does it not make sense that man AND animals were all created after his kind?

      It appears that men and animals are the same, does it not?

       
    • Henry

      April 9, 2015 at 10:01 AM

      Adask said: “The government offers a single definition that includes both man and animals.”

      The Bible also does this. The word in question is “nephesh” (Strong’s H5315), in the original Hebrew texts.

      In the following examples, occurrences of this word “nephesh” – by which the Bible includes man and animals in a single category – are bolded.

      Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

      Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

      Leviticus 24:18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

      So we see that “man and other animals” has Biblical precedent.

       
      • Roger

        April 9, 2015 at 1:43 PM

        Indeed, and it’s likely that the meaning of “animal” intended by the MOOA legislature is the same as the meaning of “nephesh” used in the Bible. That is, the MOOA legislature used “animal” in the same way the Bible uses “nephesh”: to refer to man and beast as members of a single category.

        We can be reasonably sure this was the MOOA legislature’s intention because “nephesh” means the same thing as the Latin word “animalis” (from which the English word “animal” derives). Both mean “a breathing creature”.

        So yeah, when the MOOA legislature wrote “man or other animals”, they likely had the Bible in mind.

         
      • Adask

        April 10, 2015 at 1:54 PM

        First, it’s sometimes true that Congress might think about the Bible, but it would be a rare event.

        Second, if you look at Genesis 9:6 you’ll see that you can’t kill a man because he’s made in God’s image. You can kill (and even eat) those creatures that are not made in God’s image. That distinction between man (made in God’ imagine) and the remainder of creatures (animals not made in God’s image) has been the fundamental reason why murder has been a crime for several thousand years.

        In the Ten Commandments, God says “Thou shalt not kill” (or murder). He clearly did not intend to say that “thou shalt not kill any animals”. He meant only “Thou shalt not kill (men made in God’s image).

         
      • Henry

        April 9, 2015 at 5:59 PM

        Another possible definition of “animal” used by the legislature that wrote “man or other animals” is the following scientific definition:

        animal

        1. In scientific usage, a multicellular organism that is usually mobile, whose cells are not encased in a rigid cell wall (distinguishing it from plants and fungi) and which derives energy solely from the consumption of other organisms (distinguishing it from plants).

        A cat is an animal, not a plant. Humans are also animals, under the scientific definition, as we are not plants.

        Source: Wiktionary

         
      • Adask

        April 10, 2015 at 1:36 PM

        If that’s the way you see it, you shouldn’t try to use the MOOA argument in your defense. I used it and it worked for me, but I believed in it. If you don’t believe in it, don’t use. No skin off my nose.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 14, 2015 at 10:59 PM

        HENRY,
        @ >> In all my readings of scripture, in all the times I’ve checked, double checked, and triple checked your citations (e.g. Genesis 1:26-28) in your many articles on this topic, I have never encountered a definition of “animal” in the Bible.
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        Deuteronomy 14:6, Animal is defined as,
        ◄ 929. behemah ►
        Strong’s Concordance
        behemah: a beast, animal, cattle

        Genesis 1:26, Man is defined as,
        ◄ 120. adam ►
        Strong’s Concordance
        adam: man, mankind
        BEHEMAH & ADAM ARE TWO DEIIFERENT BEINGS

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 21, 2015 at 4:54 AM

        Roger,
        @ So yeah, when the MOOA legislature wrote “man or other animals”, they likely had the Bible in mind.
        Respectfully disagree Roger

        An equation says that two things are equal. It will have an equals sign “=” like this:

        7 + 2 = 10 − 1

        That equation says: what is on the left (7 + 2) is equal to what is on the right (10 − 1)

        So an equation is like a statement “this equals that”
        Source? Math is fun. palani understands.

        WHEN we ALLOW “common sense” to enter the equation, we get or should see this, Chickens or other Fowl, e.g., Turkeys, Ducks; Bass or other Fish, e.g., Rainbow Trout, Salmon, Brim; Pecans or other Nuts, e.g., Peanuts, Almonds; Cashews Oak or other Trees, e.g., Pine, Spruce, Sycamore. Get the picture?

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 23, 2015 at 9:49 PM

        Henry,
        @ Leviticus 24:18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
        How is “killing” a “man” made good? If someone kills you, what are you replaced with? My understanding of what the Bible means by man “killing” another man is, the one that did the “killing” will also be killed, as punishment, which tells me that man is above the worth of a beast which can be “replaced”.

        In trying hard to see & understand this MOOA issue the way You, Toland, Roger, &, Colin do, & presuming a man is an animal, how is ANY other animal other than a man, subject to the drug laws? Why didn’t the legislature just say, Man or Animals. Why the word, “other”?

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 16, 2015 at 2:07 PM

      Mark Twain, said,
      “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference
      between lightning and a lightning bug.”
      Law instructor Gary DeMott, perhaps inspired by the above quote, liked to say,“The difference in describing a lightning bug and a lightning bolt is only a couple of letters, but you had better know the difference before you go out and try to catch one.”
      In law, words have exact meanings, and the “use” of law revolves around how words are defined.
      Imagine if one letter was changed in a legal document with the intent to trick you? It is done all
      the time. One letter in law can be just as important as the difference between an M16 rifle and an
      F16 fighter plane.
      “We seldom try to understand the meaning of words, we just seem to mouth them and hold them dearly, but seldom attempt to investigate their substantive implications and precise meanings. How easily we are put to sleep by our eyes, even when we are awake” (Robert W. Wangrud).
      It doesn’t take long with a law dictionary to realize that there is more than one reason people love to hate attorneys.

      Legal Word – Crafting – Its Not The Law
      “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the … I
      wanted to introduce “legal word-crafting” early so you might be thinking about it.
      http://itsnotthelaw.com/legalwordcrafting.pdf – –

       
    • Joe L'Amarca

      May 20, 2015 at 10:28 PM

      mr. Adask first of all the U S Constitution consists of a two part contract .
      First part was/is , Articles of Confederation , Second are the Articles of the Bill of Rights .
      Now I ask you where in the HELL did you find the 1st amendment at especially when the U S Constitution does not contain the word genesis in it ?the black book was used by the criminals in the black robe and when they walked in the court room everyone in the c room had to stand in respect of the bible , but now the bastards got rid of the b book and you have to stand for them ,and thats the fact that they can Lie, Cheat , Steal , Screw the people all they want and no one that is a relegious person realize the thruth right in the U S Constitution and no one understands it even if they trip over it .
      As for the roofer !!
      Authoraty ! is given to the four branch of Government ,by the U S Constitution only (excluding 11-27 th amendment ) the first three when they use their authoraty not delegated to them by the U S Constitution they are powerless and usurping power unconstitutinaly .
      Can you find the fourth brach of governament in the U S Constitution only ?
      IF ALL THE TEN COUNTRY’S THAT ADOPTED THE U S CONSTITUTION WOULD MEMORIZE IT , WE THE PEOPLE OF WORLD WOULD SAVE OUR PEOPLE AND WORLD .
      OUT OF 7.5 BILLION PEOPLE , THE ONE WORLD ORDER CRIMINALS WANT TO ELIMINATE 7.2 PEOPLE SO THAT IT IS EASIER TO CONTROLL THE MICROCHIPED PEOPLE/SERVANTS
      HELP ! HELP ! HELP ! DON’T TRUST THE UNI-FORM PEOPLE FOR THEY WILL GET A GUN AND BETRAY US/ WE THE PEOPLE .

       
  4. Bobby

    April 7, 2015 at 7:51 PM

    Al – If you were on death row for whatever capital crime and they were going to execute you by lethal injection, using a “drug” recognized by the FDA, could you use the MOOA as your basis for an appeal? Can the state or federal government use drugs intended only for animals to execute someone who denies he or she is an animal? Would that not be cruel and unusual punishment as well as a violation of the right to religious freedom?

     
    • Colin

      April 7, 2015 at 10:32 PM

      If you were on death row for whatever capital crime and they were going to execute you by lethal injection, using a “drug” recognized by the FDA, could you use the MOOA as your basis for an appeal?

      He could argue whatever he wanted to. But the MOOA argument would fail. It makes zero sense under the Constitution, since the government has not taken any action that infringes on Alfred’s First Amendment rights. (No one has the right to prevent the government from using a definition simply because they can creatively reinterpret that definition in an idiosyncratic way that is not at all required or implied by the statute itself.) Bear in mind that “animal” doesn’t need to mean anything more than “multicellular living organism without cell walls,” which obviously includes humans. Alfred is choosing to squeeze in all the extra meaning about being made in God’s image, and his choice to jam that extraneous content into the definition does not convert it into a First Amendment issue.

      Can the state or federal government use drugs intended only for animals to execute someone who denies he or she is an animal?

      Yes. For example, the court could say, “Since ‘animal’ only means a multicellular living organism, and that clearly includes the defendant, there is no harm here.” When Alfred denies that he is an animal, he is defining “animal” in an unusual way that the law doesn’t intend. His choice to use that particular definition doesn’t have any effect on the government, since the court will presume they used the word in the usual way in lieu of any evidence or serious argument to the contrary.

      Would that not be cruel and unusual punishment as well as a violation of the right to religious freedom?

      It would not. It’s not an Eighth Amendment violation because (assuming the injection/chemical itself passes muster) there’s nothing cruel, unusual, or even punitive about assuming that human beings are animals in the biological sense. And it’s not a First Amendment violation because there’s no First Amendment right to prevent the government from using a definition because you don’t like one particular possible interpretation of that definition, without any evidence that such an interpretation is intended, implied, or ever applied by the statute. In other words, Alfred’s unusual choice of definitions doesn’t impair his own freedom to exercise his religion, and the statute as applied doesn’t affect his right to exercise his religion either.

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 16, 2015 at 5:13 PM

        Colin
        Re: Your message of/on, April 15, 2015 at 11:04 PM.
        AGAIN, I ask you, Colin, HOW IS IT that other people were charged with the SAME charges as Alfred Adask, AND, those other people were represented by licensed attorneys, AND WE KNOW the motions, etc. FROM those licensed attorneys were not, frivolous, specious, spurious. nonsensical, etc, & YET EVERYONE of those people being REPRESENTED LOST. “PROPER” paperwork did not HELP THEM. WHY will you not ANSWER ME AS TO WHY THEY LOST? You have many reasons as to what happened with Alfred & WHY he DID NOT LOSE, then please give at least ONE reason WHY the properly represented other people LOST.

         
      • Colin

        April 18, 2015 at 5:38 PM

        HOW IS IT that other people were charged with the SAME charges as Alfred Adask . . . & YET EVERYONE of those people being REPRESENTED LOST.

        Did that happen, or did you make it up? My understanding was that the entire case was dismissed.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 19, 2015 at 8:36 PM

        Colin,
        I asked, >HOW IS IT that other people were charged with the SAME charges as Alfred Adask & YET EVERYONE of those people being REPRESENTED LOST?

        You answered,> “Did that happen, or did you make it up? My understanding was that the entire case was dismissed.”

