Sunday, 30 October 2011


Where is home?  There are those who would reply: “Home is where the heart is.”  That phrase was, popularized, perhaps even immortalized, both in song by Elvis Presley, “Blue Hawaii” 1961 -

[], and movie by the same name from 1987.  For the Jew home is a spot of land in the Middle East, a land which includes Judea and Samaria.

For the Jewish people, their heart has been focused on a piece of land given to their ancestors, dating back some 4,000 years, through Abraham (the Hebrew patriarch) (Gen. 12:7, 13:15, 15:18 and 17:8).  The land currently being “shared” by Palestinian occupiers in what the west calls the “West Bank” and Jews, includes the lands of Judea and Samaria.  In fact the very place of Abraham’s burial is Hebron, which is located in the southern tip of the “West Bank”.

Many parts of Israel are seemingly, if not virtually, indefensible with some parts of Israel’s land mass being just 9 miles from the Mediterranean Sea to a hostile “West Bank” border.  Other parts, near Jerusalem (the REAL Capital of Israel) are surrounded on three sides by hostiles, with a very narrow five mile gap.

The lands known as Judea and Samaria encompass most of what the west calls the “West Bank” and as Hebron is in Southern Judea (Hebron being the place of the Hebrew patriarch Abraham’s burial), they BOTH belong to Israel!

Of interest to this writer, are the observations of Mark Twain during the late 19th century, as chronicled in his book Innocents Abroad (1869).  The Holy Land is “miles of desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds -- a silent, mournful expanse…” “with not a tree or a shrub to interrupt the view…” and “A fast walker could go outside the walls of Jerusalem and walk entirely around the city in an hour. I do not know how else to make one understand how small it is.”  The image Twain paints of the Holy Land in the latter part of the 19th century is one of desolation, waste and abandonment.  After nearly two-thousand years of neglect by her Arab occupiers, the Land of Israel was utterly undesirable to anyone, except for the Jew.  Well that is until the Jews began to return to where their Hearts belong, and slowly transformed the barren wasteland into a flourishing land of “milk and honey”.

The fact is folk; the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews.  It’s theirs!  In fact if it wasn’t for the Jews returning HOME to Israel, over the last 100 or so years, the land west of the Jordan River would still be barren, desolate and very very undesirable.  Here is a really cool video -  

May our eyes behold the return (of the Jew) to Zion

We (the Jews) didn't come as settlers, we (the Jews) returned... as the legal owners of a Jewish state!” (Emphasis in round brackets mine)

ותחזינה עיננו את התשואה (של היהודי) ציון
אנחנו (היהודים) לא בא כמו המתנחלים, אנחנו (היהודים) חזר ... בתור הבעלים החוקיים של מדינה יהודית!

ها قد أعيننا عودة (اليهودي) إلى صهيون
عدنا (اليهود) ونحن (اليهود) لم يأت من المستوطنين،... وأصحاب القانوني للدولة اليهودية!

And for more terrific information on the Land of Israel please also check out this website -

Well that’s it, that’s Da Bauz’s take, on the rightful homeland of the Jews, the Land of Israel this 30th day of October 2011.

Sunday, 23 October 2011



We all use them, and most likely we’ve all heard them.  Alas, what is a label?  Are labels inherently good or bad?  Is there such thing as a “bad” label?  We have labels for Planes, Trains and Automobiles [a 1987 American comedy film released by Paramount Pictures, amongst other things].  We have labels for clothing and food too.  There are safety labels, warning labels, cautionary labels, informative labels, and labels that come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and colours.  Are they, any of them, good simply because they are a “label”?  Could some label use be bad, though?

What about a situation wherein someone is particularly at risk for anaphylactic shock (has allergies)?  What if food packaging “labels” advise the would-be consumer that the food product for which they are about to devour, contains an ingredient that otherwise could be fatal?  Surely “labels” are indeed acceptable in these situations?

Are all labels good then?  What about labels used in jest, such as:

The label CHEAP, as in - “The Scott’s, they sure are cheap!” or
 The label HOT-HEADED, as in - “The German’s, they sure are hot-headed.” Or
The label SOCIALISTS, as in - “Those Canadian’s, they’re a bunch of Socialists, all of them.”

Overgeneralizations labels of this nature seldom do anyone or anything, any real justice.

