Category Archives: Hebrew Testament

Dayko Dog Didn’t Need To Die (Sean Hannity 100% Correct On Pet Food)

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ethics, Hebrew Testament, Morality, Parrots

Handlers clearly neglected a wonderful working dog, Dayko, who died of exhaustion (“massive coronary myocardial infarction and acute respiratory failure”), rooting for survivors of the Ecuador earthquake. Now the Ibara fire service is glorifying Dayko somewhat self-servingly, in my opinion, when a couple of big bowls of water infused with electrolytes would have kept Dayko alive.

I never understand it when people are unresponsive to my many educational posts about parrots. “I’m a dog person,” they shrug. Despite being a parrot person—indeed, nothing compares to a parrot for sheer intelligent, sociability, use of language (a thing no other animal musters) and cuteness—the plight of all abused and neglected animals pains.

37ILANA Mercer, Puckering With Precious Poi

Guiltily, Sean Hannity commented today on the radio about dog food. He thinks he’s wrong to feed his dogs chunks of what he himself eats. Mr. Hannity has clearly been told by pushers of fake food that dogs need extruded pellets.

WTF? And why? That people can be led to think extruded foodstuff, out of packets, is better for an animal than fresh food—a little meat, fish, chicken (BONES!), fruit, vegetables, nuts (for birdies)—is idiotic. (Birds do not thrive on seed or lettuce. They will become malnourished and exhibit deformities.)

Where in nature do animals eat processed food? I’m sure you can save money by going back to the old-fashioned practice of feeding your pets scraps or, still better, apportioning them a little of your food, before eating. As Mr. Hannity does.

The Hebrew Bible tells us to feed our (servants) and animals first.

In any event, this sweet soul didn’t need to die. Rest in peace, Dayko.

P.S.: Oscar-Wood, the parrot of the house is currently evicting all the “bad toys” from his toy box. (Parrots always have a plan; always up to something.) He keeps only the toys he likes. The room is strewn with “bad toys,” tossed high and low emphatically and as he gives me dirty looks: “don’t you know I don’t tolerate these toys?” He roots around, actively separating out the toys, until in the toy box remain only the favored wooden toys. Adorable hook-bill.

The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan

Christianity, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Free Speech, GUNS, Hebrew Testament, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Below is an excerpt from the current weekly column, “The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan,” now on RT (“hoplophobic” in the tagline is courtesy of the editor—I had never heard that word before today. Very cool):

“Piers Morgan is preaching treason from his perch at CNN—and not because he is undermining the dead-letter US Constitution, as some have claimed.

Most people would define treason as a betrayal of one’s country or sovereign. In my book, the book of natural law, treason is properly defined as a betrayal of one’s countrymen—and, in particular, the betrayal of the individual’s right to life, liberty and property. (To your question, yes, this renders almost all politicians traitors by definition.)

A right that can’t be defended is a right in name only. If you cannot by law defend your life, you have no right to life. If you cannot defend your property, you have no right of private property. And if you cannot defend your liberty, you are not a free man.

It follows that inherent in the idea of an inalienable right is the right to mount a vigorous defense of the same rights.

Knowing full well that a mere ban on assault rifles would not give him the result he craved, our redcoat turncoat has structured his monocausal appeals against the individual’s right to bear arms as follows:

1) The UK once experienced Sandy-Hook like massacres.
2) We Brits banned all guns, pistols too.
3) There were no more such massacres.

… This week, the CNN host will be fulminating over the shortfalls of 23 new imperial orders against firearm owners and in furtherance of federal tyranny. Piers believes the president’s extra-constitutional diktats don’t go far enough to void what’s left of the Constitutional scheme (to say nothing of the Hippocratic Oath. The Dear Leader has decreed that, “Doctors and other health care providers … need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms”).

Last year, an admirably rebellious Egyptian people revolted against President Mohamed Morsy for issuing a single executive order. America’s “King Tut” issued 23 such directives in one day! But—and by contrast—Piers thinks nothing of this “attempt by the [US] executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution” …

… Read the complete column, “The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan,” now on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact


Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

UPDATE IV: “Jesus, No Radical”? (Jesus’ Jewishness)

Ancient History, Christianity, Classical Liberalism, Hebrew Testament, Islam, Judaism & Jews, Justice

“Jesus was no political radical or rebel. He was God” is how the ever-provocative Jack Kerwick introduces his latest Belief.Net blog to Facebook Friends.