        First, thank you for responding. I am not trying to make excuses, but from what I concluded, & I ADMIT I kept this in my mind, what shows below, in my mind, was not any kind of win. Alfred said, in MOOA #!, > I am one of seven defendants being sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $25,000 per day. Each. That’s $750,000 per month and over $9 million per year for EACH alleged defendant. The issue centers on the manufacture and distribution of colloidal silver, which the government declares to be a “drug”.

        This case started with an investigation in A.D. 2001 against the original three defendants: a husband, his wife and their corporation. They reportedly spent $160,000 on attorneys, went broke, filed for divorce and left the state of Texas.

        Thanks to you, Colin, you did make me aware I WAS mistaken in my “overall” conclusion because, I thought Alfred WAS the ONLY one out of the 7 defendants who “proceeded” on his own while the other 6 had “Counsel”. Also, I am not trying to hide, in any way, avoiding to answer for my “overall” inaccurate conclusion. I just made some incorrect conclusions. NOW, with that answer from me, tell me this. Since I believe I am correct by saying the “Government” spent a lot of “money” & a lot of “time” on this case, WHY after spending a lot of money & a lot of time, was the decision reached to just drop the case? It looks to me like the only real winners were the Attorneys who were paid for “their “representation of the other defendants”. ALSO, it seems to me the “Government” spending a lot of time & money on any case only to eventually drop it is a “sign of somebody not knowing very much, aka, incompetency. I LOST my apparently “unsaved” notes, I thought I had saved, on this matter. I always stand to be corrected & I do thank you for making me aware I was, well, let’s say, not altogether right.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 19, 2015 at 8:57 PM

        Colin,
        P.S. A lot of “money” means, nearly $500,000. A lot of time means, around 7 years,
        The Attorney General’s office admits that after seven years of investigation and hearings (estimated to have cost “this state” nearly $500,000), < Excerpt from, MOOA #1

        Dear Colin, It looks like the "real losers" are whoever comprises "this state" AND, "whoever" reportedly spent $160,000 on attorneys, went broke, filed for divorce and left the state of Texas.
        Also, I say it's a sorry state of affairs to "be declared the winner" AFTER the Government quits battering & hammering anyone into smithereens. What a way to win. BUT, IT'S THE LEGAL SYSTEM & this IS, the way IT IS. I call going into the ring & finally knocking the opponent OUT is not much of a WIN when I have to be practically carried out of the ring to my dressing room. THEN, only to recuperate to do the same thing over again and again, AND AGAIN AFTER THAT. Sometimes the "getting up" is worse than taking the fall.

         
    • Adask

      April 8, 2015 at 12:14 AM

      I think the argument could be valid. Whether anyone would listen to it is another thing.

       
  5. Joe L'Amarca

    April 7, 2015 at 8:59 PM

    Problem is that all the citizen wants to talk about law , and no one understands the diff. between Law and legalized , best example is the coinage act of 1792 , and the legalized legal tender act !
    Now Mr. Adask ! if you want to discuss law , wich is U S Constitutional Law , and and watered down legalized theft ?
    If you can’t correctly answear that here is my email josephlamarca@hotmail.com

     
  6. Gene

    April 7, 2015 at 10:06 PM

    The Statute of 1776 has the word Citizen written in it, & the signers therefore, as I see it, were “fellow Citizens.”
    “He has constrained our fellow Citizens……………”
    Additionally, we have this. “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects.. with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”
    CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472.

    “The words ‘sovereign people’ are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”
    Scott v. Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.

    What is there to be leery of about the word, Citizen/citizen, as described above? I am not referring to the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen

     
    • Adask

      April 8, 2015 at 12:37 AM

      The word “Citizens” appears once in the “Declaration of Independence” in the context of “fellow Citizens” who had been seized on the high seas by Great Britain and forced to work on English ships. These seizures took place before the “Declaration” was even contemplated. Thus these must’ve been “fellow Citizens” of the Colonies owned and operated by Great Britain. These were not “fellow Citizens” of the yet to be created 13 States, or the Union, or the “United States”.

      Thus,the “fellow Citizens” referenced were not “Citizens” of the States, Union or “United States”.

      Nevertheless, the “Declaration” does not allege that Great Britain seized the “Citizens” of France, Germany, Spain, etc. Those sorts of seizures may have taken place, but the only seizures complained of were those of “fellow Citizens” of the colonies owned by Great Britain. This implies that those who were “Citizens” of Great Britain or of Great Britain’s colonies were subject to being taken captive by Great Britain and “impressed” into laboring or even fighting for Great Britain.

      I would bet that Great Britain understood clearly that it could capture and impress its own “Citizens” but not the “citizens” of other nations. If so, the Declaration offers evidence that being a “Citizen” of Great Britain’s colonies was a dangerous political status that left the colonists liable to being taken prisoner and essentially “enslaved” by Great Britain. That conclusion seems consistent with the liabilities of being a “citizen of the United States” that we talked about on last night’s radio show.

       
      • Gene

        April 8, 2015 at 12:59 AM

        “The People, that entire body called the State.” Well’s v. Bain 75 Penn. St. 39; and,
        “The people of this state, as the successors of their former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9, page 20, and,
        Citizen, “One of the Sovereign People.” Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393/404; Federalist #78; Penhallow v. Doan, 3 Dall. 54, 93; 2 Elliot’s Debates 94; Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.

        Citizens: Subjects. The members of this society, or the individual units whose association forms the body politic known as the state, are called citizens or subjects; the former term (Citizens) being used in states having republcan forms of government; the latter (Subjects) in those in which monarchial institutions exist.” Accord, The Elements of lntemational Law, 4th ed. George Davis, Harper and Brothers, Publishers.
        Subject. Constitutional law. “One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.” Swiss National. ins. Co. v . Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 69 L. Ed. 504.

         
      • Jim

        April 8, 2015 at 12:55 PM

        Now it seems the people of the states by some artifice are being seized by the scheme operating out of DC.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 14, 2015 at 6:58 PM

        Alfred Adask,
        @ > In the end MOOA, is not a “legal” argument so much as a spiritual and/or “political” argument.

        I see it the SAME way & I believe Jethro does too.It appears the reason SOME other people do not see it the same way, is explained in, Romans 1:28, &, 2nd Corinthians 4:4

        And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

        In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 15, 2015 at 7:58 PM

        To Alfred,
        You say, > For some others, who deny the implications I see in Genesis 1:26-28, evidence of the sort you’ve just presented will continue to mount until those who deny the obvious implications of Genesis 1:26-28 will be exposed as dullards, trolls or government agents.

        I did ask our Father to direct you to that “additional evidence”. I am SO HAPPY my prayer was answered. I like this translation: > When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
        the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him,
        and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen,and also the beasts of the field,
        the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.
        O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! Psalm 8:3-9

         
      • Adask

        April 15, 2015 at 8:50 PM

        Amen–and Airborne.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 26, 2015 at 1:49 AM

        Dear Brother Alfred, You said, in pertinent part, > The word “Citizens” appears once in the “Declaration of Independence” in the context of “fellow Citizens” who had been seized on the high seas by Great Britain and forced to work on English ships

        Part of Washington’s farewell speech which applies here, at least to me, > ” Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

        I still do not have a problem with the word, “Citizen” because I believe I KNOW what it at least ORIGINALLY meant. But, I also know that if I try to explain that I am a “Citizen” in the original meaning to anyone comprising the “current system”, a competency hearing will be scheduled with an employed current system Psychiatrist. I love your “Creed”. I don’t believe “they” will. I believe Colin will describe it as just another “nonsensical fantasy idea”.Fear not little flock. It IS the END result that matters.This IS what matters to me.

         
  7. Colin

    April 7, 2015 at 10:33 PM

    Wasn’t able to listen to tonight’s episode. I realize it’s not practical, but I wish there were a transcript I could read over coffee, it would be much more convenient!

     
    • Toland

      April 7, 2015 at 11:43 PM

      The show is usually archived at americanvoiceradio dot com, though sometimes an episode will not be posted, or it will be posted several days after it aired.

       
      • Colin

        April 7, 2015 at 11:47 PM

        Thanks, I catch it that way more often than on the radio. But I read faster than I listen, I’d rather have a transcript. That’s probably not possible, though.

         
    • Gene

      April 8, 2015 at 12:53 AM

      Colin,
      @ I read faster than I listen
      True.

       
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 14, 2015 at 6:28 PM

      COLIN,
      @ > The First Amendment does not give you a right to take a word in a statute, redefine it in a particular way, then complain about the redefinition you invented.

      What about the 9th Article in ADDITION, aka AMENDMENT?

       
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 24, 2015 at 1:59 PM

      Colin,
      The fantasy makes it easy to pretend to be an expert, and feel like a righteous crusader. But is it more moral to live in fantasy, or to do hard work and engage the real, outside world?
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      If I had a conscious convicting knowledge that my life on earth is all there is, & the real outside world, as you call it, will always be this way, I would be on your side/train. I would be with you, & I would be a fool not to be. BUT, I have a conscious convicting knowledge that my life on earth is NOT all there is, & the real outside world, as you call it, will NOT always be this way. I also KNOW you think by me saying this, I fantasize & live in fantasy land.

       
  8. Toland

    April 7, 2015 at 11:42 PM

    Al said, “The definition provided at Genesis 1:26-28 defines man and animals to be two, separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive categories.”

    Genesis 1:26-28 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’

    Al, the word “animal” doesn’t appear here, so it’s unclear what you mean by a definition being provided.

    The general category of animals isn’t even addressed in this passage. Rather, various types of animals are mentioned, but nowhere is anything said about all animals – i.e. animals as such.

    So this passage doesn’t appear to exclude man from the category of animals, simply because no categorical statements concerning animals in general are made.

    Could you point out the specific language in this passage that you interpret as making the categories of man and animal mutually exclusive?

     
    • Adask

      April 8, 2015 at 1:08 AM

      Read the text of Genesis 1:26-28. The distinction between man and animals is obvious. Those verses say that mankind (who are expressly “made in God’s image“) are given “dominion” or “rule” over all fish, bird, land creatures that are not “made in God’s image”. The “animals” are those flesh and blood creatures that are not made in God’s image. The distinction between “man” and “animals” is based on whichever creatures are, or are not, “made in God’s image“–men are; animals are not.

       
      • Henry

        April 8, 2015 at 2:03 AM

        Adask wrote > The “animals” are those flesh and blood creatures that are not made in God’s image.

        Why do you assume the legislator who wrote “man or other animals” intended this definition of “animal” rather than one of the definitions that includes men made in God’s image?

         
      • Joe

        April 9, 2015 at 11:31 AM

        Al, I believe one could apply the rule of statutory construction known as “ejusdem generis” to prove that mankind cannot be classified in the same category as animals, because the rule requires that every type of entity named in the statute must possess the same attributes, or in other words, belong to the same general class. Only man was created in the image of God, only man was infused with a breath of life that caused him to become a living soul, and only man was given dominion over other living creatures. Presently, I believe the statutory definition of “man and other animals” is plainly in conflict with Biblical law. To resolve the conflict, the term “man” must either be disregarded in the reading of the statute, as though it were a nullity, or be given a statutory definition elsewhere whereby it becomes defined as possessing the characteristics of an “animal.”