What about misuse of a “label”?  LibProg’s belly-ache about it all the time.  For example, it has been said that overuse of a label such as Nazi or Holocaust, whether the subject has have ever had anything to do with Nazi’s or not, (or even specifically hating Jews for that matter) diminishes the validity and true meaning of the words Nazi and Holocaust.  You diminish the memory and meaning of the Holocaust…” according to “Democratic” [], with stories from “The Guardian” [] and “The Washington Post” []

So how is it that it’s okay for the left-wing media (and its followers), or anyone for that matter, to caution us against overuse of a terms / labels such as Nazi and Holocaust, whilst simultaneously typecasting many a folk with labels like “Islamaphobe(s)”, “Homophobe” or “Homophobic” etc?  Perhaps before we delve into this question, it would be prudent to do as a very good friend of mine did recently, and look-up and then apply bonā fidē accepted definitions; first for the word, “phobia” and then also the words “phobe” and “phobic”.  According to: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation” and to  

a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. 

How about the words “phobe”, and / or “phobic” again says phobe means “a combining form used to form personal nouns corresponding to nouns ending in -phobia” and phobic is:

of or pertaining to a phobia or phobias.

a person suffering from a phobia.

Alright, the first thing we should notice is that both Merriam-Webster and begin their respective definitions with “inexplicable”, “illogical” and “irrational” fear.  Ergo without boring you with still more Dictionary definitions, let me just say that “inexplicable, illogical and irrational” are synonymous with – incomprehensible, unreasonable and ridiculous.  But, please do not take my word for it, grab a handy Thesaurus and look it up for yourself.  Suffice it to say, to call someone “________________phobe” or “________________phobic” is effectively to say that said person has a ridiculous fear of “________________”.

Next, let us explore what the ridiculous fear of is, by definition:

First: a ridiculous fear of a specific object
Second: a ridiculous fear of an activity
Third: a ridiculous fear of a situation

Neither homosexuality nor Islam meet any one of the three above noted definitions, ergo it is ridiculous to label someone as being irrationally afraid of either, because neither is (in and of itself): a specific object, an activity or a situation.  Having reviewed the accepted definitions of the suffixes phobia, phobe and phobic, it is now time to refer back to my original question.

“So how is it that it’s okay for the left-wing media (and its followers), or anyone for that matter, to caution us against overuse of a terms / labels such as Nazi and Holocaust, whilst simultaneously typecasting many a folk with labels like “Islamaphobe(s)”, “Homophobe” or “Homophobic” etc?”

In other words:

One, does it make sense for someone to typecast anybody as “Islamaphobe(s)”, “Homophobe” or “Homophobic” etc? 

Two, does the use of these suffixes, in this context, support the idea of “acceptable use”?

And three, does the typical LibProg practice, as noted above, speaking out against the overuse of terms such as Nazi and Holocaust, whilst displaying out-of-control verbal-diarrhoea by using labels such as Islamaphobe(s), Homophobe or Homophobic etc., make any sense or otherwise seem fair or reasonable?

Please allow me to begin with number three, the LibProg practice noted above, of applying labels here, yet arguing against use of labels there, is nothing short of “Duplicity of Standards”, and that folks is the subject of a future Blog.  This leaves us with just numbers one and two.

Next I will speak to number two.  “Acceptable use?”  The answer here should be obvious, “NO”?  It does not meet acceptable use parameters.  That is of course unless one defines acceptable use, as nothing more than “to use whatever label I want, or feel, whenever and on whomever I desire, irregardless of how ridiculous use of said label may be.”

In response to number one, “Does it make sense…?” “My Take” on this question should also be obvious.  It makes no sense at all to label someone with a “________________” followed by the suffixes, phobia, phobe or phobic, where the “________________” is either homosexual or Islam, simply because one disagrees with either one (or both). 

If one says, “I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, based upon what the Holy Bible says according to Leviticus 18:22”, it makes no sense at all to label he or she as a homophobe / homophobic nor does it make any sense to try and describe his / her behaviour as “homophobia”.  Similarly if one comments on an observation of recorded history, such as “The horrific events of 9-11 were carried out by 19 hijackers, all of whom were Muslims affiliated with al-Qaeda.”  It in no way makes any sense to label said author is an Islamaphobe, or Islamaphobic, nor is the label Islamaphobia befitting!

In fact, in the case of the above noted statement of recorded history, if one were to say that he or she “…fears there will be further or future terrorist attacks from Muslims affiliated with al-Qaeda or any other terror group…” said proclamation of being fearful of further or future attacks absolutely does not fit the criteria needed, for one to be labelled an Islamaphobe.  Based upon the verifiable number of terror attacks carried out by Muslims affiliated with al-Qaeda and other terror groups since 9-11 of some 17,899 (as of 23 October, 2011, 2227 hours GMT) [] there is NOTHING irrational, ridiculous, uncalled for or otherwise “phobic” about admitting that fear.

