Trust a Muslim? Not me.

There are three Islamic doctrines that make trusting a Muslim impossible for me. They are: Taqiyya, Abrogation, and Cultural Jihad.

The first, Taqiyya, not only allows Muslims to lie to Infidels, but encourage it for the advancement of Islam.

The second, Abrogation, means that any saying of Mohammed which may contradict a previous saying is abrogated, that is “abolish, do away with, or annul,”. Keep in mind the Quran is not in chronological order like the Bible is.

Surah 16:101
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.

Surah 2:62 is abrogated by Surah 3:85 below,
Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians, – Any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Surah 5:69 is also abrogated by Surah 3:85 below.
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course : but many of them follow a course that is evil.

Surah 3:85
If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

Thus when a Muslim quotes a Surah to make a point that has been abrogated they are practicing Taqiyya.

The third, Cultural Jihad is the Islamic plan to dominate non Islamic countries by stealth, by immigration and using their own laws and customs to convert the country into an Islamic country, that is what is going on in Europe now.

“What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.”  Cultural Jihad Cultural Jihad

Numbers chapter 5 verses 11-31 does not supports a woman’s right to abort

Today, the March for Life, recently I was told that Numbers chapter 5 verses 11-31 supports a woman’s right to abort their unborn child. Not so, these passages define the civil actions that God commanded the Israeli men of the Old Testament to take if they were “jealous” of their wife; jealous meaning that the husband believed the wife to be unfaithful. The wife in question was to ingest a special drink made by the priests. This drink would give signs if a person was guilty; ie, the thigh would rot and the belly would swell.

1. The main reason that this has became an issue is because of a mistranslation in the NIV. I would add that the NIV is a perversion of the scriptures and a poor excuse for an translation. The NIV uses the phrase “your womb miscarries” while the KJV uses the phrases “thy thigh to rot.” The NIV wrongly says that the womb miscarries, which causes multiple people to fall into confusion.
2. The primary focus of this passage is to manifest the guilty party. Nowhere in these passages is there any hint of an unborn child from an adulterous relationship. The thigh rotting and belly swelling was a supernatural means in which God shined a light onto the guilty party. It would be like a prosecutor having undeniable evidence.
3. Both guilty and innocent wives of jealous husbands drank this concoction indiscriminately. Why would it only cause abortions on the guilty? Why would it not harm the unborn children of the innocent wives? Verse 28 states concerning the innocent wives, “she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.” Again, it only affected the guilty, yet, BOTH drank it. This certainly did not cause an abortion, it manifested the guilty.

When does life begin? It either happens at conception or it doesn’t. There is no grey area when life begins. To describe a pregnant woman, the bible often uses the term ‘with child’. Check out these verses: Ge 16:11, Ge 19:36, Ge 38:24, Ge 38:25, Ex 21:22, 1Sa 4:19, 2Sa 11:5, 2Ki 8:12, 2Ki 15:16, Ec 11:5, Isa 26:17, Isa 26:18, Isa 54:1, Jer 30:6, Jer 31:8, Ho 13:16, Am 1:13, Mt 1:18, Mt 1:23, Mt 24:19, Mr 13:17, Lu 2:5, Lu 21:23, 1Th 5:3, Re 12:2.

David considered himself a sinner from the moment of conception, ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ (Psalms 51:5)

The bible does not support abortion. A human fetus is a living person and deserving of basic human rights. Every child is a “heritage of the LORD” and should be treasured as such.

