User Profile: Auralae


Member Since: December 07, 2010


  • [2] May 18, 2016 at 5:22am

    It was Martin who confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around. Zimmerman lost him, attempting to follow him…if he’d simply GONE ON HOME, he’d be alive today. (Unless he got caught burglarizing or invading some other legal gun owner’s home, or taken down by another black man with a gun–but you don’t care about those black lives, do you.)

  • [2] May 18, 2016 at 5:19am

    If he’d been walking on the street, or next to the street–Zimmerman never would have given him a second look. Even if he continued (probably casing the homes) and simply GONE HOME he’d be alive—He sought out the confrontation. Zimmerman lost him….returned to his truck–it was Martin who initiated, it was Martin who attacked.

  • [4] May 18, 2016 at 5:14am

    I’m calling BS. Martin was up to no good–every single bit of evidence–including his attack on Zimmerman, attested to that. The likelihood of him having been ‘casing’ the homes in his Father’s neighborhood was excellent.

  • [10] May 18, 2016 at 5:12am

    First, there was no intervention, Zimmerman was attempting to keep him in sight–the ATTACK came entirely from Martin. 2nd I’ve no doubt plenty of people remember the numerous break-ins and robberies that had occurred in Zimmerman’s failing community. He was taking his “neighborhood watch” duties seriously, and he was on the phone with 911 dispatch. 3rdly, some folks may even recall the fact that Martin had been found at school with burgled jewelry and tools to force doors in his backpack–and not been disciplined for it. This appeasement had the foreseeable effect of encouraging him to continue down a dangerous path of criminal behavior.

    Responses (1) +
  • [11] April 25, 2016 at 1:24pm

    While I agree with you that both points of view have viable points–and we should all have and exercise the rights to stand up for (and/or boycott for) which ever view we hold–I do want to point out that the vast majority of people who are upset on the public bathroom debate who are for gender appropriate signage and usage are NOT worried about the .2% to .3% of our populace who are ACTUALLY “transgender” i.e. actually have crippling issues of feeling trapped in the wrong body—the VAST majority of those concerned about this issue are in fact concerned about the significantly larger portion of our populace who would abuse such a policy that allows cross gender usage of facilities. It’s the pervs and the pranksters–who make up a much greater percentage of the populace than the actually “transgendered” that are the concern.

  • [-2] April 11, 2016 at 2:31am

    “Climate Change” is, of course, not a hoax. Man Made Climate Change however is an utter hoax.
    It doesn’t matter if it’s global cooling, OR global warming, the ONLY solution is for government to take over the energy industry and tax the hell outta the citizens. Neat that.
    Remember when man was responsible for the Western Glacier melting down in Antarctica? -Until some scientists were reminded that Mt. Erebus is a volcano…and there’s an active volcanic system beneath the Western Glacier. Nevermind why Greenland was named that—it’s cars and cattle that caused the current warming period…absolutely not the sun. lol Forget that folks in charge of collecting data upon which the public is utterly dependent KEEP getting caught red handed falsifying the data –keep moving along sir, nothing to see here. :)

  • [1] April 9, 2016 at 4:53am

    This is for blueridge142 –you need to double check that–it isn’t called “The Endorsement Clause” ;) It’s the establishment clause. It literally says that “…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    I’m looking forward to hearing your take on specific rules that practicing police officers are under concerning this subject–soldiers literally don’t have free speech when it comes to opinions on their commander in chief etc–what are the specific rules officers face?

  • April 9, 2016 at 4:40am

    Personally, I don’t see how it wouldn’t be abridging the officer’s rights to free speech and religious practice…perhaps less so for Muslims, as to my knowledge they don’t have the equivalent of ‘the great commission’ It’s my understanding that their call to prayer serves that general purpose. Again, personally, I feel I know enough about Islam and certainly enough about Christianity to offer feedback if asked any pertinent questions….on the other hand, I don’t have a habit of speeding, and the only time I’ve been pulled over in the last 20 or so years was for a broken brake light…..that might have something to do with it.

