Posted: September 14, 2009
8:59 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

"It is silly to think that 'potential' is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have 'potential' and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them," Sunstein wrote in a review of the 2003 book "Our Posthuman Future" by Francis Fukuyama.

Sunstein's comparison is not firm, however, as sperm cells, unlike embryos, do not have the potential to develop into life on their own.

WND obtained and reviewed Sunstein's 17-page article in

which he scoffed at those who find human cloning morally repugnant.

"Moral repugnance might well be a response to vaguely remembered science fiction stories or horror movies, or to perceptions based on ignorance and confusion (as in the idea that a clone is a complete "copy" of the original, or a "copy" that is going to be evil)," he wrote.

Sunstein eventually determined there is no constitutional right for each citizen to clone themselves, but he seemed to argue for all states to allow cloning. Currently, while federal regulations prohibit federal funding for research into human cloning, there is no federal law banning cloning. Some individual states imposed a ban.

Wrote Sunstein: "For some people, cloning might be the only feasible way to produce a biological offspring. It would certainly not be ludicrous to say that as a matter of constitutional law, the state has to produce a strong justification for intruding on that choice in cases in which it is the only realistic option."

In addition to Sunstein's moral disregard for human embryos, WND reported last week</A>the Obama czar several times has quoted approvingly from an author who likened animals to slaves and argued an adult dog or a is more rational than a human infant and should, therefore, be granted similar

rights.

"You've heard a reference to Bentham, so let's listen to him, shall we," he begins in the video. He then quotes from Bentham's 1789 primer, "Introduction to Principals of Morals and Legislation," written just after slaves had been

freed by the French but were still held captive in the British dominions: The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor," Sunstein states, quoting Bentham.

Sunstein continues quoting the author: "A full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise."

The rest of Bentham's sentence, not captured in the video, continued, "what would it avail? The question is not, can they (animals) reason or can they talk? But, can they suffer?"

While the YouTube video offers only a brief sound bite with no context, a WND review of Sunstein's academic writings find he used the same verses from Bentham to push for animal rights.

In the footnotes to a 2002 academic paper for Harvard University, "The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer," Sunstein expresses his approval of Bentham's arguments:

"I suggest that Bentham and Mill were not wrong to offer an analogy between current uses of animals and human slavery," he wrote.

Several other works by Sunstein, including his books, quote approvingly of Bentham's statements comparing adult dogs and horses to human infants.

In the Harvard paper, Sunstein even suggests animals could be granted the right to sue humans in court. "We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are in some general sense 'persons,' or that they

are not property," he wrote.

The Senate last week confirmed Sunstein as Obama's administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs overcoming months of delay due to Republican concerns that he would push a

radical animal-rights agenda.

¡¡

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is scheduled to move forward rapidly in the U.S. House of Representatives over the next few weeks. ENDA's threat to free speech and action is second only to the federal hate crimes bill (also moving toward signing by Pres. Obama). ENDA is the Anti-Defamation League's workplace hate crimes bill. To understand its incredible threat, consider how far our society has drifted from the ancestral American conception of our rights.

Traditional American law gave every citizen sole control of his property, to use any lawful way he wished -- even in discrimination! "Discrimination" was historically understood as owners' prerogative to choose with whom to share their property. From Old Testament times, the laws of western Christian civilization upheld the sanctity of private property. The eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," is God's endorsement. Accumulation of wealth protects us not only from want but from tyranny and is thus a bastion of independence.

The Bible relates that in the time of Joseph the Egyptians harshly discriminated against shepherd peoples such as Joseph's brethren. They considered Egypt their land and were not obligated to share with those they did not like. Modern civil rights groups would scream "Apartheid!" but the Bible does not fault the Egyptians. It tacitly concedes

their right to use their property as they wished. Old Testament law upholds, without exception, the right of landowners to discriminate concerning use of what is theirs. Greed and lack of charity is condemned, but there is never any

hint that private property or enterprise must be shared with anyone who demands it.

