‘John Kerry’s Bible Blooper’ (2015)

When he’s not running around trying to arm Iran with nuclear weapons, or confiscate people’s air conditioners to stop Climbit Change, former presidential candidate John “Doofus” Kerry is hallucinating about things he thinks are in the Bible.

John Kerry’s Bible Blooper

Why do leftids pretend they read the Bible? It’s obvious they’ve never read it. But in their humanist religion, it’s a sign of great wisdom to babble and prate about things they don’t understand.

God help our country, preyed upon by such as these.

7 comments on “‘John Kerry’s Bible Blooper’ (2015)

  1. I sometimes am driven to laughter by things people claim are in the Bible. Barry Soetoro, when he was president, mentioned that the Bible says that slavery is ok.

    Had he the Bible knowledge of the common gnat, he would know that the Bible forbade the practice of kidnapping people into slavery, back in an era when the practice was common. The law of Moses did mention slavery, but that was voluntary indenture used tax a way that a debtor could sacrifice their freedom of occupation in order to satisfy a debt, and there was a built-in 7 year limitation, so that a person could expect liberation in no more than 6 years of indenture. This also applied to land inheritance, so that even a foolish person could only do so much harm to their family’s legacy.

    1. That’s what I find astounding. The US is portrayed as if they invented slavery, but in fact, slavery here was a vestige of British colonialism. From the beginning of independence, abolition of slavery was somewhat a hot topic in the formation of the nation. The original 13 colonies had to unite, or they would never have been able to gain their independence from the British. In the northern colonies, abolition was favored, and Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1800. However, uniting these colonies required that the southern colonies would have to be tolerated.

      It’s a huge mistake to conclude that the Civil War started unexpectedly. The origins of the Civil War go back to the earliest days of independence and as the US grew, there were fights concerning whether or not new states would allow slavery. The South wanted more states to allow slavery, so that they would have more partners in their struggle to forestall abolition. The North became evermore opposed to slavery and by the time Kansas was working towards becoming a state, the situation had deteriorated into skirmishes between Kansans and Missourians. When Lincoln was elected, the South knew that they had lost their ability to influence the matter politically. In my opinion, the Civil War was an act of desperation on the part of the South.

      By 1860, slavery was not accepted by a great deal of the US population. In the South, many saw this as a state’s rights issue, so even people who did not favor slavery may have supported the South’s independence, feeling that the Federal government had no right to dictate to them. Like virtually every war, the issues became clouded. One thing that is not clouded is the fact that 400,000 Union soldiers died over the next four years and this very costly war was a necessary step in ending the disgusting, dehumanizing practice of slavery.

      One of the most misunderstood aspects of this was the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment, not the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation used the South’s claim of slaves as being the property of their masters against the South. If the Union Army captured an area, by means of the Emancipation Proclamation, they were free to claim the slaves as now being their property, which allowed them to emancipate these slaves, which freed them to fight alongside the Union Army.

      Anyone that has ever made a major accomplishment knows that such accomplishments seldom, if ever, occur in a linear fashion. It’s easy, from the perspective of today, to criticize some of the compromises involved in both the Civil War and in the political events leading up to this war. Had events transpired differently, there is no way to know how things would have developed. The economy of the South had been built upon slavery and I suspect that this would not have been given up peacefully, under any situation imaginable at the time. Keep in mind, also, that there were outside entities more than willing to benefit from the situation. Had the North tried to apply economic pressure against the South, the South probably would have formed external alliances and may well have succeeded in maintaining independence from the North. I would say that the actions of the North stand as testimony to the fact that the majority of US citizens were opposed to slavery and willing to fight tooth and nail to end it.

    2. There was a great deal more to the South’s position than a mere defense of slavery–an institution that many Southerners already considered to be on its way out. Read the opening chapter of Selph Henry’s “The Story of the Confederacy” for an eloquently balanced view.

    3. I remember those years. He would always speak negatively of his supposed Christian faith, but always spoke highly of Islam. The irony is Muslims were the most prolific when it came to slavery.

Leave a Reply