        The arguments recently posited by Brother Ted Weiland have given me much cause lately to reconsider the wisdom of embracing the U.S. Constitution as a desirable form of government, particularly in light of the fact that, as a practical matter, it has abjectly failed to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the American people. I agree with him that it was an act of idolatry to replace The Living God as our source of rule and authority with “We the People.” I also agree with him in that I have yet to find any scriptural authority for “inalienable rights” of man. All I have found thus far are duties of man to God (e.g. the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep his commandments), and gifts of God to men (e.g. Ecclesiastes 3:13, the fruit of all a man’s labor is the gift of God.)

         
      • Jethro!

        April 12, 2015 at 9:25 PM

        @Henry: “If there is one thing we know for sure, it’s that the legislature did NOT use the “commonly understood meaning” of the word “animal”, since that meaning EXCLUDES man.”

        There are particular faiths whose definition of animal doesn’t exclude man. Evolution is one of those faiths. So are certain “sciences”. There was a popular song that went: “♫♪ You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals / So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel ♫♪” Certain political objectives certainly benefit from considering man a subset of animal. Each promote a worldview in direct conflict with Christianity. By defining man as another kind of animal, war is effectively declared on the Christian worldview and Christianity as a foundation of American law. They’re announcing that a new faith has taken over, though in a surreptitious manner. However, no man can be compelled into their faith and be subject their “law”.

         
      • Colin

        April 13, 2015 at 1:50 PM

        There are particular faiths whose definition of animal doesn’t exclude man.

        Christians, for example. Obviously some Christians disagree, but I think most would say that humans are a kind of animal with a soul. Carl Linnaeus, the 18th century scientist and Christian who devised the taxonomic system we use (more or less) today, placed humans within the Kingdom Animalia.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 14, 2015 at 7:50 PM

        Adask
        April 8, 2015 at 1:08 AM

        Psalm 8

        4.What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

        5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

        6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

        7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;

        8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas: AND,

        I will praise You because I have been remarkably and wonderfully made.
        Your works are wonderful, and I know this very well. Psalm 139:14

        I cannot find ANYWHERE in the Bible where anything like what David says refers to ANYTHING BUT A MAN !! Some of the posters are saying they are more aware of animals & what animal means than what “God” inspired King David to say about” MANKIND”

         
      • Adask

        April 15, 2015 at 1:17 PM

        For me, the implications of Genesis 1:26-28 are too obvious to be denied.

        For some others, who deny the implications I see in Genesis 1:26-28, evidence of the sort you’ve just presented will continue to mount until those who deny the obvious implications of Genesis 1:26-28 will be exposed as dullards, trolls or government agents.

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 24, 2015 at 1:34 PM

      Toland,
      @ > I expect the judge or prosecutor may simply whip out a dictionary and tell the jury that by “man or other animals” the MOOA legislature simply meant “man or other animate beings ” or “man or other breathing creatures”, etc., and nowhere did the legislature intend anything contrary to man being made in God’s image.
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Maybe it’s me & I have a mental hangup, & maybe this question is stupid, or loony, but HOW can other animate beings, &/or, other breathing creatures, be SUBJECT to the Drug Laws? I KNOW there is SOMETHING about this I am just not getting. Please answer.

       
  9. Roger

    April 8, 2015 at 1:35 AM

    @Toland

    > the word “animal” doesn’t appear here

    Actually, the phrase “wild animals” does appear, though you’re probably thinking of the KJV, where the word “animal” does not appear in any form.

    > Could you point out the specific language in this passage that you interpret as making the categories of man and animal mutually exclusive?

    I doubt it. As many times as I have read Genesis 1:26-28, which is only about 100 words long, I still haven’t found a basis for claiming that man and animal are mutually exclusive categories. In fact, the category of “all animals” isn’t even referred to in Genesis 1:26-28.

    Perhaps we can get something a bit more specific from Al to help us out here. What are the specific words in Genesis 1:26-28 by which reference is made to the category “all animals”?

    Anyway, this discussion is largely moot, given that scripture itself tells us man is an animal. In the original Hebrew text, Genesis 2:7 says man was created a “nephesh”, a word meaning “a breathing creature”.

    As we have discussed before, the Latin word “animalis”, from which the English word “animal” derives, also means “a breathing creature”. So “nephesh” and “animalis” are synonyms.

    Therefore, when Genesis 2:7 says man was created a “nephesh”, this could be translated to say man was created an “animalis”, or animal – that is, a breathing creature.

     
    • Jethro!

      April 8, 2015 at 11:07 AM

      Both man and animals may be “נֶפֶשׁ nephesh”, breathing beings, but not all נֶפֶשׁ nephesh are man.

       
      • Roger

        April 8, 2015 at 5:43 PM

        That’s correct. Man is a “nephesh” (Hebrew) = “animalis” (Latin) = “animal” (English), i.e. a breathing creature. However, not every animal, i.e. breathing creature, is a man.

         
      • Jethro!

        April 9, 2015 at 3:24 PM

        @Roger “Man is a ‘nephesh’ (Hebrew) = ‘animalis’ (Latin) = ‘animal’ (English)”

        Not quite the full story. While “nephesh” — “the breath of life” — could be used regarding an animal, that does not mean it is always used regarding an animal.

         
      • Roger

        April 9, 2015 at 4:05 PM

        Jethro,

        Of course, “nephesh” is not always used in reference to an animal, because some definitions of “animal” exclude man.

        The relevant point is that the meaning of “nephesh” – i.e. “a breathing creature”, which you find when looking up this word in Strong’s Concordance – is identical to one of the meanings of “animal”: specifically, the meaning which “animal” retains from its Latin root “animalis”.

        Therefore, since the Bible refers to man as a “nephesh”, there is a Biblically correct way to refer to man as an “animal” – namely by using that definition of “animal” which is also the definition of “nephesh”, i.e. “a breathing creature”.

        We’ll know for sure if the MOOA legislature used this (or similar) definition of “animal” when we finally confirm the specific definition of “animal” they in fact intended.

         
      • Jethro!

        April 10, 2015 at 9:45 AM

        Roger,

        Man and animal are both “nephesh” only in the sense they both have the “breath of life”, nothing more. When God created man in His image in Gen. 1:26-27, the Hebrew word used for man is “אָדָם ‘adam”; however when He created cattle and beasts — not made in God’s image –, the words used are “בְּהֵמָה bĕhemah” and “חַי chay” respectively. Gen. 1:26 clearly states that “‘adam” has dominion over “bĕhemah”, and nowhere does scripture state “‘adam” is a type of “bĕhemah” or “chay”.

        So no, there is not a “Biblically correct way to refer to man as an ‘animal.'”

         
      • Roger

        April 10, 2015 at 10:20 AM

        > Man and animal are both “nephesh” only in the sense they both have the “breath of life”, nothing more.

        That’s enough.

        It’s possible that the MOOA legislature used the definition of “animal” that is identical with the definition of the Biblical word “nephesh” – i.e. “a breathing creature”.

        If that’s the case, then in writing “man or other animals” the MOOA legislature did what the Bible itself does: categorize man as “a breathing creature”.

        Strong’s Concordance:

        nephesh (H5315) – properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality

        Genesis 2:

        Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.

        being = nephesh (in the original text)

         
      • Jethro!

        April 10, 2015 at 1:32 PM

        Roger, you’re committing a composition error/fallacy. Just because man and animal share some common traits — such as “nephesh” “the breath of life” — doesn’t mean man is an animal any more than man is a plant because both contain water.

        If your interpretation of how the MOOA legislature used the definition of “animal” were correct, meaning “nephesh” a breathing creature — a term interchangeable between man and animal — then that renders “man or other animals” to –> “breathing creatures or other breathing creatures”. Such a superfluous reading violates “the anti-superfluousness canon” of statutory construction. No dice.

         
      • Roger

        April 10, 2015 at 3:41 PM

        @Jethro

        > “Just because man and animal share some common traits… doesn’t mean man is an animal…”

        Of course! No one is asserting that logic. You’re contradicting a strawman.

        The MOOA legislature, in stating “man or other animals”, clearly implied man is an animal. But we don’t know what they meant by “animal”. So we’re speculating until research discovers their precise intended meaning.

        Meanwhile, one of the possible definitions of “animal” intended by the MOOA legislature happens to be identical to the definition of the Biblical word “nephesh” which Genesis 2:7 applies to man.

        Therefore, it is possible that the MOOA legislature, by implying man is an “animal”, simply meant what the Bible means when describing man as a “nephesh”: Man is a “breathing creature”.

        Again, the definition from Strong’s Concordance:

        nephesh (H5315) – properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality.

        > that renders “man or other animals” to –> “breathing creatures or other breathing creatures”

        No. It renders “man or other animals” to “man or other breathing creatures”, which has precedent in the Bible’s use of the word “nephesh”.

         
      • Henry

        April 10, 2015 at 4:20 PM

        Roger,

        In the following citations, words translated from “nephesh”, through which the Bible puts man and other animals in a single category, are bolded.

        Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

        Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.

        Leviticus 24:18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.

         
      • Jethro!

        April 12, 2015 at 10:30 AM

        Roger,

        It’s become obvious your obsession with “nephesh” — a VERY broad word that can also refer to a ghost, lust, pleasure, etc. (which you omitted from Strong’s definition) — is simply an attempt to muddy the waters.

        If the “MOOA legislature” wanted to reference biblical definitions of man and animal, it’s easy to determine their respective unambiguous biblical meanings:

        man = “אָדָם ‘adam”
        cattle/beasts = “בְּהֵמָה bĕhemah”
        beasts = “חַי chay”

        ‘adam does not conflate with bĕhemah or chay. It’s no more difficult than that.

         
      • Henry

        April 12, 2015 at 10:55 AM

        Jethro, you omitted a relevant equation:

        animal = “nephesh”

        Strong’s dictionary tells us “nephesh” means “breathing creature” (among other things which are not germane to Roger’s point).

        Perhaps by “man or other animals” the intent of the “MOOA legislature” was to say “man or other breathing creatures”.

        Since the Bible itself refers to man as a “nephesh”, it’s okay for the “MOOA legilsature” to have done so also.

         
      • Jethro!

        April 12, 2015 at 5:17 PM

        Henry, if by writing “man or other animals” the “MOOA legislature” meant “man or other breathing creatures” they could have and would have said so. The words “breathing” and “creatures” were within their vocabulary, so they knew exactly what they were doing when constructing statutory language. It is axiomatic that “There are no accidents in politics,” so use of the word “animal” importing its commonly understood meaning is deliberate.

         
      • Henry

        April 12, 2015 at 6:03 PM

        If there is one thing we know for sure, it’s that the legislature did NOT use the “commonly understood meaning” of the word “animal”, since that meaning EXCLUDES man.

        Applying the “commonly understood meaning” of “animal” to “man or other animals” makes this phrase a piece of self-contradictory nonsense like “man or other vegetables”.

        Therefore, given that statutory construction credits the legislature with at least making logically coherent statements, the legislature didn’t use the “commonly understood meaning” of “animal”, and it’s up to us to discover what meaning they did use.