  • [1] April 9, 2016 at 4:33am

    Wow! Thanks for sharing that.

  • [2] April 9, 2016 at 4:30am

    Granted, it’s been ….hmm…well, several years since I was last pulled over (for a broken break light)…and while I’m sure I’d be nervous…I HOPE I’d have the mental wherewithall -more importantly, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to witness right back at any Muslim officer who quizzed me on my faith. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, none go to the Father except by Him, and especially if asked–we are supposed to be ready with an explanation for our Hope—of course the prerequisite for that is that we are sanctifying God in our hearts. Part of that is recognizing His authority over that of any other.

    Speaking of man’s authority; I’m assuming these things can vary from state to state–but is there some actual rule where you work abridging your rights to free speech, and free exercise of religion?

  • [1] March 16, 2016 at 8:03am

    How is a practicing homosexual priest similar to a Quaker as Secretary of War, or a vegetarian butcher? I’ll take a shot ;)

    They are similar because while the glbt groups will have you believe that scripture dictates in the exact same way that homosexual practice is an abomination, so is eating shellfish, or wearing two types of cloth. This is patently absurd, as the prohibition of sowing two kinds of crops and wearing two kinds of cloth –as well as abstaining from shellfish (and pork etc) were civil laws. They were covenantal and ONLY intended for national Israel. Both before that covenant (i.e. Noaic and Abrahamic) covenants had absolutely nothing to do with abstaining from pork or planting pure crops. As a matter of fact, scripture specifically says in the Noaic covenant that G*d was now giving EVERYTHING to man for food. (Genesis 9) On the other side of History–Jesus Himself affirmed that it isn’t what a man puts IN his mouth that makes him “unclean” but what comes OUT of his mouth (Mark 7)
    Meanwhile, the MORAL law, G*d holds ALL accountable to–those lists of sexual sins (and child sacrifice) G*d described as the LAND vomiting out the peoples who practiced them (Lev. 18:27-28)–and Jesus DOUBLED DOWN on that moral law by teaching that we must not only not physically practice them, but control even our THOUGHTS. (Matthew 5)

  • [2] March 16, 2016 at 7:45am

    I know many Catholics attempt to claim this, -that “the church” is the same today as it was 2000 years ago; -except that 2000 years ago folks who wanted to worship Mary alongside Christ were excommunicated. NOW (as of the 50′s) it’s doctrine. The push to make Mary “co-redemptrix” (HOW can any believing Christian feel comfortable with that thought??) is nearing fruition. Mary herself exalted God as her Savior –she claimed He’d done great things for HER (What pray tell did God do for her, if as Catholic doctrine NOW claims, she were sinless and conceived without sin? From what did she need to be saved, if not from sin??)
    Jesus specifically countered early veneration of His mother. When she (and His siblings) came to “seize” Him (because they thought He was insane) Jesus asked “who is my mother, brother, sister? -those who listen and obey the word of G*d, they are my brothers, sisters and mother (Mark 3). In response to someone yelling from a crowd that the womb that bore Him and the breasts that nursed Him were blessed–He countered “rather” or “on the contrary” -blessed are those who hear the Word of G*d and practice it. (Luke 11) immediately following instructions on Prayer—-from G*d. Now, compare that to all the prayer to Mary (and other saints) –it’s outright contrary to scripture and goes specifically against Christ’s own specific teachings. While I have no doubt of many Christians within Catholicism, it’s in SPITE of Catholic doctrine, not because of it.

  • [1] February 11, 2016 at 7:08pm

    While I agree with you that they do indeed see mercy as weakness, God does not. Killing a brainwashed thirteen year old little girl isn’t justice. LOVE mercy, seek justice and walk humbly with your God….let Him worry about payback.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 11, 2016 at 7:06pm

    That’s antisemitism. First, it’s not as if Israel is the only ally of the US who receives foreign aid, heck, there are plenty of countries who plainly are NOT allies, who receive millions upon millions of our tax dollars. 2nd, if you would be saying this of ANY other people surrounded by enemies eager to celebrate over their bloody corpses, shame on you! The shocking fact isn’t that we provide Israel with aid–it’s that we’ve been so horrendously poor in our aid for the Yazidies, the South Sudanese and the Nigerians hunted, enslaved, raped, and murdered by savages also known as their own neighbors.