Jesus taught that an employer's right of discrimination even allowed him to pay employees very different wages. His parable of the laborers describes an employer who contracts to give workers a certain amount for a day's work. In

the last hour of the workday, He hires others and pays them the same. The first laborers grumble, "We have borne the burden of the day." Yet Jesus upholds the employer's right to use his land and money exactly as he desires, even if it

seems discriminatory. "I do thee no wrong," the landowner told the first laborers. "Didst thou not agree with me for a penny?...Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?" (Matt. 20:1-16)

Jesus clearly inferred that our sovereign right to do with our property as we wish reflects the fact that man is made in the image of the ultimate landowner/proprietor, God. The Almighty is also entitled to use His own resources, distributing gifts as He chooses. These are Biblical values on which western Christian civilization erected its legal and social frameworks concerning private property. In America for more than 200 years, land, buildings, stores and factories were viewed as belonging to the owner, to be used any lawful way he desired. Owners had the right to hire or fire according to their will, whether their preferences were racist, bigoted or not. Their land or business belonged to themselves alone not society or their employees. Yes, abuses always result from the greed and cold-heartedness of mercenary employers. But the sovereignty of every citizen to own and use his property has ruled western society for ages -- a law resting squarely on Biblical ethics.

Giving Away Our Birthrights

Why has America abandoned that principle? It's largely because sovereign free citizens are frightened by

government and media claims that too much wealth, personal autonomy, and self-reliance beget abuses. Gradually convinced that the government is a wiser, more stable source of lifetime security, Americans over the past century have handed over their birthrights as free citizens and landowners to government.

At no time (except during Roosevelt's "New Deal") did Americans give up more than with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted in response to abuses caused by racial segregation. This unprecedented legislation was also passed as a calculated attempt by liberals and Marxists to end private control of personal property.

Racial segregation in the South prior to 1964 was the formal, structured legalization of man's personal freedom to

discriminate, a social and government code that would admit no exceptions. Although historically claiming authorization from Scripture, in many ways it did not honor New Testament encouragement of free association between all peoples.

The South contained many altruistic institutions and social organizations to make the "separate but equal" ideal workable; but segregation also bred many un-Christian attitudes and practices which generated chronic abuse, injustice, and resentment.

The Marxist revolutionary strategy for conquest of any society is to locate any pocket of friction between workers and management or between classes or races, and heighten those tensions. In contrast to the New Testament counsel to overlook inequities for the sake of long-term peace, Marxism depends on exacerbation of grievances. Its ultimate aim is to so enrage oppressed groups that they will function as its "proletariat," ultimately toppling the landed, capitalist "bourgeoisie." Communism is at war with the whole idea of people or groups owning land and property. Communists view such empowerment as a formidable barrier to their ambition of world dominion; thus Communism calls for abolition of private property. To this end, communists in government, the media, labor unions, and "civil rights" movements do their best to strip property owners of their rights. (This includes passage of land use

and environmental protection laws, often crippling and harassing private industry and landowners.) When the autonomy of private owners is destroyed, the second and final step becomes possible: expropriation of landowners from their

property altogether, collectivizing society under a new central communist government. At that time all control has been taken from the populace and placed in the hands of the state.

The civil rights movement, culminating in federal civil rights legislation, contained a significant percentage of Marxist activists and leaders as well as Jews. The Anti-Defamation League -- the same Jewish activist group that now promotes hate crimes laws worldwide -- played a pivotal role in energizing the civil rights movement. ADL is synonymous with the Marxist agenda. In 1962, as ADL was ramping up pressure for federal civil rights legislation, it also attempted to persuade the Portland, Oregon radio station that carried my father's broadcasts to end their contract with him. ADL told the management, "Rev. Pike is too anti-communist!"