         
      • Adask

        April 12, 2015 at 7:17 PM

        I don’t particularly care what meaning the legislature attached to the the word “animal”. The essence of the MOOA argument is that;

        1) A fundamental principle of the Christian and Jewish faiths is that man (as per Genesis 1:26-28 and 9:6, and “Thou shalt not kill”) is the only living creature made in God’s image and therefore cannot be cannot be an “animal”.

        2) I am a Christian;

        3) The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 1.6 of The Constitution of The State of Texas guaranteed my right to freedom of religion as well as my right to be free from government’s “establishment” of religion;

        4) As a member of the Christian faith, I cannot be presumed to be an “animal” nor can I be treated as an animal by government laws without violating my freedom of religion and/or subjecting me to a government established “religion” such a secular humanism, paganism, or even Satanism.

        5) Additionally, degrading any group of mankind to the status of “animal” is an act of genocide.

        The argument is not about whatever meaning the government gives to “animals”. The argument is that the government can’t define any Christian or Jew as an “animal” without violating their freedom of religion.

        More, the argument is not simply legal, but also political. If the MOOA defense were properly presented and, if necessary, appealed–it would jeopardize the prison-industrial complex (70% of Federal prisoners are allegedly in prison for drub-related offenses; that means those convicts are in prison because they’re presumed to be “animals”), the War on Drugs (based on the presumption that the people are “animals”) the police state (much of what the police do is based on the war on drugs–which presumes the people to be “animals”); the billions (trillions?) of dollars in profits made by Big Pharma (all of those drugs are sold and regulated based on the presumption that y’all are nothing but “animals”); and even American medicine (based on “drugs” and (medical) “devices” which are both defined in terms of MOOA); Ohh, and then there’s the FDA which regulates “food” and “drugs” and both terms are defined with MOOA. All of those institutions, all of that power, all of the billions in dollars of profits that they generate, are based on the presumption that man is an “animal”. The MOOA defense I’ve advanced challenges that presumption on the basis of freedom of religion.

        Is this defense guaranteed to work in court? Of course not. Nothing is guaranteed in an American court.

        But the political and financial threat that’s inherent in the MOOA defense is so great that a prudent prosecutor should not easily proceed against a defendant who is capable of launching a MOOA defense.

        Can the government beat me in court? Of course they can. But there’s always a chance that I might win at the trial court level, or on appeal. For the government the remote chance that I might win is like playing Russian Roulette. IF I get the right jury or appellate court and win on the MOOA defense, all of the institutions previously describe will be destabilized and perhaps disintegrated. Does government want me in jail so badly that they’re willing to risk all of those institutions? Probably not. That’s not law. That’s not litigation. That’s politics.

         
      • Henry

        April 12, 2015 at 7:57 PM

        > A fundamental principle of the Christian and Jewish faiths is that man (as per Genesis 1:26-28 and 9:6, and “Thou shalt not kill”) is the only living creature made in God’s image and therefore cannot be cannot be an “animal”.

        Al, your premise (man is made in God’s image) leads to your conclusion (man cannot be an “animal”) if you choose a definition of “animal” that excludes men made in God’s image.

        But there are other definitions you could have chosen. For example, Black’s 4th has the following under “animal”:

        “Any animate being which is endowed with the power of voluntary motion.”

        Since it’s possible the MOOA legislature intended a definition like the foregoing from Black’s Law, which obviously includes men made in God’s image, it clearly does matter what meaning the MOOA legislature attached to the word “animal”.

         
      • Adask

        April 12, 2015 at 8:26 PM

        No, it’s not my premise. It’s God’s premise, or the Bible’s premise, or a premise of the Jewish and/or Christian faiths. Genesis 1:26-28 declares that man (made in God’s image) is given dominion over the animals (that are not made in God’s image). That “dominion” establishes that man and animals are at least as different as sovereigns from subjects.

        I am not “choosing” to define man as something other than an “animal”. The author of Genesis 1:26-28 is making that choice. Insofar as that choice is fundamental to the Jewish and Christian faiths, and I’m a Christian, I cannot be declared to be an animal without violating the Christian faith.

        As for Black’s definitions, what do they have to do with the Bible? Black’s definition of “animal” is contrary to the definition seen in the Bible. Black’s definition is unbiblical, ungodly, and perhaps even blasphemous.

        Yes, the legislature may have intended the definition of “animals” to match the definition found in Black’s. So what? What’s that got to do with my Freedom of Religion that’s guaranteed by 1st Amendment.

        Although the 1st Amendment may guarantee the right of publication and free press to Black’s Law Dictionary, there is no Freedom of Religion to support Black’s dictionary.

        Incidentally, Black’s 9th defines “animal” as “any living creature other than a human being”. I don’t like the term “human being” (some statutes appear to define “human” to mean “animal”). Even so, it appears that Blacks 9th recognizes a distinction between “animals” and “human beings” that is mutually exclusive.

         
      • Jethro!

        April 12, 2015 at 9:26 PM

        @Henry: “If there is one thing we know for sure, it’s that the legislature did NOT use the “commonly understood meaning” of the word “animal”, since that meaning EXCLUDES man.”

        There are particular faiths whose definition of animal doesn’t exclude man. Evolution is one of those faiths. So are certain “sciences”. There was a popular song that went: “♫♪ You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals / So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel ♫♪” Certain political objectives certainly benefit from considering man a subset of animal. Each promote a worldview in direct conflict with Christianity. By defining man as another kind of animal, war is effectively declared on the Christian worldview and Christianity as a foundation of American law. They’re announcing that a new faith has taken over, though in a surreptitious manner. However, no man can be compelled into their faith.

         
      • Henry

        April 12, 2015 at 9:57 PM

        Al said > I am not “choosing” to define man as something other than an “animal”. The author of Genesis 1:26-28 is making that choice.

        Where, exactly?

        In all my readings of scripture, in all the times I’ve checked, double checked, and triple checked your citations (e.g. Genesis 1:26-28) in your many articles on this topic, I have never encountered a definition of “animal” in the Bible.

        Considering how fundamental this detail is to your MOOA theory, isn’t it worthwhile to get specific about which Biblical text – i.e. the exact words in scripture – you’re interpreting as a definition of the word “animal”?

         
      • Toland

        April 12, 2015 at 11:49 PM

        Black’s definition of “animal” is contrary to the definition seen in the Bible.

        If and when you have the time Al, please post the verbatim text of this definition of “animal” which you have seen in the Bible.

        Thanks.

         
      • Adask

        April 13, 2015 at 10:28 AM

        As you know, there is no verbatim definition for “animal” in Genesis. But then, there’s no single, verbatim definition for any word that appears in Genesis or any other book in the Bible. According to Strong’s Concordance, almost all of the Hebrew words used in the Old Testament have multiple definitions–some of which have no obvious relationship to other definitions. While Strong’s defines words in the Bible, so far as I know, the Bible offers no definitions of the words used therein. If there are instances where the Bible expressly defines words, they are few and far between.

        Do you think we should abandon the Bible because it includes no (or virtually no) express definitions of terms? Should we abandon Christianity because the Bible doesn’t define “Christian,” “God,” “man” or “animals”?

        However, despite the lack of an express definition of “animals” in Genesis, a definition can nevertheless be inferred. When God refers to all the fish in the sea, all the birds in the air, and all the creatures on the land, He is metaphorically referring to all of the living creatures on the earth. In English, all of those living creatures can be referred to as animals. These “living creatures” do not expressly include the plants. When God gives man “dominion” over all other living creatures, God distinguishes man from “animals”. The basis of that distinction is that man alone is “made in God’s image”.

        As long as we’re searching for verbatim definitions for the word “animal,” why don’t you give me the Bible’s verbatim definitions for “man” and “God”?

        Your delight in fixating on express definitions reminds me of another group in the Bible who liked to debate the letter of the law without ever grasping the spirit of the law: I think they were called Pharisees. I don’t think God liked them.

        But, hey, if the MOOA hypothesis is too complex, too contradictory, too stupid, or too spiritual for you to comprehend and apply, just leave it alone.

        All I can really say is that, with the Grace of God, the MOOA defense worked for me. I’ve never thought that the MOOA defense would work for everyone. I’ve thought from the beginning that a man or woman who didn’t really believe in the Good LORD couldn’t successfully apply the MOOA defense. I’ve though all along that a real thug might try to use that defense to beat a drug rap, but I’ve doubted that he could succeed. I could be wrong, but I’ve doubted that a real thug would have sufficient spiritual strength or standing to wield a spiritual argument like MOOA. MOOA is certainly not for atheists or pagans. It’s probably not for most “double-minded” men.

        If the spirit hasn’t called you to understand or even apply MOOA, that’s cool with me. So far as I know, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of prosecuting the case agaisnt me and six other defendants never understood the MOOA argument. It always amazed me that he didn’t understand. But Judge John K. Deitz (Chief Administrative Judge for The County of Travis) understood. He got it. Of course, he was a genuinely brilliant man. I liked him. I still wish we could’ve been friends. I speculate about what’s going on in this world. He knows. He could’ve taught me a lot. But he understood MOOA. Presumably, somebody else in the Texas Attorney General’s Office (maybe Greg Abbott, the Texas AG back then and current Governor of Texas) also understood. In any case, the AAG in charge of the case never seemed to understand the MOOA argument. I don’t know why he didn’t/couldn’t understand what seemed then and now to me to be virtually irrefutable and all but crystal clear. Some people don’t have enough intelligence to understand. Some aren’t called to understand. Some just don’t get it. I know. I have no explanation.

        But anyone who looks can understand this: devised and presented by a lowly pro se, the MOOA defense was critical to causing the Attorney General to stop prosecuting a case where he’d invested six years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial investigations and hearings. Something strange and powerful broke loose in that case. Anyone who’s interested in understanding or wielding that power might do well to force himself to comprehend MOOA.

        In any case, I’m sure you must have scores of other defenses that you could use (and probably have used) to stop a case from being prosecuted by a State Attorney General who’s invested six years and almost one-half million dollars in pre-trial investigations and hearings. Make it easy on yourself. Just list three of the defenses you’ve devised, used or know about that have (or could have) shielded you from fines of $25,000/day.

        OK, OK, OK–not $25,000/day, just $1,000 a day. Or even $50 a day. How ’bout that? Can you point me to a defense that can reliably stop fines of $50 per day?

        In the end, Toland, you and other critics can nitpick all you like about the “letter of the law,” (precise definitions) but not one of those who criticize the MOOA defense can point to a comparably successful strategy that they’ve implemented. I was threatened with fines of $25,000 a day–$9 million per year. Have you ever faced similar jeopardy? Do you know of any other pro se who has? With the Grace of God, I was able to perceive the MOOA hypothesis and draft a defense that stopped the prosecution.

        You’ve never done anything comparable, Toland. I doubt that you know anyone else who has.

        So long as that’s true, I (with the Grace of God) achieved a victory that you might not be able to comprehend or emulate. And you’re not alone. I have no explanation why so many seem incapable or unwilling to understand MOOA. Nevertheless, virtually all of their quibbling about “letters of the law” (biblical definitions) is just so much trollin’ around.

