Amy Coney Barrett Would Lie. They all Would Lie

 In response to Tucker Carlson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo7Op5oE654

Sen. Dianne Feinstein criticizes Amy Coney Barrett's faith. How ironic given that Barrett has been Judaized. She is a religious golem created by the Jews. The Jews via Apostle Paul created the monster the Catholic Church. How easily the Republican blind like Tucker overlook the monstrous acts of the Catholic Church. Tucker doesn’t seem to know the history of religion. The people who now live happily in the U.S. do so because of the separation of church and state. Where not separated, as in Muslim nations, they still don’t live so happily. They live oppressed.

Catherine Nixey’s book The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World explains how the monster got to work immediately to destroy our true Greco-Roman heritage. And let’s not forget Dark Ages brought on by the Church, the oppression of women, the burning of heretics, drowning of witches, the inquisitions, the perversions of the priests, and other endless horrors. Tucker claims that left isn’t very bright, I agree, but neither is the right, including him. Just look at their man Trump! Barrett is defined by dogma, Jewish dogma. Of course, the Jews are defined by their own dogmas, often a combination of Judaism and Marxism. As a rational conservative, I believe people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. (Still, I don’t want a Muslim piloting the plane I’m on. Some jobs are too important to let just anyone do them!) The ancient Jews didn’t believe in religious tolerance. And they (Christian Jews) passed their intolerance onto Judaized pagans. Their intolerance was also adopted by Muhammad and became a central theme of Islam. Marxism was viciously intolerant. Both Republicans and Democrats are intolerant—the former of gays and the latter of American deplorables like me. Both are locked into ideologies that are of Jewish origin.

The real concern is ideologues wanting to control how other people behave and think. Ancient Jews hated the thinking of pagans but at least didn’t want to convert them, just kill them or avoid them. Converting the pagans was Paul’s, not Jesus’, idea. The Great Commission is the instruction of the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread the gospel to all the nations of the world. In other words, it was not an idea of the living Jesus but the idea of the writer of the Gospel of Matthew, who was angry with the Romans. Wikipedia:

The gospel of Matthew is a work of the second generation of Christians, for whom the defining event was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in AD 70 in the course of the First Jewish–Roman War (AD 66–73). (Gospel of Matthew) 

The existential Jesus was concerned only with ministering to his fellow Jews: 

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. (Matthew 10:5-8) 

The existential Jesus was not filled with hatred. But the author of the Great Commission was. It is essentially a declaration of intolerance. Christians and Muslims would use the sword to spread their version of Judaism. In other words, Jesus’s religion was corrupted by Judaism, that of Paul and the writers of the Gospels. And their hatred of pagans would be adopted with a vengeance by the Catholic Church. For example, where does Jesus condemn homosexuals and demand they be burned? Only four passages in the New Testament refer to homosexuality. Three are from the Apostle Paul (the hater of the flesh) and the four the Epistle of Jude. 

Jews (religious and Marxists), Christians, and Muslims think their way of living and thinking is superior to everyone else’s way of living and thinking. And they believe any means is justifiable achieve their goal to transform society to fit their ideology. Just look at the history of Judaism (in the Old Testament), Christianity, Islam, Marxism, and neoconservatism (a Jewish brain fart that used a lie to get the U.S. into a war when it was already in a war). All of which belong to the same ideological family and share one theme in common: intolerance. Today, leftist media communications, often run by Jews, engage in censorship. And the right condemns atheism and homosexuality. Both are rooted in Old Testament Judaism. The political game being played today is one of intolerance. The intolerance of the left (led by Democrats) has become so extreme that it wants America abolished and replaced by a Marxist multicultural state demographically fueled by immigrants from south of the border. 

How does all this apply to Amy Coney Barrett's faith? It applies in this way. As a fervent Christian she has proven that her highest concern is her service to God or Jesus. Would she, like Abraham, sacrifice her children if God told her to? I don’t know. But I do know that lying or fibbing is an acceptable tool to be used in service of God. The commandment “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” does not apply here. Lying is often presented in the Old Testament as justifiable, especially against non-Jews. Lying in service to God is justifiable. Two important illustrations of justifiable lying exist in the Quran. (If you want to know what they are, then read the book!) That is because one’s devotion to God and “His” mission for humanity (monoculture) supersedes all worldly commitments and human-centered morality: illustrated by Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son if God demands doing so. Let me emphasize: God’s morality supersedes human morality. Thus, to become herself one of Jesus’ soldiers on the Supreme Court she would lie if lying was required to be appointed. Once on the court she would no longer have to lie because the appointment is for life. So yes, she would lie if lying benefitted her faith. Barrett is an ideological wolf in sheep’s clothing. But what is true for her is true for all the ideologues—right and left. The Cause supersedes all other values.