It is well documented that Rev. Martin Luther King associated throughout his career with a number of known communist leaders (1). Just before he was assassinated, he publicly endorsed and praised Ho Chi Minh, head of the communist Viet Cong. Certainly, the civil rights movement was the dominant cause the American Communist Party championed throughout the 1960s. As a high school student between 1960 and 1964, I frequently read the

communist "People's World" and "The Daily Worker," whose fervent support of integration and a national civil rights law was virtually identical in argumentation with ADL and the rest of the Jewish-dominated media.

Employers: New Victim Class

Thus it is not surprising that, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, its first order of business was to end the right of private individuals to have complete authority over their property -- primarily businesses with more than 15 employees. The new law said that if a job applicant has the same qualifications as others a business owner cannot, for reasons of race, religion, or sex, deny them employment. In other words, the business you have toiled to create no longer exists to serve you but to serve the qualified masses. Property owners since 1964 must provide sustenance to others, including those they dislike. They dare not fire them for fear of a federal lawsuit.

As a result, those who correspond to the proletarian working classes are empowered to exploit employers, forcing them to submit to their desire to benefit from the employer's business. If any employer discriminates, he can face harsh fines and even a year in prison -- possibly destroying his business. As a result, those whom Marxists have historically described as "exploiters of the masses," businessmen, become exploited by those whom the federal government empowers.

In 1964, most Americans applauded this new inversion of workplace ethics, saying such was necessary to

counterbalance centuries of oppression against the blacks. Few dreamed that this unprecedented new legal and ethical system would lead to another group, homosexuals, claiming the same prerogative to take away the property rights of employers and landowners. In my next article, I will detail ENDA's assault not only on business and land owners but on churches and public morality. For now, the simplest way to understand the Employment

Non-Discrimination Act is to think of it much like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent civil rights legislation -- but with homosexuals added to the list of those who cannot be refused employment, housing, etc. Thanks to the

foundation laid by the Civil Rights Act, this new homosexual rights and empowerment law is now moving forward in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

ADL and homosexuals consider ENDA the "second stage" of the civil rights movement. It is very difficult not to believe that those hidden social engineers and strategists (largely ADL) who created the first stage, expropriating business and property owners from their property rights in 1964, did not have this "second stage" clearly in mind.

¡¡

¡¡

¡¡

PROOF FROM THE BIBLE AND THE IRISH ANNALS

John E Wall

ONE of the most beloved stories of traditional literature written by those who support the modern identity of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel is the story of the coming of the prophet Jeremiah to Ireland. According to this story shortly after c. 586 BCE when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, conquered Jerusalem, Jeremiah the prophet, accompanied by his scribe Baruch, and the daughters of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, fled that country and for a short time resided in Egypt. From there they took ship to Ireland, where one of the daughters married Eochaidh the high king "heremon or ard ri) of Ireland. A variation says that the marriage took place in Jerusalem. The royal couple governed the Emerald Isle from their capital at Tara in County Meath. Jeremiah, at that time an old man, was also reputed to have established a sort of ministerial training college at Tara. He became a revered figure in Irish legend.

Over the course of the centuries the royal line established at Tara was transferred from Ireland to Scotland to England where it survives today in the person of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A wondrous stone, variously called the Stone of Destiny, Stone of Scone, or Coronation Stone, upon which Her Majesty and her predecessors on the thrones of the three kingdoms were crowned, thought to be the stone that the patriarch Jacob slept on at Bethel (Genesis 28:18-22) was also believed to have been brought to Ireland by Jeremiah.

It is claimed that the story of Jeremiah coming to Ireland can be found in the ancient annals, histories and other literature of the Irish, and indeed references to it abound in the works written by traditional Ten Tribes scholars, especially 19th- century writers. Yet rarely, if ever, do these writers point to any specific history in which this tale may be found, vague references to "Irish annals" usually being made. A few examples will suffice: One authority states that "Irish historians are unanimous that about 580 B.C. there arrived in Ulster a notable man [Jeremiah], a patriarch or saint, accompanied by an Eastern princess, and a lesser person by the name of Simon Brach or Barech".