        In the end, law is about words and words have multiple definitions. Because of the multiple definitions, all law is imprecise and often even contradictory. I don’t need precise definitions to win a case in court. I don’t need perfection. All I need is a strong argument that the judge and/or jury

        If you don’t understand that there’s a difference between man and animals, then you must not be much of a Christian or Jew. Your faith is weak or non-existent. That’s OK with me. I’m not here to save your soul. I’m just a blue-collared “watchman” who sits on a wall and sounds an alarm when I think I see potential danger on the horizon. If you don’t want to take my warning, that’s fine with me. If the Bible is true, so long as I sound the alarm, my soul is removed from jeopardy. Those who ignore the alarm are liable for whatever trouble befalls them.

        Eze 33:1 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
        Eze 33:2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
        Eze 33:3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
        Eze 33:4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
        Eze 33:5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
        Eze 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.
        Eze 33:7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.

        Within the context of Ezekiel 33:1-7, there are two primary classes of people: 1) the watchmen; and 2) the people of Israel. If the watchmen see trouble coming and fail to sound the alarm, God will hold the watchmen accountable. If the watchmen see the trouble coming and sound the alarm and the ordinary people ignore that alarm, God will hold the people accountable.

        But what if there was at third class of people in that story? What if there was a class of people who heard the alarm, and then worked as hard as they could to discourage others from listening to that alarm and preparing accordingly? What if there was a third group who complained that the watchmen hadn’t dotted all of their “i’s,” crossed all of their “t’s” and failed to submit their warnings in writing on octuplicate copies and therefore need not be considered or believed? If there were such a third group which was dedicated to obfuscating the watchmen’s warnings, do you think God would hold them accountable for preventing the people from hearing the warnings? Would God excuse such third group for merely being mischievous or legalistic? Or might He judge them as wicked?

        If there were such a third group today, what might we call them? Trolls? Ignoramuses? Fools? Goverenment agents?

         
      • Toland

        April 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM

        As you know, there is no verbatim definition for “animal” in Genesis…. When God refers to all the fish in the sea, all the birds in the air, and all the creatures on the land, He is metaphorically referring to all of the living creatures on the earth. In English, all of those living creatures can be referred to as animals.

        So now we’re talking about a definition of “animals” in the English language? If that’s the case, what did you mean by “the definition seen in the Bible”?

        Yes, in English, we refer to all those creatures as “animals”. Also in English, we can refer to man as an “animal” without attributing or denying anything to man contrary to the Bible. For example, the English word “animal” can simply mean an “animate being which is endowed with the power of voluntary motion” (Black’s Law).

        As long as we’re searching for verbatim definitions for the word “animal,” why don’t you give me the Bible’s verbatim definitions for “man” and “God”?

        Because I’m not claiming to find definitions of words in the Bible. If I did, I would quickly and gladly supply you with at least the verbatim text, if not a formal definition, from the Bible as proof.

        But, hey, if the MOOA hypothesis is too complex, too contradictory, too stupid, or too spiritual for you to comprehend and apply, just leave it alone.

        None of the above is true. In fact, I might apply the MOOA hypothesis in court. I think I comprehend your thesis reasonably well. I should, considering the time I’ve spent reading about it. However, before I try using this hypothesis in the real world, due diligence requires that I examine it closely. Presumably that’s what we’re all doing here.

        If I ever try the MOOA hypothesis in court, I have to be ready for challenge questions. One potential stumbling block I see is the existence of definitions of “animal” – in English dictionaries – that include man made in God’s image.

        I expect the judge or prosecutor may simply whip out a dictionary and tell the jury that by “man or other animals” the MOOA legislature simply meant “man or other animate beings ” or “man or other breathing creatures”, etc., and nowhere did the legislature intend anything contrary to man being made in God’s image.

        Now what? One must prepare for situations like this.

         
      • Adask

        April 13, 2015 at 1:13 PM

        I don’t care what their dictionary says. Thanks to the 1st Amendment, my Bible trumps their dictionary. My freedom of religion allows me to insist in the idea that I cannot be defined as an “animal” by Black’s or Bouviers, or Congress, the Senate and even Obama or perhaps Hillary.

        Am I guaranteed to win my defense? No.

        But given the potential political and financial repercussions if a jury believed me or if an appellate court ruled in my favor, no matter how unlikely it may that I will win, they government should be reluctant to that that chance. If they really, really want me, they might go ahead, fix the trial and find me guilty. But, if they did, they’d attract more attention to the MOOA defense and what would they win? Putting a senior citizen in prison? The game isn’t worth the candle. If they win, I go to prison. If I win, they war on drugs, police state, prison-industrial complex, Big Pharma profits and even American medicine might be seriously damaged and in some instances, destroyed.

        In the end MOOA, is not a “legal” argument so much as a spiritual and/or “political” argument. Almost everyone trying to give me a hard time about this theory seems to think that if he can figure out how to do it exactly right, then he might win in court. I’m trying to communicate the idea that, if you’re going to win the MOOA argument, you’ll probably have to do so by advancing the argument long before you get to court and thereby “scare” the drooly-constituted authorities into believing the argument is best left alone.

        All of this depends on finding a cop, or prosecutor or judge on the other side who has brains enough to see the potential implications if I happened to win in the trial court or on appeal. If they’re idiots and don’t comprehend the argument or the potential consequences, then we go to court and hope that there are one of more Christians on the jury who are smart enough to comprehend MOOA. If not, plan on being found guilty and taking your case to the appellate court.

        If you’re looking for strategies that are guaranteed to work first time, every time, I have none. This is a war, not a computerized chess game. There will be casualties. Maybe you, maybe me. If you’re unwilling to risk being a casualty, don’t enlist.

         
      • Colin

        April 13, 2015 at 2:35 PM


        4) As a member of the Christian faith, I cannot be presumed to be an “animal” nor can I be treated as an animal by government laws without violating my freedom of religion and/or subjecting me to a government established “religion” such a secular humanism, paganism, or even Satanism.

        You argument fails here (not just here, but definitely at least here). You are assuming a very particular and unusual definition of “animal.” You do not have any right to not be “presumed to be an ‘animal’” if “animal” is defined in the usual secular way—living multicellular organisms without a cell wall. Because your point 4 only matters if the law is using the word “animal” in your particular way, and you have no basis whatsoever for presuming that is how it was intended, and you have no evidence whatsoever that is how it is applied, and you cannot identify any way in which such a definition would actually impact your practice of your religion, this point fails. As I said, it’s not the only broken part of your argument, but it’s one of the most obvious.

        The First Amendment does not give you a right to take a word in a statute, redefine it in a particular way, then complain about the redefinition you invented.

        More, the argument is not simply legal, but also political. If the MOOA defense were properly presented and, if necessary, appealed–it would jeopardize the prison-industrial complex (70% of Federal prisoners are allegedly in prison for drub-related offenses; that means those convicts are in prison because they’re presumed to be “animals”), the War on Drugs (based on the presumption that the people are “animals”) the police state (much of what the police do is based on the war on drugs–which presumes the people to be “animals”); the billions (trillions?) of dollars in profits made by Big Pharma (all of those drugs are sold and regulated based on the presumption that y’all are nothing but “animals”); and even American medicine (based on “drugs” and (medical) “devices” which are both defined in terms of MOOA); Ohh, and then there’s the FDA which regulates “food” and “drugs” and both terms are defined with MOOA.

        None of this is correct. It does not matter how well you presented or appealed the MOOA defense. A first-year law student could identify the egregious legal and logical flaws in it, such as the one I identified above. So no lawyer or judge or politician would ever take it seriously.

        Even if they did, it wouldn’t have the effects you imagine. “MOOA” isn’t a necessary part of any of the laws you reference. Even if the definition had to change, it wouldn’t invalidate those laws. This is just simple logic; the court would just say, “Well, for magical pretend reasons we have to rule that ‘man or other animals’ is an unconstitutional definition. Since Congress has the power to enact legislation covering both man and ‘animals’ (under the particular Adask definition of the word), the law will be read as applying both to humans and to non-human animals, but the government may not take the position that humans are animals.”

        That would never happen, though. Instead, if any court ever took the MOOA argument seriously, they’d say instead, “It’s possible to read the statute as Adask does, using a religiously freighted meaning of the word ‘animal.’ But as Adask admits, that is not the only possible meaning of the word ‘animal’ that Congress could have intended. Since under the First Amendment Congress has no power to take a position on whether humans are made in God’s image or not, this court cannot take seriously the proposition that Congress intended to make an impermissible religious statement with a definition in a secular statute. Moreover, Adask has presented no evidence or argument to support his assumption that Congress meant to use this peculiar definition of the word ‘animal.’ Since the usual meaning of the word has no Constitutional impact on Adask’s rights, and does not establish any religion, the motion fails.” (Actually, the court would probably just say, “denied.” The point is that no judge would have any trouble at all seeing that your argument is a fantasy, not a serious logical or legal proposition.)

        All of those institutions, all of that power, all of the billions in dollars of profits that they generate, are based on the presumption that man is an “animal”.

        No they aren’t. Logically, you can see this by saying “man and also animals.” There’s no need to say that man is an animal, much less that man isn’t made in God’s image, in order to support drug laws. Congress has the power to regulate drugs for human consumption.

        Is this defense guaranteed to work in court? Of course not. Nothing is guaranteed in an American court.

        It is guaranteed not to work in court. It is as likely to succeed as a motion declaring yourself President For Life and dissolving all courts forever. You could file it every day in every case in every court for fifty years and you would not win once with the MOOA argument, because it is logically flawed and legally meaningless. You did not succeed with this argument in your case, either. You don’t know what happened in that case or why, and pretending that your ignorance is evidence that the motion succeeded is frankly a little dishonest.

        But the political and financial threat that’s inherent in the MOOA defense is so great that a prudent prosecutor should not easily proceed against a defendant who is capable of launching a MOOA defense.

        No lawyer would hesitate for a single second out of any fear that MOOA would succeed. It has a zero percent chance of succeeding. They might hesitate because they think, “Man, this guy is going to bury us in nonsense papers for years if we sue him,” but that’s a very different (and less honorable) proposition.

        But there’s always a chance that I might win at the trial court level, or on appeal.

        None.

        IF I get the right jury or appellate court and win on the MOOA defense, all of the institutions previously describe will be destabilized and perhaps disintegrated.

        Here’s an example of what’s going wrong with your reasoning process—you don’t know enough to seriously estimate your own chances. No jury would ever see this argument under any circumstances, because juries don’t hear motions. Your ignorance of the process is preventing you from objectively analyzing your own arguments, and your pride in your own abilities is preventing you from doing anything to remedy that ignorance (like taking a free law class). Even if your argument succeeded, it wouldn’t destabilize anything, because Congress can regulate drugs for humans without defining them as animals.

         
      • Toland

        April 13, 2015 at 4:42 PM

        Thanks to the 1st Amendment, my Bible trumps their dictionary.

        I completely agree, but so far it seems you have not explained how this principle applies to the MOOA defense. In order for the Bible to “trump” their dictionary, there has to an actual conflict between the Bible and their dictionary. Where exactly, in what exact words, do we find such a conflict in the actual Bible? For example, in court the conversation goes like this:

        You: The law I am charge with violating does not apply to me. This law applies to animals. However, I was made in God’s image and am therefore not an animal.