Here is the verse that they say advocates abortion with the Strong’s numbers, with the Strong’s translation below:

Num 5:21

Then the priest H3548 shall charge H7650the woman H802with an oath H7621 of cursing, H423 and the priest H3548 shall say H559 unto the woman, H802 The LORD H3068 make H5414 thee a curse H423 and an oath H7621among H8432 thy people, H5971 when the LORD H3068 doth make H5414thy thigh H3409 to rot, H5307and thy belly H990 to swell; H6639

The KJV translates Strong’s H5414 in the following manner: give (1,078x), put (191x), deliver (174x), made (107x), set (99x), up (26x), lay (22x), grant (21x), suffer (18x), yield (15x), bring (15x), cause (13x), utter (12x), laid (11x), send (11x), recompense (11x), appoint (10x), shew (7x), miscellaneous (167x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H423 in the following manner: curse (18x), oath (14x), execration (2x), swearing (2x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H3409 in the following manner: thigh (21x), side (7x), shaft (3x), loins (2x), body (1x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H990 in the following manner: belly (30x), womb (31x), body (8x), within (2x), born (1x).

The KJV translates Strong’s H6639 in the following manner: swell (1x).

Abortion in the Bible

Passages from the Pentateuch: the
first five books in the Hebrew Scriptures:

It is mainly from the Hebrew Scriptures that the modern-day Jewish people obtain their spiritual insight. In Judaism, a fetus is regarded as a pre-human, as not fully a human person. It is considered to become fully humanonly after it has half-emerged from the birth canal during the process of being born.

Christians primarily use the Christian Scriptures for guidance. However, the Hebrew Scriptures also contain passages that some feel may deal with abortion.

Genesis 2:7:This passage describes how God made Adam’s body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the “man became a living soul” only after God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Some theologians have suggested that this passage states clearly that Adam’s personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become a human person only after she or he starts breathing. This would imply that a fetus is only potentially human. Thus, an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person. The most important word in the Hebrew Scriptures that was used to describe a person was “nephesh;” it appears 755 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as “living soul” in the above passage. One scholar, H.W. Wolff, 1believes that the word’s root means “to breath.” He argues that during Old Testament times: “Living creatures are in this way exactly defined in Hebrew as creatures that breathe.” An alternate interpretation is that Adam and Eve were unique creations. They did not start as a fetus, and were not born. They were fully formed as adults. If this approach is taken, then It is not valid to compare a newborn who has not yet breathed to Eve and Adam when they were first created as fully formed adults who had not yet breathed.

Genesis 25:21-23 “…Rebekah, his, wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.“ The passage refers to the twin fetuses of Rebekah as being “nations.” They are clearly not nations at that stage of development; the word has to be interpreted symbolically. They are rather two fetuses who were later born. The Bible refers to their descendents as nations. The passage also refers to the twin fetuses as “banim:” a Hebrew word which almost always means “newborns” or “infants,” or “children.” The ancient Hebrews did not have a separate word to describe “fetuses.” So they used the same word to describe fetuses that they also used to refer to children. Some suggest that since the ancient Hebrews used “banim” to refer to fetuses, newborns, infants and children, that they regarded all four as simply stages of human personhood. English translations of the Bible generally use the term “children” here; this would more accurately be translated as “fetuses” except that the latter primarily a medical term. Again, the passage does not address the main question: were the fetuses full persons, or are they just potential persons at the time?

Genesis 38:24:Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar’s twin fetuses had been considered to be human beings, one would have expected her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that he was the male responsible for Tamar’s pregnancy.) If the fetuses that she was carrying are not to be regarded as living human beings at the end of her first trimester of pregnancy, then causing their death would not be a great moral concern. However, if the twin fetuses are to be considered as human persons, then it seems strange that they would be considered of such little value as to allow them to be killed for the alleged sin of the woman carrying them. In this case, this passage may be expressing a theme that runs through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation: that it is acceptable to kill or otherwise punish innocent person or persons for the sins or crimes of others — the pregnant woman in this case. An alternate interpretation is that innocent persons were often punished for the sins of one member of the family. See Joshua 7:21, Daniel 3:28-19, and Daniel 6:24). So it might be normal to give little concern to the fetuses.