Maestro, pray tell, why are the two categories of the title—“G-d” vs. “political radical”—mutually exclusive?

One might have theological reasons for designating “G-d” and “political radical” as mutually exclusive, but reason is reason. It has to work a priori, surely?

Jews (at least those who think) think of Jesus as a preacher in the great tradition of the classical Hebrew prophets, whose genius, courage and yes, radicalism is hard to match—they were forever telling the stiff-necked people where to get off in no uncertain terms.

UPDATE I: “Yiddishkeit.” In reply to the thread on Facebook: Jesus was indeed a Jew (or a Hebrew), with everything that being a Hebrew would imply. A lot of people describe Jewish traits negatively. But you can be sure that Jesus was not without a dose of “Yiddishkeit,” as my blond, blue-eyed, Jewish mother would call it.

UPDATE II: Meathead: One should never place Russell Kirk in the company in which you placed him. For one, Kirk was against the wars Buckley embraced as a matter of principle. As I read Kirk, he was a classical liberal of enormous talent.

UPDATE III (June 14): The “because” is unfairly placed in yours sentence below, Jack Kerwick.

As for Ilana’s contention that Jesus was a “radical” because, like the prophets of old, He told “the stiff necked people where to get off in no uncertain terms,” how does that make Jesus, or anyone, a radical?

Here is what I wrote in the post above:

Jews (at least those who think) think of Jesus as a preacher in the great tradition of the classical Hebrew prophets, whose genius, courage and yes, radicalism is hard to match—they were forever telling the stiff-necked people where to get off in no uncertain terms.

In punctuation, the sentence indicates that the last clause is but an example of the “genius, courage and yes, radicalism” of the prophets, and hardly exhaustive.

In meaning, how does the last clause, which you rightly seem to disparage as inexhaustible, qualify the words “genius, courage and yes, radicalism”?

It doesn’t. Yours is a somewhat unfair read of the sentence.

As for conflating, as you do Jack, the views of Jews on Christ with those of Muslims: That, in my view, is a grave error.

‘Foreigners’ 101 for the Faithful

Christianity, Hebrew Testament, IMMIGRATION, Judaism & Jews, Nationhood, Uncategorized

“I’m often surprised by how many Christians and Jews are confused about what the Bible tells us about national borders, foreigners, citizenship and the law,” writes Joseph Farah. In “What the Bible says about illegal immigration,” Mr. Farah teases out the differences between the “stranger” of the bible and the “illegal alien” who has usurped him in the mind of many a “bad theologist”:

“Countless Bible studies have been conducted in America in recent years using some familiar citations about ‘strangers’ and ‘aliens’ and applying them to our current controversy. Let’s take a look at those – in context.”

* Leviticus 19:33-34: And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
* Exodus 22:21: Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
* Exodus 23:9: Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
* Deuteronomy 10:19: Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

“You can develop some really bad theology – not to mention politics and morality – by reading the Bible out of context, by not fully understanding what is being said to whom and about whom.”

Strangers that sojourn with you or live with you do not equate with illegal aliens. In fact, the corollary here, in each and every case, is that the children of Israel were “strangers” in Egypt. That’s why they were to treat their own “strangers” well, because they knew what it is like to be “strangers” in a foreign land.

Clearly, then, what it means to be a “stranger” is to be a foreigner. In the case of the children of Israel in Egypt, they were invited and, at first anyway, were honored guests. Later, they would be oppressed by a generation who “knew not Joseph.” But they were certainly not trespassers. They were certainly not in Egypt illegally. They were certainly not breaking the laws of the land by being in Egypt. In fact, they were commanded not to offend their hosts in any way (Genesis 46:28-34).

So, we must conclude that “stranger” does not equal “illegal alien.” Even when the term “alien” is used in the Bible, it seems to have the exact same meaning as “stranger.”