        Judge: The logic you present is flawed. While the law indeed says it applies to “animals”, this court is not concerned about what you mean by “animal” but rather is only concerned about what the legislature that wrote this law meant by “animal”. And by “animal” the legislature simply meant “any animate being which is endowed with the power of voluntary motion”. Men made in God’s image are “animate beings which are endowed with the power of voluntary motion”, are they not? Of course they are. Therefore, the law applies to you.

        Now you, Alfred, grab your Bible and read aloud the appropriate passage to trump this dictionary definition of the English word “animal”. You read scriptural text that prohibits any law categorizing you as an “animate being which is endowed with the power of voluntary motion”.

        What exactly is that Biblical text? So far, following up on every Biblical citation in every MOOA article at this blog has not uncovered it.

         
      • Jethro!

        April 14, 2015 at 10:52 AM

        Al,

        The kind of stuff the Colins and Tolands are putting forth here is merely a tactic known as “muddying the waters”. It’s to take a simple matter — the meaning of “animal” — and try to make it as confusing, ambiguous and uncertain as possible in order to distract from the significance of MOOA. If the men and women who wrote the “law” meant to say “man or other living multicellular organisms” or “man or other breathing creatures” they would have so stated. I certainly believe those words are in their vocabularies. This is not hard.

        You ought to take heart to observe when and how vehemently these folks come out of the woodwork as an indication of your effectiveness. MOOA is one of those occasions.

         
      • Adask

        April 14, 2015 at 11:17 AM

        I agree. Thanks for your understanding.

         
      • Toland

        April 14, 2015 at 12:19 PM

        If the men and women who wrote the “law” meant to say “man or other living multicellular organisms” or “man or other breathing creatures” they would have so stated.

        They did say “man or other living multicellular organisms”, because “animals” = “living multicellular organisms”.

        Or,

        They did say “man or other breathing creatures”, because “animals” = “breathing creatures”.

        Neither of these possibilities can be discounted, given the near-zero evidence of the specific meaning of “animal” intended by the legislature that wrote “man or other animals”.

        Given this near-zero evidence, it is arbitrary and misleading to simply assume an unconstitutional definition of “animal” and pin it on the MOOA legislature.

         
      • Roger

        April 14, 2015 at 6:38 PM

        Toland > “Given this near-zero evidence, it is arbitrary and misleading to simply assume an unconstitutional definition of “animal” and pin it on the MOOA legislature.”

        You said it, and Colin said something similar.

        Since the precise definition of “animal” intended by the legislature that wrote “man or other animals” is unavailable, the presumption is that they intended a definition in accord with the Constitution.

        So, until this precise definition of “animal” is discovered, we presume the MOOA legislature did not violate the First Amendment by using a definition that denies man is made in God’s image.

         
      • Jethro

        April 14, 2015 at 6:52 PM

        ^^^ Al, case and point regarding an ongoing attempt to “muddy the waters” above ^^^

         
      • Toland

        April 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM

        So, until this precise definition of “animal” is discovered, we presume the MOOA legislature did not violate the First Amendment by using a definition that denies man is made in God’s image.

        Of course. In fact, this presumption of constitutionality is required by the standard rules of statutory construction.

         
      • Roger

        April 15, 2015 at 2:32 PM

        Toland > “this presumption of constitutionality is required by the standard rules of statutory construction”

        Good point. The specific doctrine of statutory construction you probably mean is “constitutional doubt”. Here’s the Supreme Court referring to it in a passage that is often quoted in both state and federal jurisdictions:

        “It is elementary when the constitutionality of a statute is assailed, if the statute be reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, it is our plain duty to adopt that construction which will save the statute from constitutional infirmity.”

        – United States v. Delaware & Hudson Company, 1909

        In the MOOA case, construing “animal” to exclude men made in God’s image makes “man or other animals” a violation of the First Amendment and thus unconstitutional.

        Therefore, as prescribed by the doctrine of “constitutional doubt”, we instead choose one of the many definitions of “animal” that avoid this invalidation.

        We might “save the statute from constitutional infirmity” (as the Court phrased it) by ascribing to the word “animal” a definition like “animate being”, “multicellular organism without a cell wall” or “breathing creature”.

        These definitions of “animal” render “man or other animals” as “man or other animate beings”, “man or other multicellular organisms without a cell wall” and “man or other breathing creatures”, respectively. None of these deny man is made in God’s image.

        So, thanks to the “constitutional doubt” rule of statutory construction, the apparent conflict between the First Amendment and the MOOA law is resolved.

         
      • Colin

        April 15, 2015 at 11:04 PM

        The kind of stuff the Colins and Tolands are putting forth here is merely a tactic known as “muddying the waters”. It’s to take a simple matter — the meaning of “animal” — and try to make it as confusing, ambiguous and uncertain as possible in order to distract from the significance of MOOA.

        As Roger and Toland have pointed out, your beliefs about how the word “animal” should be read under the statute are not at all consistent with how statutes work. Your position is based on what you want to be true, rather than what is true, which is only a position you can maintain as long as you’re sufficiently ignorant of facts that challenge your preferred beliefs. So when those facts come up, you have a very convenient defense mechanism: it’s all a conspiracy, muddying the waters, don’t listen, don’t learn, don’t engage the real world, just burrow deeper into the fantasy.

        One way to tell whether MOOA is a serious argument or a fantasy like the one you’re promoting is to look at how its (very, very, very few) defenders approach detailed criticism. Do they answer it seriously, or invent make-believe stories to insulate themselves from having to address its flaws? Your make-believe is that the criticism is part of conspiracy, so no need to think about it. Alfred’s is that it worked before so it must be good (while simultaneously admitting, when pressed, that he actually doesn’t know if it worked at all), so no need to deal with those problems.

        The fantasy makes it easy to pretend to be an expert, and feel like a righteous crusader. But is it more moral to live in fantasy, or to do hard work and engage the real, outside world?

         
      • Henry

        April 17, 2015 at 9:48 AM

        Here ya go guys – from Supreme Court Justice Scalia on the constitutional doubt doctrine:

        “The doctrine of constitutional doubt does not require that the problem-avoiding construction be the preferable one – the one the Court would adopt in any event…. Rather, the doctrine of constitutional doubt comes into play when the statute is ‘susceptible of’ the problem-avoiding interpretation – when that interpretation is reasonable, though not necessarily the best.”

        Applying this doctrine to the MOOA law, a “problem-avoiding ninterpretation” is merely one that defines “animal” to include men made in God’s image. And there are many such definitions to choose from across multiple dictionaries.

        The doctrine of constitutional doubt is also known as the avoidance canon which Wikipedia describes thus:

        “If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems. In the US, this canon has grown stronger in recent history. The traditional avoidance canon required the court to choose a different interpretation only when one interpretation was actually unconstitutional. The modern avoidance canon tells the court to choose a different interpretation when another interpretation merely raises constitutional doubts.”

        Similar to the first example, an “interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems” is merely one that defines “animal” so that “man or other animals” includes men made in God’s image.

        And there are many such definitions.

         
    • Gene

      April 8, 2015 at 9:16 PM

      Roger,
      @ However, not every animal, i.e. breathing creature, is a man.
      Wow. ok then tell of ONE other animal that IS a man.

       
      • Bobby G Getahaircutnow

        April 8, 2015 at 10:40 PM

        AL – In Genesis, the (KJV) bible writes that animals were created after “his” (God) kind. Read for yourself >

        Gen: 1:24 – 25. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

        25. “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

        So, if man was created in his image (after his kind), and animals were also created after his kind, does it not make sense that man AND animals were all created after his kind?

        It appears that man and animals are the same, does it not? Could not man be the highest form of animal?

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 25, 2015 at 6:15 AM

      Roger,
      @ > We can be reasonably sure this was the MOOA legislature’s intention…………..”
      Proverbs 3:5-6, > Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight

       
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 30, 2015 at 12:27 AM

      Roger, You say, > though you’re probably thinking of the KJV, where the word “animal” does not appear in any form.
      Roger I have FOUND, 15, FIFTEEN DIFFERENT PLACES where the word, ANIMAL IS WRITTEN IN THE KJV AND IN EACH INSTANCE, ANIMAL IS DEFINED AS, BEHEMAH, AND ALL THE RESEARCH I AM AWARE OF THAT I CAN DO SAYS,Behemah, A LIVING CREATURE “OTHER” THAN A MAN.

       
  10. Harry

    April 8, 2015 at 9:19 AM

    In respect to citizenship in the United States, it has become a political obligation depending not on ownership of land, but on the ENJOYMENT of the protection of government, and it “binds the citizen to the observances of all laws of his sovereign.” Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492 (1863) Black’s 4rd Edition page 95 in the definition of the term “natural allegiance.”

    Keep in mind also that civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a WIDER sense, to all its inhabitants, and [this type of civil rights] are NOT CONNECTED WITH the organization or administration of government. They [this type of civil rights] include the rights of property, marriage, protection by the laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. Winnett v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N.W. 681. OR, as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a PERSON in virtue of his CITIZENSHIP IN A STATE or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. ALSO [civil rights is] a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the 13th and 14th amendments to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof. State of Iowa v. Railroad Co., C.C. Iowa, 37 F. 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; State v. Powers 51 N.J.L. 432, 17 A. 969 – Black’s 4th definition of RIGHT – civil rights.

    According to this definition there are three (3) different types of “civil rights” and one type has nothing to do with the organization or administration of government. Which type of civil rights are you presumed to have consented to exercise and enjoy?

     
  11. Adask

    April 8, 2015 at 11:43 AM

    Short answer: I don’t know.

    Expanded answer: I’m not worried about “civil rights”. I might have to use them, claim them under certain circumstances, but I am far more interested in establishing my standing to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights first declared in the Declaration of Independence.

     
    • Harry

      April 10, 2015 at 8:08 AM

      The “civil rights” that have nothing to do with the organization or administration of government are the unalienable Rights first declared in the Declaration of independence that you are interested in.

      The US Code states that “citizens of the United States have the “same” [similar, but not exactly] rights as do white citizens.”

      How do you understand this section of the US Code?

      Is there a difference between citizens of the United States and white citizens? What is the purpose of this section of the US Code if white citizens are also citizens of the United States at birth?

      Keep in mind that having the “same” rights does not necessarily mean you have the “identical” rights. Since there are three (3) different types of civil rights, one of which has nothing to do with the organization and administration of the government then from where do these rights come, if not from the Creator?

       
  12. Toland

    April 8, 2015 at 11:43 AM

    Okay, let’s take a closer look at Genesis 1:26-28 to see if it does or doesn’t say what Al claims it says. Al, please clarify your position if you find something wrong with the following.

    Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    Does this verse say man is not an animal? No. This verse says man has dominion over certain types of animals, perhaps nearly every type of animal, but nowhere does it say man is not an animal himself.

    Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Does this verse say man is not an animal? No. This verse doesn’t mention any relationship between being created in God’s image and the category of animal.

    Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    Does this verse say man is not an animal? No. This verse says man has dominion over certain types of animals, perhaps nearly every type of animal, but nowhere does it say man is not an animal himself.

    Al, I’m certainly not alone in wanting a more detailed explanation of how this passage in Genesis relates to your MOOA claims.

     
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 17, 2015 at 12:23 AM

      TOLAND, HENRY, &, ROGER
      @ > If and when you have the time Al, please post the verbatim text of this definition of “animal” which you have seen in the Bible.

      I AM NOT Al, BUT, THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL, AS ANIMAL IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE, HAS BEEN GIVEN. DO YOU AGREE, OR DISAGREE? HERE AGAIN IS THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL AS ANIMAL IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.

      Deuteronomy 14:6, Animal is defined as,
      ◄ 929. behemah ►
      Strong’s Concordance
      behemah: a beast, animal, cattle

      NOW !!!! BELOW IS THE DEFINITION OF MAN !!!
      Genesis 1:26, Man is defined as,
      ◄ 120. adam ►
      Strong’s Concordance
      adam: man, mankind
      BEHEMAH, &, ADAM ARE TWO DIFERENT BEINGS

       
  13. Adask

    April 8, 2015 at 12:09 PM

    1. I’ve published 48 articles that touch on the subject of “Man or other animals”. You can find them listed under the “Category” “Man or Other Animals” (“MOOA”) on the right side of this blog.

    2. If you want to learn exactly what I believe is true about MOOA, read as many of those articles as are necessary to convince you that my argument/insight is valid or idiotic.

    3. While it may be true that not only you, but also “others” would like me to provide a more detailed explanation of Genesis 1:26-28, I would like to fly around the room like Peter Pan. Therefore, I would like you to provide me with some Pixie Dust. When I receive the Pixie Dust, I’ll provide a more detailed explanation. In other words, I don’t give a damn about anyone who is too lazy, too unintelligent or too brilliant to read one, some, or all of the articles I’ve already published on the subject. If you want to learn what I think, read what I’ve written. If you don’t want to learn, don’t make the effort. It’s all the same to me. I have other fish to fry and I don’t plan to waste time personally nurse-maiding everyone who is intrigued by the MOOA concept but expect me to spoon feed the concept to them.

    4. I make this blog available for free to anyone who cares to read it. While the blog is available for free, I am not. I’m not your man-servant or your daddy. I have no more obligation to explain my notions in “greater detail” than you are obligated to read every (or any) word I’ve written.

    5. If you can’t already understand my arguments about MOOA, I suggest you stop trying. Why waste your time trying to understand something that you apparently can’t understand? More importantly, why waste my time asking me to overcome your own disabilities?

     
    • Toland

      April 8, 2015 at 12:33 PM

      Al, your MOOA notion is what originally brought me to this blog. As I think I already explained, at the time a friend in Texas was looking at using MOOA in his misdemeanor court case. This friend and I have been in discussion about MOOA from then until now.

      Both me and my friend have read everything we could find at this blog about MOOA. We still have questions, some of which I ask here. Anything you can add to clarify what you have written is appreciated.

       
    • Roger

      April 8, 2015 at 5:44 PM

      Alfred said, “More importantly, why waste my time asking me to overcome your own disabilities?”

      Having just re-read Toland’s questions, I think it’s incorrect to claim they arise from mental disability on his part.

      Al, if you’ve already invested the time it takes to write 48 articles on the MOOA topic, why not take a tiny fraction of that time to field the inevitable follow-up questions from those who share your interest enough to read most or all of those 48 articles? Please consider the possibility that you have been hasty in characterizing Toland’s requests for clarification as undue impositions from a lazy retard.

      Wasn’t the purpose of the 48 articles to communicate an understanding of MOOA to others?

       
      • Gene

        April 8, 2015 at 9:31 PM

        Roger,
        @ Wasn’t the purpose of the 48 articles to communicate an understanding of MOOA to others?

        What we have here IS, a failure to communicate.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 23, 2015 at 10:39 PM

        When Satan told “Jesus” he would give him (Jesus) all the kingdoms of the world & the “glory” thereof, Jesus DID NOT deny this, i.e., that Satan could not give him all the kingdoms of/in the world. My research shows me that this is what Satan really said, translated in English is, IF you will fall down at my feet & grovel like the hungry DOG you are, & worship me, I will give you all the Kingdoms of this world. I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

        Isn’t a DOG an animal? I believe this MOOA IS INSPIRED OF SATAN!!! AND, this IS also saying God IS ANIMAL & man IS MADE IN HIS IMAGE.

        Luke 4:5-7 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

        IT will be yours IF you will fall down at MY FEET & GROVEL LIKE THE HUNGRY DOG YOU ARE & WORSHIP ME !!!!

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 25, 2015 at 6:21 AM

        Roger,
        @ Wasn’t the purpose of the 48 articles to communicate an understanding of MOOA to others?

        What we have here IS, a failure to communicate forty eight times.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 26, 2015 at 10:52 PM

        Roger,
        @ > nephesh (H5315) – properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality
        1st Corinthians 15:39,
        New International Version
        Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
        All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. < NASB Translation.

         
    • Anthony Clifton

      April 10, 2015 at 12:39 PM

      you are way too practical minded to avoid the Identity Theft Issue
      in Palestine…

      https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/so-they-still-beat-horse-thieves-in-california/

      seriously, it would be way too politically incorrect for the Biblical
      concerns which directly affect the application of the Law

      http://www.chrisd.ca/2014/10/08/robert-fotti-arrested-texas-united-states-fatal-motorcycle-crash-convicted-winnipeg-police/

      specifically the 9th commandment

      not that the animal identity thieves posing as the braindeadgoy are
      gonna all of a sudden start mooing about it…

       
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 20, 2015 at 9:06 PM

      You say, to, Jethro, > I agree. Thanks for your understanding.
      I have “observed” that Jethro “observes” MUCH before he makes a comment which is, rarely, BUT when he does make a comment, his presence is well felt, &, well taken. I wish I had his depth of knowing when the time is right to say something, & his depth of understanding, etc. Jethro is a GREAT ASSET to your Blog.

       
  14. Adask

    April 8, 2015 at 8:11 PM

    Why not “take a tiny fraction of that time” to further convey my understanding of MOOA? Because some people aren’t “called” to understand. Because some people are too unintelligent to understand. Because some people are too brilliant to understand or at least believe. Because I’m such a lousy communicator that I’m incapable of writing anything that can clearly explain my hypothesis. Because, if I’m going to spend my time answering every reader who says “Why, daddy? Why, daddy? Why, daddy?”–I will never have time to write another article,host another radio show, or research another topic. Because I don’t wish to waste my time on those who are too lazy to make the effort to read and understand.

    Because if I waste my time answering each of Toland’s endless questions, then it will be time to answer each of Roger’s endless questions, and then Susie’s endless questions, and then Robert’s and Joan’s and Bill’s and Michael’s endless questions that will each “take just a tiny fraction” of the time I’ve already spent trying to 1) understand the MOOA hypothesis; and 2) explain the argument I used successfully to stop the Attorney General of Texas from proceeding in a lawsuit where I was personally threatened with fines of $25,000 per day–$9 million per year. Because if I spend just a “tiny fraction” of my time responding to every question from everyone who wants a “more detailed” explanation, I’ll have no time for myself.

    Because anyone who can’t understand the MOOA argument after reading my 48 articles on the subject will probably never understand teh MOOA argument. Because anyone who lacks sufficient intelligence or determination to understand the MOOA argument as it’s been so far presented almost certainly also lacks sufficient intelligence or determination to present that argument in a court and would be best off simply leaving the defense alone.

    Because I don’t wish to waste my time trying to spoon feed understanding to those who are willfully ignorant. Because I don’t wish waste my time fencing with trolls, government agents and fools.

    Take your pick as to “Why not”. Any or all of those explanations works for me.

    If anyone wants to understand the MOOA hypothesis, they should make the effort to do so. If they don’t want to understand, that’s fine with me. Don’t make the effort.

    I made that effort. I did so when there was no one else who could spend just a “tiny fraction” of their time answering my questions and spoon feeding every detail to me. (Open the hanger, big boy–here’s comes the airplane!) That’s probably why I understand that hypothesis. It’s probably why I’m the first layman to understand the significance of of the phrase “man or other animals” in over a century.

    It worked for me. Maybe it will work for others. Maybe not.

    I don’t care. I’m not selling anything on this blog. I’m not a public utility who should be available 24/7 to answer every damn question that comes in the door.

    Figure it out on your own. Accept it. Reject it. But do your own thinking. If you can’t do your own thinking, you don’t belong here.

     
    • Roger

      April 8, 2015 at 8:32 PM

      Alright, fair enough.

      I would only add that Toland’s questions are clearly not those of someone who fails to “get” MOOA. They are the questions of someone who’s put in the hours necessary to discern potential flaws in MOOA that merit investigation. As seekers of truth, we all benefit from such scrutiny.

       
      • Ted D.Roofer

        April 13, 2015 at 7:02 PM

        Roger, You say, ” However, not every animal, i.e. breathing creature, is a man.
        Give a, “for example”.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 15, 2015 at 4:52 PM

        Roger, you say, I would only add that Toland’s questions are clearly not those of someone who fails to “get” MOOA.
        wow. Then there is something BAD wrong with me because I see it the EXACT opposite from what you say. Not only does Toland fail to GET IT, you & Henry & Colin, et.al., fail to GET IT. I believe Jethro & I GET IT. Maybe Jethro & I are not smart enough to NOT GET IT.

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 21, 2015 at 11:19 PM

        Roger, Henry, Toland, Colin, MR. KENEMORE JR. LAWERNCE
        I stand to be corrected BUT, IF it were written, Man or Animals, I would see a “distinction” i.e. TWO different beings/entities. It’s the word, OTHER that says, Man is an animal, in the same sense as animals are animals, just different kinds of animals, e.g., a Horse is an animal, an Elephant is an animal, a dog is an animal. All are animals but they are not one & the same animal. Out of ALL of “God’s” creation, ONLY a Man was made in the image of God. SO !!! To say man IS an animal, is also saying “God” is an animal. I am lost for words to explain this derogatory kind of thinking because it is, expressing a low opinion of, & showing a lack of respect for “God”, & insults God’s abilities, & IS, Disparaging, AND belittling “God”.

         
    • Gene

      April 8, 2015 at 9:35 PM

      Adask
      April 8, 2015 at 8:11 PM
      I don’t think Roger, Toland, &, Henry understand what you’re saying

       
    • Colin

      April 8, 2015 at 9:37 PM

      Because if I waste my time answering each of Toland’s endless questions, then it will be time to answer each of Roger’s endless questions, and then Susie’s endless questions, and then Robert’s and Joan’s and Bill’s and Michael’s endless questions

      I read a lot of blogs in which people attempt to explain much more complex (and valid) ideas. And this scenario has never, ever happened. I’ve never seen a blog run completely off the rails because of endless questions. Even if it started to go down that route somehow, you could cut off your answers whenever you like–it’s your blog. (Which obviously means you’re also free to cut them off now, as you’ve done.)

      the argument I used successfully to stop the Attorney General of Texas from proceeding in a lawsuit

      Your answers in this thread make it perfectly clear that your MOOA argument could not have done this. You aren’t able to explain your argument even to people who are actively trying to understand it–the AG’s office would never be frightened off by something so impenetrable and impossible to understand.