Exodus 13:1-2: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'” Throughout much of the very ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods.  However if the first son was preceded either by the birth of a girl or a miscarriage, then the ceremony was not performed, as the son was not the first offering of the womb. In later years, this practice evolved into a substitute animal sacrifice, a monetary donation to the temple, or a dedication of the child to their deity. The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible states: “…the ancestors of the Israelites probably at one time actually sacrificed their first born children, as Genesis 22:1-14 implies.” 2 These passages relate to infanticide, not abortion, because the infant would be killed after birth. But it shows the low regard for newborn humans during that era. Other references of human sacrifices in the Hebrew Scriptures are found at: Judges 11:29-40: Jephthah promises God that he will make a human sacrifice of the first person who comes to greet him when he returns home after a successful battle. He later ritually sacrifices his only daughter. I Kings 16:34: This passage may refer to the killing by Hiel of his two children during the reconstruction of Jericho. Archeological excavations there have uncovered the remains of persons who appear to have been sacrificed “to obtain divine favor.“ II Kings 16:3: Ahaz, king of Judah, murdered his son as a human sacrifice. II Kings 17:17: The people of Judah abandoned worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They were said to have burned their children as human sacrifices to Baal. II Kings 21:6: Manasseh burned his son as a human sacrifice to Baal. Isaiah 57:5: Isaiah, speaking for the Lord, comments on the practice of the people of Israel in sacrificing their children, “down in the valleys, under overhanging rocks.“ Jeremiah 7:31: Jeremiah, speaking for the Lord, criticizes the people of Judah for burning “their sons and daughters in the fire.“

Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.” This verse is often mistranslated “Thou shalt not kill.” Murder actually refers only to the killing of a human person. Since the Jewish religion has traditionally interpreted the Torah as implying that a fetus as achieving full personhood only when it is half emerged from the birth canal, this verse would not apply to abortion. Exodus 21:22: (Cont’d)The New International Version (NIV) of the Bible uses the phrase: “gives birth prematurely.” and offers “miscarriage” as an alternative translation in a footnote. These two options result in totally opposite interpretations: one supporting the pro-choice faction; the other supporting the pro-life movement. Some liberal theologians reject this interpretation. 1They point out that this passage appears to have been derived from two earlier Pagan laws, whose intent is quite clear: Code of Hammurabi(209, 210) which reads: “If a seignior struck a[nother] seignior’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death.”   Hittite Laws, (1.17): “If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver…” The phrase “drives out the embryo” appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth. Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums the passage up with: “Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence — it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.” 2 Exodus 22:29: “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.” Many Old Testament theologians believe that this is another remnant of the time when the ancient Hebrews and Canaanites ritually murdered their first son, sacrificing him to their god. Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.“ It is a bit of a stretch, but this passage might possibly be interpreted as implying that personhood begins as an embryo when blood first becomes present. Since the heart starts beating about 21 days after conception, then one might argue that the embryo becomes a human person at that stage of pregnancy, or slightly earlier. Leviticus 27:6: “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female three shekels.” A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls were of less value at three shekels; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value. An alternate explanation is that there was such a high infant mortality rate that one could only be confident that there was a reasonable chance of a newborn surviving after its first month had passed and it was still alive. Numbers 3:15: “Take a census…including every male a month or more old. “ Only male babies over one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration. One explanation of this policy was that an infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human person. Another is that the death rate among newborns was so high, that one could not have a reasonable certainty that the child would live until it was at least a month old. Numbers 5:12-31 “Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water…..” This passage describes a ritual that a husband could force his wife to endure if he suspected that she had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nobody seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present. Needless to say, there was no similar magical test that a woman could require her husband to take if she suspected him of adultery. Numbers 31:17-18 “Now, kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” This occurred at end of the genocidal campaign against the Midianites. Moses, presumably under orders from God, ordered the soldiers to kill every boy and non-virgin girl or woman. Presumably, a significant percentage of the latter would be pregnant. So, their fetus was killed along with the mother-to-be. The fetuses would be destroyed, presumably because they were perceived to have had no value. The female virgins would be spared, because they were considered to have significant value. Deuteronomy 2:34: “At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them – men, women and children. We left no survivors.” The Israelites tried to negotiate peaceful passage through the land of Heshbon. They were unsuccessful. So, apparently under the instruction of God, they exterminated all of the people, including innocent children. This undoubtedly included killing the fetuses of pregnant women . This is an early example of genocide based on religious belief, not unlike the genocides perpetrated by Christians against non-Christians in Nazi Germany during World War II, and in Bosnia Herzegovina in the 1990s. It demonstrated no regard for the life of the fetuses who were destroyed. Deuteronomy 30:19: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” The segment “choose life, that…thy seed may live” at first glance might be interpreted as referring to the choice to not have an abortion. It is even clearer in the Living Bible which says “Choose life, that…your children might live.” It is always important to consider the context of any isolated quotation. Verses 15 to 18 clearly state that the choice referred to in verse 19 is whether to worship either Jehovah, or the gods of the Canaanites, whose land they were about to invade. Verse 20 picks up the same theme. Verse 19 thus relates to religious choices and is unrelated to abortion. However, the two-word phrase “choose life” from this verse is often quoted by pro-life groups.Michigan Christians for Lifeoffered a free, 3″ x 6″  bumper-sticker which says simply “Deuteronomy 30:19.” 3 Automobile license plates that carry the “choose life” message are available in several Southern U.S. states, although their constitutionality has been challenged. Deuteronomy 32:23-26:  “I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men.” God is here describing how he will commit genocide against a specific nation. He will murder of persons of all ages and both genders, from infants to old people. It also involves erasing the memory of them as a nation. Presumably, fetuses would also die during the genocide.