Further that, "Irish tradition tells us that Jeremiah married the princess Tamar Tephi to Eochaidh king of Ireland".

However, the historians are not named, nor is any particular tradition cited. Another writer says that "The ancient records of Ireland bear ample testimony to this [Jeremiah's coming to Ireland] as an historic fact, not only recording the event itself, but also supplying confirmatory evidence by giving the actual date or period of their arrival correctly".

Again, disappointingly, this author does not name the "ancient records" in which the Jeremiah story may be found; rather we read phrases such as, "the records conclude .. ." and "The royal records state .. .".

He dates the coming of Jeremiah to Ireland at late in 583 BCE or early 582 BCE.

The closest that any writer comes to naming names is a contemporary author and archaeologist, E. Raymond Capt. In his book, Jacob's Pillar: A Biblical Historical Study, Capt makes reference to The Chronicles of Eri, The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, The Annals of Clonmacnoise, and The Chronicles of Scotland. He quotes briefly from the latter and gives an extensive recounting of the entire Jeremiah legend in his notable book. However, like the learned writers cited above, Capt does not directly cite any passage in any ancient chronicle which explicitly mentions Jeremiah.

This lack of corroboration of the Jeremiah legend has caused some to doubt the validity of the entire story.

But I will show in this article that Jeremiah is mentioned in the Irish annals and histories, albeit under another name. His Judahite ancestry and prophetic identity are clearly stated and even a brief physical description is given. His friend and amanuensis Baruch is also mentioned. Furthermore, I will name names and give the reader of this article the references by which he may corroborate the story himself.

First, however, in order to understand the proper chronological context of Jeremiah's coming to Ireland, a brief review of Irish history prior to his arrival is necessary.

HISTORY OF IRELAND PRIOR TO JEREMIAH

Admittedly, the history of this ancient land can at times be confusing. It is said that the Irish like nothing so much

as a good story, and their willingness to romanticise and embellish has led to a certain confusion. On the other hand, it is not entirely their fault. Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of Catholic monks who altered the traditional Irish histories, or invented their own, in order to deliberately hide the Israelite ancestry of the Irish people. For instance, they attempted to portray the Irish as descendants of Magog, son of Japheth!

Irish history begins, as the history of every civilisation does, after the Flood of Noah's day. For three hundred years

after that catastrophic event, Ireland was an uninhabited land. A claim to sovereignty over Ireland was made, according to historian Herman L. Hoeh who refers to Irish annals, by the Assyrian king Ninus, son of Bel, but the land was

not colonised permanently.

In c. 2069 BCE, again according to Hoeh who uses Geoffrey Keating's History of Ireland as his source, a Hebrew

named Parthalon with his followers settled the land and established a kingdom, the country being divided into four parts after his death. The date, however, is open to some question. If the P-r-t in the name Partholan can be equated

with the b-r-t of the Hebrew brit (covenant), then it is difficult to see how this would have referred to a descendant of Abraham, who had not yet even been born. Moreover, as one authority states, "[t]he Partholanian (Parthalonian] story is clearly a variant of that of the eponymous ancestor of the British, Brutus [Greek: Peirithoos] the Trojan, with which it has been confused". Brutus arrived in Britain c. 1103 BCE, according to one scholar.

Others claim an earlier date, c. 1149 BCE. If this is so, then the date of 2069 BCE is impossible. The same source quoted above claims that Parthalon was a Milesian (see below). In any event, the Parthalonians, whoever they may have been, ruled Ireland intermittently until 1709 BCE, when a tragedy befell them at the hands of Phoenician Formorians. The island was then invaded by Nemedians from Scythia who lived in Ireland until 1492 BCE, being

ruled by the Formorians for much of this period. A portion of the Nemedians escaped during their sojourn in the land and returned in 1492 BCE as the Fir-Bolgs.