      Not to mention your admission above that you don’t know how the law defines “animals.” You’ve come so close to just admitting that the law is only a violation even under your own theories if the definition is read in one particular, peculiar way, and that you don’t know if the law uses that definition in that way.

      So why on earth would the AG’s office be frightened of an argument that is both inexplicable and inapplicable?

       
      • Gene

        April 9, 2015 at 1:06 AM

        Colin, you say to Alfred Adask,
        @ You aren’t able to explain your argument even to people who are actively trying to understand it–the AG’s office would never be frightened off by something so impenetrable and impossible to understand.

        Mr Colin you said, on The Great Debate thread, > So maybe the MOOA argument does have a use: it might have signaled to the state that you were going to be a pain in the lawyers’ butt by filing nonsensical motions that would have to be read thoroughly each time.That might have encouraged them to leave you guys alone. But only because the argument is fearsomely nonsensical, not because it actually means anything legally.

        Well it got the job done, didn’t it ?

         
      • Gene

        April 9, 2015 at 8:05 PM

        Mr Colin,
        Alfred says, “the argument I used successfully to stop the Attorney General of Texas from proceeding in a lawsuit.”

        Mr Colin, you say, to Alfred, >Your answers in this thread make it perfectly clear that your MOOA argument could not have done this.

        Good debate Thread

        Mr.Colin you say, Even if there was a potential violation, it would only happen if the government was applying the definition according to your very idiosyncratic reading: that being an “animal” means you aren’t a human made in God’s image.

        Mr.Colin, IF Any of us claim to be a “Human” made in God’s image we are saying, God is a Monster. Monster is defined in Merriam Webster Dictionary,as,
        a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure
        b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
        2
        : a threatening force
        3
        a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape
        b : one unusually large for its kind
        4
        : something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty

        Colin, you say, ” This is different from MOOA, because I can read your argument there, and see the enormous logical and legal flaws in it—those are sufficient to make it extraordinarily clear that it would never succeed in court, and no attorney would ever fear it as a legal argument.

        Based on what you say, Mr. Colin, it appears Alfred’s case would have been a cakewalk for the Prosecution. This makes it, curiouser & curiouser as to WHY the case just “disappeared”.

        Alfred says, You claim that you’re read the defense I submitted in the MOOA case and that my defense was unwarranted, irrelevant etc. OK–if so, why did the Texas AG drop the case [etc.]?

        Mr.Colin, you say, Neither one of us knows the answer to that for sure. But not only is there an answer that is more likely than the MOOA scaring them off, there are many answers more likely than that. The AG looked at the monthly report and chewed someone out for wasting time on a pointless case. The Assistant AG wanted it off the docket ASAP to clear the way for a more urgent caseload, so he poured sugar in your ears so you wouldn’t bog the court down with more pointless paper. The judge was sick of meaningless pro se motions and asked the AG’s office to get rid of the case (which would be grossly improper, but not impossible).

        Colin, you say, The AG looked at the monthly report and chewed someone out for wasting time on a pointless case.

        Then WHY were the same charges brought against other people Alfred knew, & their cases did proceed, & they all lost???? Why were the cases against them not pointless when they were charged with the same charges as Alfred Adask was charged with?? Looking forward to your enlightened licensed Attorney answers. Thank you sincerely..

         
      • Ted D. Roofer

        April 18, 2015 at 12:27 PM

        Alfred says, “the argument I used successfully to stop the Attorney General of Texas from proceeding in a lawsuit.”

        COLIN says, “Your answers in this thread make it perfectly clear that your MOOA argument could not have done this.”
        +++++++++++++++++++++
        There are pictures within pictures. You cannot SEE, in this particular, the PICTURE WITHIN the picture. You only see the SURFACE, OUTSIDE picture. YOU also REFUSE to say WHY the other REPRESENTED “defendants” by licensed attorneys LOST. You MUST ADMIT Alfred DID NOT LOSE. Your “reasons” as to why Alfred did not lose is shallow & superficial, at least to me. WHY WILL YOU NOT GIVE AT LEAST ONE REASON WHY THE REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS LOST? WHY?? ALSO, why is it that YOU and your co-horts.hearts HAMMER HAMMER HAMMER away & WHEN something from me is presented to YOU & YOUR ILK, you seem to just CONVENIENTLY NOT SEE IT or, push it aside. YOU & YOURS RESPOND TO EVERYTHING ELSE. WHY DON’T YOU and YOURS RESPOND TO WHAT I PRESENT? DO YOU WANT ME TO”SUBMIT” IT? Please answer.

         
  15. Bobby G Getahaircutnow

    April 8, 2015 at 10:39 PM

    AL – In Genesis, the (KJV) bible writes that animals were created after “his” (God) kind. Read for yourself >

    Gen: 1:24 – 25. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

    25. “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

    So, if man was created in his image (after his kind), and animals were also created after his kind, does it not make sense that man AND animals were all created after his kind?

    It appears that man and animals are the same, does it not? Could not man be the highest form of animal?

     
    • Adask

      April 10, 2015 at 1:30 PM

      Read Genesis 9:6. It explains the reason why you can’t kill a man: He’s made in God’s image. You can kill birds and fish and cattle and wolves and platypuses and even cook ’em up for dinner because they are not made in God’s image.

       
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 17, 2015 at 10:20 AM

      Bobby G Getahaircutnow
      @ AL – In Genesis, the (KJV) bible writes that animals were created after “his” (God) kind. Read for yourself.
      @ Also, not only were there 2 or more gods who created the animals and fowls, but one of the deities was female. Read the following text and notice the word “her”:Leviticus 11:19 “And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. …” from the King James Bible Online (KJV Bible).
      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      P.S. Bobby G Getahaircutnow, You are a MOCKER & you FIT into everything described in Galatians 5:20, as follows, uncleanness, lasciviousness, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, AND, verse 21 Envyings, revellings, CAPICHE?

       
  16. Gene

    April 9, 2015 at 1:20 AM

    Bobby G Getahaircutnow
    AL – In Genesis, the (KJV) bible writes that animals were created after “his” (God) kind. Read for yourself > Gen: 1:24 – 25. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

    I understand this to mean, kind after kind, his kind, which means Elephants produce Elephants. Horses produces horses. Cows produce cows. “Kind after kind” in this sense.

     
  17. Bobby G Getahaircutnow

    April 9, 2015 at 8:55 PM

    Gene – valid observation. I guess it’s how you interpret the texts. For example, some people say the word “God” is plural (gods) because the Hebrew word used is Elohim. That could explain the verse that says “Let Us make man in Our image” (Gen 1:26-28 KJV).

     
    • Gene

      April 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM

      Bobby G,…………..
      @ That could explain the verse that says “Let Us make man in Our image” (Gen 1:26-28 KJV).

      I see that the same way, BUT, e.g., if you are my Dad, you could say, ok here is what we need to do today, & then after you explain what needs to be done, you then send me out to accomplish what needs to be done. To digress, Jesus said, Father “renew” with me, the glory I had “with you” before the world was” (even existed. Then when we read, in the beginning the Elohim created the heavens & the earth, this tells me that Jesus existed BEFORE the beginning of what WAS created. As far as “how many” comprise the Elohim, I don’t know, but, I do know of two. Anyway if the Bible gave the exact number I’m positive people would dispute,deny, & fight about that. I don’t believe it’s important to know that anyway. We have MORE than enough PROOF that there MUST be a “Supreme intelligence” at least I do. And, I believe there are a few more who agree with me.

       
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM

      @ Gene – valid observation
      Right. Invalid assertions as you continually make will always be overcome by valid observations.

       
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 30, 2015 at 12:44 AM

      What is written below was directed to, Bobby G Getahaircutnow. Bobby said to Gene,
      Gene – valid observation
      I said to Bobby G Getahaircutnow,
      Right. Invalid assertions as you continually make will always be overcome by valid observations

       
  18. Bobby G Getahaircutnow

    April 9, 2015 at 9:02 PM

    Also, not only were there 2 or more gods who created the animals and fowls, but one of the deities was female. Read the following text and notice the word “her”:

    Leviticus 11:19 “And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. …” from the King James Bible Online (KJV Bible).

     
  19. Gene

    April 9, 2015 at 10:47 PM

    Re: The heron.It exists in a variety of species. Hence the adjunct, “after her kind.”
    Re: one of the deities was female.
    I cannot prove you are wrong but every time I see, e.g., God, or, LORD, in the Bible, this “deity” is always of the masculine gender, e.g. it grieved “him” at “his” heart. Personally, I do not believe “God” has sex organs but I also do not believe “God” IS an IT either. The Bible must be written in terms we as mortals can grasp. But even the clearest of terms is refuted, ridiculed, mocked, & scorned by most people. Merely reading the bible is not enough. We must do a lot of research 2.

     
  20. Bobby G Getahaircutnow

    April 10, 2015 at 8:36 PM

    Gene, you are pretty darn sharp! Hey, see if you can figure this puzzle ouy:

    Three guys go to a pizza joint and order a giant pizza. The bill comes to $30.00. They each reach into their wallet and pull out a ten-dollar bill each. After paying the bill they get the pizza and take it to a table and begin eating it. The waitress realizes she overcharged for the pizza. It should have only been $25.00. She opened the cash register and took out five 1-dollar bills, and took them over to the table and explained she had over charged them $5.00.

    The three guys realized that they couldn’t split the five dollars equally between three of them, so they agreed to each take a dollar bill, and give the other two dollars to the waitress for a tip. They each took a dollar and put it in their wallets.

    They started out with a ten dollar bill, and got one dollar back, so they each spent 9 dollars each. Correct? What is 3 times $9.00? $27.00, correct? plus the $2.00 the waitress kept for a tip = $29.00. Correct? SO… WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER DOLLAR?

     
    • Gene

      April 10, 2015 at 10:01 PM

      Bobby G Getahaircutnow
      I have narrowed it down to a penny.At this time, I am unable to account for that penny. BUT, I betcha palani can. palani is another poster. HEY palani !!! HELP !!

       
    • Ted D. Roofer

      April 15, 2015 at 4:43 PM

      Bobby G Getahaircutnow
      The Pizza cost each one. $8.33.33. A Gallon of Gas costs, e.g. $2.99.9. Get exactly one gallon. Give the clerk 3 F.R. NOTES. Demand the clerk to give you your ONE “mill.” It doesn’t work.

       
  21. Gene

    April 10, 2015 at 10:14 PM

    HEY Bobby G Getahaircutnow
    They spent $8.33 EACH for the Pizza. $8.33 X 3 = $24.99. There are ways to divide that penny so the 3 guys can get their 3rd. ONE WAY is, A SHARP set of wire-cutters. BUT THEN, it has to be cut precisely and this may or may not be done. THIS is WHAT we need to be concerned about.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s