Source:

What Killed the American Indian? Not the the pipeline.

What with all this squawking going on about the Dakota Pipeline and so many people trying to say that the Europeans deliberate massacred hundreds of of millions of Indians to take their land I decided to set the record straight. In truth the genocidal maniacs who killed most of the Native Americans were these dirty bastard, diseases. We didn’t put the full power of the state and science behind the mechanical slaughter of human beings. We didn’t conduct medical experiments on Native Americans the way Germany did Jews and Roma. We moved into a continent that was largely depopulated by disease.

The US is guilty of a LOT of horrors. So before you may feel tempted to strawman me, read a lot of what I write. Americans are horribly ignorant of the crimes committed to bring them to this place and time with all the wealth they have. Treaties were continuously broken with Native Americans. Africans were enslaved. Vietnamese were killed with impunity.

I admit it and know the history.

But Americans didn’t commit industrial genocide. Americans didn’t put the full resources of state and science behind the mechanical slaughter of human beings. Americans didn’t conduct medical experiments on Native Americans the way Germany did Jews and Roma. Americans inherited a continent that was largely depopulated by disease.

And that’s the main point. Disease wiped out most Native Americans. Thereafter, the few surviving tribes that were encountered, were displaced and frequently attacked, making their lives miserable. What happened to the Native Americans is a debt the US will never fully repay, but the US did not commit willful genocide.

If anybody in the Americas did, that would be Spain. Spain conducted some of the worst and intentional programs of destruction against the Aztecs and Incas imaginable. Now, do I think that Spaniards should have to wander the halls wailing in agony? No. That was a long time ago and when it happened, it was sadly standard operating procedure for nation-states, including (GET THIS!) Incas and Aztecs!

But when Germany and Japan committed their horrors, they were members of nations that were supposed to not behave that way any longer. And of course, there is some finely spun racism too — Germany committed her crimes against white people. That kind of horror hadn’t happened ever on the continent of Europe at that scale, with that level of industrialization.

Nevertheless, what the US did —while wrong on a hundred levels— cannot compare to what the Germans did.