In 1456 BCE, a contingent of the famous Tuatha (pronounced "Too-ah") de Danaan ("Tribe of Danâ") arrived in

Ireland and ruled for 440 years until 1016 BCE. A second contingent came in 1213 BCE during the days of Deborah and Barak (Judges 5:17). Finally, in 1016 BCE, toward the end of the reign of King David of Israel, another Hebrew people, the Milesians, descendants of Eber the Hebrew according to Hoeh, conquered the Danaan (Danites), forcing them to accept their rule. The kingdom of Ireland was then divided between the two sons of Milesius, Ebher and Ghede the Ereamhon (Heremon or Erimionn, or high king) and a capital was established at Tobrad, also known as Tea-mur, Tamhair, Teamhara, and now called Tara.

Throughout all these invasions the Irish have meticulously maintained the record of their kings. Lists of these kings can be found in Geoffrey Keating's History of Ireland, O'Flaherty's Ogygia, and A..-M.-H.-J. Stokvis's Manuel dâ'Histoire, volume II, pages 234-235.

For our purposes here, however, the royal line that most concerns us is that of Nemedh, reputed ancestor of the

Hebrew people who invaded Ireland c. 1709 BCE. His royal descendants are listed in various sources, sometimes differently, yet they are important to our story, because it is in this genealogy whether always precisely accurate or not, that we find Jeremiah in Irish history, though under another name.

NEMEDIANS AND MILESIANS

Throughout this article, I have tried to pursue my objective, that of identifying Jeremiah in Irish history, in a manner that is easy for the reader to understand. The history of Ireland is confusing enough as it is without bringing in legends, fables, and tales of bravery and romance by the heroes of this "Holy Land" in the Atlantic. For this reason, I will confine myself to a discussion of Nemedh and his reputed descendants, one in particular whom I will identify with the Biblical Jeremiah.

Historian Geoffrey Keating, writing of the expedition of Nemedh to Ireland in "thirty-four ships, with a crew of

thirty in each ship" said that this party of colonisers was led by "Nemedh and his four sons, Stain, Larbanel the

Prophet, Anind and Fergus Leth-derg (Fergus of the Red Side)". In the <I>Annals of Clonmacnoise, the same

four sons are named, in a different order (the father is called Neuie McAgamemnon): "with his foure sonns [camel Into Ireland out of Greece, his sonnes names alsoe were Sdarne, Jaruanell [Larbanel], the prophett, Fergus Leahderg, ... and Anynn [which] people Ruled Ireland 382 years".

Another historical source, the Leabhar Gabhala (Book of Conquests) agrees, adding that Iarbanel the

Prophet was a Nemedian chief. (Though Iarbanel is called a "son" of Nemedh, this need not literally be true. It simply means he is a descendant of Nemedh.) The account reads: "Now as for Neimedh [Nemedh], he had four chiefs with him, Stain, Iarbanel the Prophet, Fergus Redside, and Ainnian. They were four sons of Neimedh".

Still another account names Nemedh the ancestor of the Danaans. Keating writes, "Some antiquarians say, that the

nation, of whom we are now treating, were called Tuatha-De-Danaan, from Brian, Iuchar and Iucharba, the three sons of Dana, daughter of Delbaeth, son of Elathan, son of Niadh, son of Indae, son of Allae, son of Tath, son of Tabam,

son of Enda or Enna, son of Beothach, son of Ibaath, son of Bathach, son of Iarbanel, son of Nemedh".

We find an echo of this in the Leabhar Gabhala, naming the same names as above (except that Elathan is called the son of Delbaeth) and also that "Larbanel the Prophet [is the], son of Neimedh [Nemedh], son of Agnoman". (Agnoman is an obvious reference to Agamemnon, king of the Greek Mycenae, who led an expedition against the Trojans to recover Helen, wife of Agamemnon's brother Menelaus, king of Sparta. See also Neuie McAgamemnon, above.)

