By Arch Stanton
I’ll say it again – with Jews it’z all about the law. Jews think in no other terms. That is why we are forced to hold the law as sacrosanct. “Written in stone,” as the law is described in the story of Exodus, it cannot be questioned. The only question for a court is: was the law upheld or broken? However, the law can be easily changed by the authorities to fit specific needs. That is why what is perfectly legal today, can suddenly become deadly illegal tomorrow.
Firearm ownership, drug use, homosexuality, transgenderism, along with countless other issues, have undergone profound legal changes that have totally reversed former, long standing laws either prohibiting or permitting these acts. Of course, once it’z DA LAW, then it must be followed – no matter the moral or cultural consequences. There should be no wondering why Jews work so hard to fill the so-called “justice seats” with members of their tribe.
According to Jews, laws can be written, rewritten and endlessly interpreted as needed in a manner where legal questions are open to a judge’s definition (have you read the Book of Judges?) This is the reason the Constitution has been assigned the smarmy, feel-good label “living document.” No longer written in stone as it once was, the Constitution has been opened to the Jews’ legal interpretations. The results of this deception are obvious to anyone paying attention.
Written in such an open manner, the law can easily be manipulated by legal “authorities” so that while the technicalities of the law are studiously observed, the spirit of the law is fully counteracted. It should be obvious to everyone why Jews are the quintessential lawyers. The process begins at a very young age, when male Yeshiva students are graded on their ability to successfully argue Talmudic points of legal minutia.
The Bible is a legal document. It is all about religious law, “commandments” that must be observed. It is Talmudic law that mandates Jewish homes maintain two kitchens. It is Talmudic, legal minutia that has led to the bizarre practice of the “eruv.” a legal circumvention that expands territorial limits for Jews, much like a dog pissing on a tree or fire hydrant defines its territory.
“To many people, the eruv sounds like a legal fiction, a way to circumvent the spirit and possibly letter of the law against carrying. To them, the eruv risks making the entire Jewish legal process seem absurd to non-Jews and non-observant Jews.”https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruv/
Who among the goy might suspect such a thing? The word “Torah” has the dual definition of both “instruction” and “law.” Therefore, the founding books of the Old Testament are bydefinition, books of “legal instruction” or as we commonly refer to them today – Law Books.
The Torah is a series of stories that set legal precedence for the Jews’ bloody, sacrificial system, e.g. Cain’s murder of Able sets the precedence of the meat sacrifice over the grain sacrifice. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac sets the precedence for redeeming the first-born son from the priesthood with an animal sacrifice. The story of Jacob and Esau sets the legal precedence of the superior status of Jews over hated “gentiles.” Although the story is one of criminal theft and extortion of both birthright (tribal leadership) and inheritance, once the status of both the criminal Jacob and his victim Esau are legally observed, they set legal precedence.
Thus, while Jacob extorts Esau into giving up his inheritance, it was Esau’s fault for not being wary of the scam. It’z the old Jewish idea of “caveat emptor,” the “buyer beware” clause in the Jews’ contracts. Next, Jacob’s mother dresses her effeminate son like a man to mimic his manly brother Esau in order to steal his birthright, i.e. the leadership over Isaac’s tribe. Once Isaac bestows his “blessing” on Jacob, the act cannot be reversed; it’z a done deal, there is no turning back as evidenced by Isaac’s reaction when he discovers Jacob’s deception.
“And Isaac his father said unto him, Who artthou? And he said, I amthy son, thy firstborn Esau.And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where ishe that hath taken venison, and broughtitme, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? Yea, and he shall be blessed.And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, evenme also, O my father.And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing.And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.
Note that while Jacob’s blessing is concrete, Esau’s blessing is a nebulous promise of ill defined support outside the tribe and for a future that has Esau serving Jacob until at some unspecified point, he has “dominion.” Only then will Esau “break the yoke” of Jacob’s legal standing over Isaac’s tribal leadership. Of course, that never happens in the Bible’s narration of events. Now that Jacob is tribal chief, the beginning of the next chapter finds Isaac blessing Jacob a second time, “And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan”
Even in the New Testament, the so-called “miracles” are in fact attacks on the Temple’s legal dictates. How many are aware that the first century Jews’ definition of a miracle was an “unintended outcome to the law?” Thus by Jewish definition of the times, walking on water and healing the sick were not miracles, unless of course the sick were healed during Shabbat, then the act became a legal issue.
I have covered this many times before, but again, the reason for Jesus’ “raising the dead” was due to a legal issue. The characters of Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter were not dead, they were being buried alive because of a legal requirement for the very expensive Para Aduma to purify the sinner for coming into contact with a body declared legally dead by a Temple priest. The story of Jairus’ daughter illustrates how even a rich, influential man could ill afford the Para Aduma. Note that while Jairus was a synagogue leader, he was not a Temple priest, as was Jesus.
“And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at Jesus’ feet, and besought him that he would come into his house:For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. [ . . . ] And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said,Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.
Note Jesus specifies no one is to enter into the house save the girl’s parents and his disciples. What appears to be a peculiar detail is in fact Jesus keeping anyone else from invoking the Para Aduma by being in the presence of one who has been legally declared dead. It is odd details like this that attest to authenticity of Jesus as an historical character. Tellingly Jesus clearly says the girl is not dead, but “sleeping.” Jesus says the same thing about Lazaerus .
“Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.Then said Jesus unto them plainly,Lazarus is dead.”
When the disciples are confused as to Jesus’ reaction, he tells them plainly Lazarus has been declared legally dead.
The description of Jesus’ bloodline defines his legal right to the Temple’s priesthood membership. As a priest, Jesus had the necessary authority to question and counter the law, something only a Temple priest could do. When Jesus says he came to “fulfill the law” he is telling Temple Jews he would end their sacrificial contract with their Temple
For Jews, everything the law decrees legal, is fully justified. Therefore,if the law says it’s legal to have sex with three year olds, then, from the Jewish perspective, the act is perfectly within their legal right.This is why Jews are always defining and redefining every “jot and tittle” of their actions from a legal perspective as opposed to say a moral perspective. For Jews, the only morality is that which is prescribed by their laws. In the twisted, perverse Jew mind, the law either prohibits or justifies anything and everything. The law, and only the law, is the deciding factor.
The Judeocommunist staged show trials to legally sanction persecution of their victims. Nhadzee “evil” and Hallowedhoax were legally defined by the Nuremburg show trial. The basic premise was to give the accused a “fair trial” before executing them. That is why Jews work so hard to legally exonerate their own criminals, like Leo Frank and Alfred Dreyfus. For Jews, if the criminal can be legally exonerated by the courts, then his innocence can never again be questioned.
Knowing this Jewish link to law, is it any wonder that lawyers have long been the most hated of all professionals? Until one understands the Jews’ peculiar obsession with law, they cannot understand the Jewish mind or the actions it produces.
Regards,
– Arch