Dan Holliday

Advertisements

Oc

National Sovereignty in America and Trump

The drive for national sovereignty in America, that is a disentanglement from the Progressive’s World Government drive, has nothing to do with nationalism in the U.S… Consider what U.S. stands for in The United States of America. America consists of 50 nations, and that which binds us is not nationalism but the love of Liberty, the ability that America gives its people to live their lives as they see fit,and not as the government sees fit. We have been watching that liberty being stripped from us day by day, law by law, regulation by regulation imposed upon us by the Progressives, in both parties, we have been duped into putting into power.

Then along came Trump singing a song that we have been longing to hear. Pointing out what we all, all of us deplorable in any case, knew. The system is rigged against us; the Globalist are not only destroying our jobs, but under the guise of combating global warming actually sending billions of taxpayers dollars to enrich other countries at our expense. The left attacked him with everything they had, he’s a racist, a womanizer, stingy, not as rich as he claims, lies about everything, he’s a con, a clown, and on and on, but we heard him. Soros paid demonstrates, and bused them in to riot and raise hell, all to no avail.

And we elected him, and then the recounts, which ended up giving Trump, not Hillary, move votes; and uncovering massive voter fraud in and around Detroit. When that failed the next assault was on the Electoral Collage electors. Barraging them with pleas and threats, begging over and over that they vote their conscience instead of for who the people of their stated voted for. Well they did vote their conscience, and Hillary had more faithless electors than Trump did.

Their claim to legitimacy was that Hillary wound the popular vote by 2 million or more votes, but if you take California’s votes away from the total Trump won the popular vote by 3 million votes, proving the wisdom in the Founders’ Electoral Collage method of our selecting the President by not allowing the larger states to lord it over the smaller states.  In this election, however, it was not so much the states against the states, rather the county folks against the city folks as this map shows.

Results by counties.

Trump won, three times he won, but I fear his fight has just begun.

Merry Christmas.

The Emoluments Clause And Trump

Now that the electors will soon vote as their states voted, the next wave of attacks will come using Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: the Emoluments Clause which states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

Definition of emolument: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.

Definition of employment
1
: use, purpose
2
a : activity in which one engages or is employed
b : an instance of such activity

Now the issue is if someone rents a room in a hotel an employment of the owner of the hotel? Or, when one repays an existing loan does that make you either holding an office or employment of the lender of the loan? Or, does playing at a golf course make you either holding an office or employment of the person who own the course?

Then Congress could just give him permission to run his businesses as he has in the past. Everyone who voted for Trump knew about his worldwide enterprises when they voted for him

The Pledge: You know, the one that they made Donald Trump take

Now I would like to call you attention to some hypocrites, remember in the first debate, and it was asked if they lost would they support the winner?

“The first Republican debate opened with a question, specifically for Trump. Per Bret Baier:

Who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican Party and pledge not to run an independent campaign against that person? Raise your hand now if you won’t make that pledge tonight.” Trump was the only candidate who said that he might run as an independent if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination. Not only is that a difficult path to take, but also an expensive one. Trump is probably the only candidate running who could afford to launch an independent campaign.

Now Jeb! Bush and Lindsey Graham are reigning upon that pledge. A pledge is a contract, if you make a public pledge for a certain amount of money to a charity, if you do not give the money that you pledged you could be taken to court and forced to pay the money. Consider the hell that would have been raised had Jeb or Lindsey won and Trump would not support their run, saying, “he thinks the Republican Party has been ‘conned,'” like Lindsey just said. The MSM would climb him like a tree debarking him on the way down.

Has anyone mentioned the pledge they made to do what they so absolutist refuse to do now?

I Did Too Build This: Government does not equals socialism

                                      Facebook Meme

When Progressive like Obama, Clinton, Warren, and their ilk say this they are implied that self-interested acts are, by definition, selfish acts. It is based upon the idea that when someone creates wealth for his own benefit, that it benefits only himself.

Adam Smith pointed out the fallacy in this notion in 1776 in his treatise A Wealth of Nations. Smith pointed out when enterprising businesses work for their own benefit, unknowingly, they also benefit society. To earn income in a competitive market, the business must produce something others value. In Adam Smith’s eternal words, “By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”

This is Smith’ Invisible Hand, and it is the greatest engine of economic growth, wealth creation, easy, comfort, health and welfare the world has ever known. Private property and the right to pursue self interest is the fuel that drives this engine.