Two other figures from Irish history, Bres of the Danaan and Nuadh Silver-Arm claim descent from Nemedh. Iarbanel is mentioned in both genealogies as a son of Nemedh. The Milesians also figure into this tale, but more on that later. All this need not be as confusing as it looks, as there is a common thread running through all these genealogies. Whether we speak of Nemedians, Fir-Bolgs (a branch of the Nemedians), Danaans, or Milesians, all these peoples were Hebrews. As the Nemedians preceded the other peoples, it is clear that the Irish historians have attempted to trace the lineage of their kings to this island's earliest Hebrew ancestors.

But still we have not identified Jeremiah in Irish history. Or have we? Actually, we have stumbled across his name several times already without recognising it. The next section will positively identify Jeremiah in the annals of ancient Ireland.

WHO WAS IARBANEL?

In all the genealogies of Nemedh's descendants, one name is met with consistently: Iarbanel the Prophet. Who was

he? Where did he come from? Do the annals have anything to say about him that might be germane to our argument? Astoundingly, the Irish histories have several important things to say about Iarbanel, enough to answer the above questions. They give us the land of his birth (not Ireland), a brief physical description, and a description of his character. Yet, outside of Irish history, nothing seems to be known about him. I will demonstrate, however, that once we have established the identity of Iarbanel, a great deal is known about him.

Iarbanel is clearly stated to be a descendant ("son of") Nemedh, the Hebrew chieftain. This obviously makes Larbanel also a Hebrew. Furthermore, Iarbanel is also unique in that he is called a prophet, the only one of Nemedh's descendants so called.

Nor is Larbanel the only name by which he is known in Irish history. He is also found in the Milesian story as well.

Again, Keating, in his account of founders of a sort of school established by Fenius Farsa in Egypt after the Tower of Tahpanhes was abandoned. He writes, "The three sages that held the chief direction of this great school were Fenius Farsa from Scythia; Gaedal, son of Ethor, of the race of Gomer, from Greece; and Caei, the Eloquent (or the Just), from Judea, or Iar (Iarbanel], son of Nemha [Nemedh], as others call him ...".

Notice that Larbanel, known here by the name Caei, is called an "eloquent" and a "just" man. Also note that he comes from Judea! As for the name Tahpanhes, this should be familiar to Bible students. The name is found in the book of Jeremiah: "So they [a party of rebellious Jews, with faithful Jeremiah, his secretary Baruch, and King Zedekiah's daughters] came into the land of Egypt: for they (the Jews) obeyed not the voice of the Lord: thus they came even to Tahpanhes" Jeremiah 43:7). The Jewish refugees lived in Tahpanhes temporarily, and, according to legend, Jeremiah, his scribe, and the king's daughters left that place to continue their journey to Ireland.

But Irish historians have more to say about Iarbanel. Keating, quoting from the Leabhar Gabhala, gives us the

following lines from a poem: "The Fair Iarbanel, a prophet true, /Was son of Nemedh, son of Ardnaman- / To this

gray hero, mighty in spells / Was born Beothach of wild steeds".Here Iarbanel is called "fair"(which may refer to lightness of skin or a mild and pacific temperament or a man of sympathy, deep feeling and justice), a "prophet true" (as opposed to a false prophet); a "gray hero"; and, "mighty of spells", i.e., a miracle-worker.

What have we learned about Iarbanel so far? Firstly, he was a Hebrew, a true prophet, who came from Judea, during the time of Jeremiah's stay at Tahpanhes. He was an eloquent and a just man, fair of skin and/or temperament, an old man, considered a hero and a worker of miracles.

What do we know about Jeremiah?