    As to your attempt to use scripture to justify abandoning Israel–”unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain to build at all” If the Lord isn’t watching, they will surely fall–but scripture is not lost on one of us when it says that Jerusalem’s ENEMIES will seek to divide the city, indeed YHWH speaks quite scornfully toward those claiming Zion for themselves. Perhaps you ought to do a little word study on precisely WHO are the enemies of Jerusalem/Zion/Israel–you might find yourself surprised, it ain’t “Christian” nations named, nor is it Hindu, nor Buddhist. Scripture names Muslim nation after after Muslim nation after Muslim nation–WHEN He comes, He’s coming in anger and with recompense. T’would be best not to even attempt to ascertain if God is on our side, but rather are we on His! (And trust me–He is NOT on the side of pillaging, murdering, rapists).

    Responses (1) +
  • January 9, 2016 at 6:34pm

    The biggest difference between the God of the bible, vs the god of the Quran, is the fact that YHWH loves all of mankind, giving sun and rain (and beautiful babies) to both the righteous and the wicked. :)

    He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
    To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
    I will also make You a light of the nations
    So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

    When I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself. – Ezekiel 3:18-19

    Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?” -Ezekiel 18:23

    The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. -2 Peter 3:9

    I’m going to take a huge shortcut and direct folks here: to see what the Qur’an teaches about the unbelievers. I had not previously known that 61% of the Qur’an was about non-believers!

  • January 9, 2016 at 6:21pm

    In actuality, when Jesus spoke of loving one’s neighbor as oneself, he was quoting Leviticus, and because of that, among the “red letter words” – Leviticus is the most oft quoted. ;)

    It IS true however that the ceremonial and ritual laws were FULFILLED in Christ. That’s a different thing than abolished. The moral law on the other hand, Jesus DOUBLED DOWN on. Notice that the moral law is now to extend to our very thought lives. According to Jesus, whereas before it was written “do not murder” -now anyone who is merely ANGRY with his brother without cause is guilty of sin, and whomever speaks disparagingly of his brother is in danger of hell fire! -see Matthew 5:21-22

    Before the law was ‘do not commit adultery’ but now–we’re held accountable for LOOKing with lust. -Matthew 5:27-28

    Responses (1) +
  • January 9, 2016 at 5:53pm

    …”I will put enmity between you and the woman….” -Gen. 3:15a

  • January 9, 2016 at 5:44pm

    Exactly–his life choices have absolutely nothing to do with his free speech. It’s the Left who seek to first marginalize and then silence. Milo is merely recognizing the marginalization and probably quite rightly preparing for the inevitable silencing to follow.

  • [1] January 9, 2016 at 5:41pm

    Here’s where your own prejudices about conservatives (as well as perhaps your ignorance of the Left) blinds you to the facts–as Justpassingthrough mentioned, the Saudi prince owning 5% of twitter stock may very well be the issue–Twitter recently changed their rules to snuggle perilously close to an ‘anti-blasphemy’ clause, and Milo isn’t silent on the subject of Islam’s false prophet.

    Meanwhile, actual conservatives advocate for individual personal freedom and especially freedom of speech–conservatives are neither intimidated, nor offended by the idea of folks who sincerely disagree with them as having the innate right to argue for their side. Conservatives prefer debate, rather than censorship—it’s the Left who silences.

  • [3] November 14, 2015 at 2:29am

    The *perfect* projection of left leaning folk astounds me again and again. That this guy can spout off about “propagandized mumbo jumbo pseudo intellectual mess.” from the right–whilst blaming JIHAD on right wing rhetoric….as I say, it is astounding.

Restoring Love