Bottom line; are labels bad in and of themselves?  Obviously not, what is however unacceptable and completely evil, are broad overgeneralizations being applied by LibProg idiots to people groups and / or persons, without regard for the meanings of labels being used.

And that my friends is Da Bauz’s Take

Thursday, 20 October 2011

Self-governance, or rather self-policing

Self-governance, or rather self-policing

Is it fair or just, let alone even possible, for a group (any group) to be self-policing / self governing?  A recent pamphlet released by the “Occupy Baltimore protest” movement has brought this very question once again to the forefront of media attention, well for now at least.

So what’s happening in Baltimore you may ask?  How about “… rape, theft, sexual assault (even against children), and other such crimes taking place within the Occupy tent villages…” “Occupy Baltimore has sent a memo out discouraging protesters who are sexually assaulted by fellow protesters from contacting police, but rather to let the movement handle it internally.” –

According to The Baltimore Sun the memo is in the form an info pamphlet, and calls for alleged victims of, or persons who suspect that, abuse has occurred are encouraged to “…report the incident to the Security Committee…” to allow the Security Committee to “ investigate and "supply the abuser with counseling resources." .” –

This observers’ “take” on this self-governance issue is thus:  It flat out does not work!  It rarely works for Accountants to police other Accountants, or for Lawyers to similarly police other Lawyers, or Doctors, Police Officers, Politicians etc policing their own members / peers.  The public en masse are oft times left with a bitter taste in their mouths, so-to-speak. Wondering if the internal investigation was truly thorough and unbiased, or do “doctors look after their own?” and one’s mind quickly wanders to thoughts of cover-ups and back-room deals.

How much more so should people who are victimized by a bunch of unruly thugs, be reporting incidents through proper channels and using recognized systems of justice?  As the “” article states “…it is extremely dangerous to live in tents with a bunch of people who oppose individual rights of life, liberty, and property. 

Please folks if you or someone you know has been the victim of a crime, no matter how minor or heinous it may be, do not take matters into your own hands.  Doing so may very well place you, the victim or others at even greater risk.  Contact you local authorities and be as co-operative with their investigation as you are able.

Well that’s my rant for today, as that’s Da Bauz’s Take

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Organized Religion(s)

Organized Religion(s)

The innate ability of man (mankind) to create god in his (perverted) image 

There are those whose reason for living (Cause if you will) is to call for all world religions to ‘set aside’ specific differences, and “just get along”.  To those people, and to said Cause or Causes, I tip my hat and wish you well, whilst simultaneously shaking my head in vehement protest!

I have long since concluded that Organized Religion is not for me.  I know who my Lord is, and am in awe every day that He was willing to do (and go through what He went through) so that I (and you) might know Him better. 

For those wondering what the difference is, it’s really very simple.  The religions of this world all utilize a methodology of sacred writings, coupled with designated leaders who proclaim (and essentially advise others how to interpret) those same sacred writings to their followers en masse.  Whereas, my relationship with my Lord is personal. 1 on 1 and His Word, the Holy Bible from Genesis through Revelation is my handbook.

Who is ‘my Lord’, the great ‘Him’, to which I refer?  Why He is none other than the Great “I AM” to which Moses spoke “tell the children of Israel this: 'I AM has sent me to you.' .” – Exodus 3:14 [World English Bible] – Jesus Christ, who said “…I can guarantee this truth: Before Abraham was ever born, I am.” - John 8:58 [GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

Jesus Christ is Lord!

Know Jesus, know peace whereas no Jesus, no peace

How does one get to “know” Jesus?  Simple, invite Him into your heart, as Jesus says: “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” [Revelation 3:20 NIV]  How can we be assured that this Jesus stuff means anything, well because the Bible tells us so, as the Apostle Paul wrote:

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” [Romans 10:9-10 NIV]

And for those of you who say to me, I can’t be bothered reading the Bible, “it’s confusing” or “it’s a waste of my time”, may I draw your attention to what the Bible says about wisdom: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” [Proverbs 9:10]

If nothing else, PLEASE read two chapters from the Bible – (don’t own one, sorry NO excuse, if you’re reading this, you can access this: John 3 and John 14!

John 3:16 says:  “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

And John 14:6 says: “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Well that’s it, that’s Da Bauz’s take, Organized Religion(s) – this 19th day of October 2011 © 2011, All Rights Reserved. wr (Da Bauz, Christian Zionist)