Firstly, he was a Hebrew, a true prophet (Jeremiah 1:5) coming from a priestly family (Jeremiah 1:1); he came from Judea <FONT (Anathoth in Judah, a town northeast of Jerusalem-Jeremiah 1:1). He spoke the word of the Lord often and eloquently, rising early (Jeremiah 7:13, 25; 25:3; 35:14), speaking of justice (Jeremiah 22:15; 23:5; 31:23; 50:7). His eloquence, given to Jeremiah by God Himself (Jeremiah 1:7, 9) is revealed in his words and in this admission from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that, "As far as the form of his poetic utterances is concerned, Jeremiah is of a poetical nature. ... He often speaks in the meter of an elegy"(19) As for "fair" (in the temperamental sense) and just, the ISBE says that Jeremiah "was, by nature, gentle and tender in his feelings, and sympathetic"

At the time of his flight from Judea, Jeremiah would have been an old man. The ISBE says that At that time (the

time of Jeremiah's stay at Tahpanhes] Jeremiah must have been from 70 to 80 years old". After a long life in the

Lord's service, enduring many trials, a "gray hero" indeed. The evidence brought forth from Irish history and the Bible favours the identification of Iarbanel with Jeremiah. But a nagging question remains: the name Iarbanel itself. What is its derivation and what does it mean?

At the beginning of this article I promised to actually name Jeremiah in the Irish annals. I will now do so. The

name Jeremiah in Hebrew is 'Yirmeyahu', abbreviated to 'Yirmeyah'. It means "Yahweh establishes". The beginning letters in the name are 'yod' and 'resh'. It is possible, in fact, on the basis of the evidence presented here, more than likely that the letters "Lar" in "Larbanel" are simply an abbreviation for the name Yirmeyahu

(Jeremiah), a transliteration into the Irish tongue of the 'yod' and 'resh' of the prophet's name. But what does the rest of the name larbanel mean-"banel"? With an elementary knowledge of Hebrew, the meaning is easy to discover. Ban is simply the Hebrew 'ben', meaning "son of"; "el" is the Hebrew "El", meaning "God". Remembering that "Lar" is a short form of the name Jeremiah, one can easily see that Iarbanel, translated from Hebrew to English is Iar ben El, or "Jeremiah, the son of God.

As a true prophet of God, who had God's Holy Spirit within him, Jeremiah could legitimately be called a son of God. The Lord Himself as much said so,"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou carnest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" - (Jeremiah 1:5). As a "sanctified one", i.e., one set apart for holy use and having the Spirit of God, Jeremiah certainly qualified as a saint.

Was Iarbanel also a saint? The Irish annals do not explicitly say so, but it can be assumed that for a "just" man who was a "prophet true "and "mighty of spells", and whose name meant "son of God", sainthood was at least a distinct possibility. It is interesting to note that the Irish word for saint is (pronounced "nav"), and that Iarbanel is said to be a son of Nemedh, also spelled Nemha. Is there a philological connection between Nemedh/Nemha and namh? More light on this question will be shed later, but for now let us note the opinion of Yair Davidy, a respected Israeli Ten Tribes researcher, who points out that, "Nemha [Nemedh] (i.e. in "Iar son of Nemh" above) is from

the same root as Nemedian and means sanctified" (emphasis mine).

A sanctified person is a saint!

The evidence presented in this article leads to only one conclusion: that Iarbanel was Jeremiah. If one does not

believe that Iarbanel was Jeremiah, then one is forced to believe that an amazing thing has happened. It has happened that a Hebrew prophet, a true prophet of the Lord in whom God's Holy Spirit dwelt and was thus a "son of

God", who was a saint, who lived in Judea, who fled to Tahpanhes in Egypt with his secretary and friend Baruch and others, who was an eloquent speaker and a gentle man who preached justice, who was an old man and a worker of miracles, disappeared from the face of the earth.

At the same time in history there appeared in Ireland, a Hebrew prophet, whose name means "son of God", a true prophet, who was considered a saint, who lived in Judea, who fled to Tahpanhes in Egypt, who had a "son" named Brec, who was an eloquent and a just man, who was an old man and "mighty in spells", appeared on the scene, fullyformed, literally out of nowhere.