This brings to mind the story about the “Big Three” auto makers telling Robert William Kearns that he deserved no credit for inventing the intermittent windshield wiper systems used on most automobiles from 1969 and on into infinity because all he did was put together some existing technology that other’s had invented.

The legal argument that the auto industry posed in defense was that an invention is supposed to meet certain standards of originality and novelty. One of these are that it be “non-obvious.” Ford claimed that the patent was invalid because Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components. Kearns noted that his invention was a novel and non-obvious combination of parts.[12][13] Kearns’ position found unequivocal support in a precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals and from the Supreme Court of the United States. See, e.g., Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960) (“It is idle to say that combinations of old elements cannot be inventions; substantially every invention is for such a ‘combination’: that is to say, it consists of former elements in a new assemblage.”) (Hand., J.) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). From Wikipedia

This, in effect, is the same argument that Warren is making in the meme above. When she says that nobody got rich on their own for they moved their goods on the infrastructure that others have built is the same as saying Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components thus he deserves no patent. The Supreme Court found otherwise, and applied “flash of genius” patent law terminology, which was in effect from 1941 to 1952, which held that the inventive act must come into the mind of an inventor as a kind of epiphany and not as a result of tinkering, and made all use use his invention to pay him for it.

There are Progressive that made the argument that all governments services, such as roads, schools, law enforcement, etc., as socialistic Moore wrote in indignation, “my taxes are redistributed to plow someone else’s street! Socialism!” they say”

Government equals socialism.

Socialist programs in the U.S.: The Department of Agriculture, Amber Alerts, Amtrak, Public Beaches, Public Busing Services, Business Subsidies, The Census Bureau, The CIA, Federal Student Loans, The Court System, Dams, Public Defenders, Disability Insurance, The Department of Energy, The EPA, Farm Subsidies, The FBI, The FCC, The FDA, FEMA, Fire Departments, Food Stamps, Garbage Collection, Health Care, Public Housing, The IRS, Public Landfills, Public Libraries, Medicare, Medicaid, The Military, State and National Monuments, Public Museums, NASA, The National Weather Service, NPR, Public Parks, PBS, The Peace Corps, Police Departments, Prisons and Jails, Public Schools, Secret Service, Sewer Systems, Snow Removal Services, Social Security, Public Street Lighting, The Department of Transportation, USPS, Vaccines, Veteran Health Care, Welfare, The White House, The WIC Program, State Zoos.

Take that, capitalists! You’re all socialists, and you don’t even know it!

These claim serves primarily to demonstrate that there are far too many people in this country who do not know what the word “socialism” actually means:

Per Merriam-Webster, “socialism” is one, or all, of the following: 1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

To claim that all government services are a manifestation of socialism is to say that all kings and dictators of the past were in truth all socialists as they all provided services for their people. That aside, how many on the above list have anything whatsoever to do with the abolition of private property, the nationalization of industry, and putting the collective over the individual? Most of these are public goods, I wrote an essay on this some years back:

Public Good

Public good. We all hear the phrase, but I fear that we do not all understand the concept and readily confuse public benefits with public goods. To start with just. What is a public good? Paul A. Samuelson, the first economist to develop the theory of public goods, said, “goods which all enjoy in common in the sense that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no subtractions from any other individual’s consumption of that good.” The opposite of a public good is a private good.

Public goods like air, water, fish, game animals are normally referred to as common goods reserving the term ‘public goods’ to services provided by the government such as national defense, the police and judicial system, prisons systems, and as most people like to include the highway systems and education systems. I will get back to these last two in a short while.

For the government to provide a “Public Good” for its citizens does not make a socialist government. To say that a plumber did not build his business is as delirious as saying that I did not writer this because someone else created all the words that I used!