If one does not believe that Iarbanel was Jeremiah, one must believe that this is all a coincidence.

The coincidence is impossible. Iarbanel was Jeremiah. It is a fact of history.

¡¡

¡¡

¡¡

By Rebecca Lefort and Ben Leapman
Published: 5:07PM BST 15 Sep 2009

The Islamic name overtook traditional choices like Jack, Thomas and Daniel to become the number one name in the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the North West, as well as in the capital, in 2008.

The figures emerged in a detailed regional breakdown of figures published last week by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

It is the first time that the Muslim name has been shown to the top choice for parents in any part of the UK. In previous years no regional figures were disclosed, only nationwide totals.

When various spellings of the Islamic prophet are added together - including Muhammad, Mohammad, Mohamed and Muhammed - the name is now more than twice as popular in London as the capital's second-ranked boys name, Daniel. There were 1,828 baby boys given the name Mohammed, including varients, in 2008, compared with only 844 who were called Daniel.

London is not the first European capital to see Mohammed become the number one name for baby boys. In Brussels, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo the name has already gained the top slot.

In the West Midlands, 1,399 baby boys were given the name Mohammed last year, including varient spellings, almost twice as many as the next most popular name, Jack, with 768.

In the North West 1,337 boys were named Mohammed, including varients, beating Jack into second place with 1,154. And in Yorkshire and the Humber there were 1,255 babies registered with the name Mohammed, including varients, with Jack again second with 854.

Throughout England and Wales Mohammed, including its varient spellings, was the third most popular name, with 6,591 newborns given the religious name, behind Jack with 8,007 and Oliver with 7,413.

Nationwide the most popular name for baby girls was Olivia, with 5,317 given the name, followed by 4,924 named Ruby and 4,874 called Emily.

In recent years the ONS has refused to divulge regional lists of popular baby names. It is likely that Mohammed has been the most popular choice in the capital for a number of years already, but it has never been demonstrated conclusively until now.

Experts believe that internationally around 15 million people are called Mohammed, making it the most popular male name in the world.

Murtaza Shibli of the Muslim Council of Britain said he was not surprised to find Mohammed had become the most popular boys name in parts of the country.

"People choose it because of their love of the prophet Mohammed, and they believe the name will bring happiness and abundance," he said.

"Also because of its meaning - the praised one. Also there is a belief that if you do name your children Mohammed they will follow the good example of the prophet.

"There are so many spellings because it is an Arabic name and there are different ways of translating it into English."

Other ONS data from its July to September 2008 Labour Force Survey shows the Muslim population is growing 10 times faster than the rest of the population. Last year more than 2.4 million people identified themselves as Muslims, according to the survey's findings, up more than 500,000 in four years. In the same period the number of Christians fell by more than 2 million, to 42.6 million.

¡¡

¡¡

Posted: September 23, 2009
4:34 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

First, he addressed affirmative action policies:

"During the Clinton administration, largely because of Congress, who was then very concerned about affirmative action and believed that ¨C although affirmative action largely benefited white women ¨C that affirmative action was largely viewed as something that was benefitting blacks ¨C not necessarily any of the other racial groups [chuckle] but by blacks. And that blacks had gotten enough and it was time to do something about this. These affirmative-action programs needed to be stopped. We have not made much improvement since we had begun to pull back from those things in the mid-1990s."

He later spoke about his concerns about whites occupying important leadership positions:

"There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions," Lloyd said. "And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem."

He continued, "We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power."

Chavez kicked the nation's oldest television network, RCTV, off the air in 2007 by refusing to renew its license, the Washington Times reported. He replaced it with a state-run station that aired cartoons and old movies while protesters marched in the streets. Chavez has also indicated that he may try to close down Globovision, a TV station that has criticized him.

In addition to his comments at the May 2005 Conference on Media Reform about affirmative action and rooms "full of whites," Lloyd also told the crowd, "There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark-skinned black men.