Available for a limited time only.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Friday, April 28, 2017
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
The Andrew Klavan Show Ep. 301 - Can Liberty Survive?
Religion is not equivalent to race, by which I mean to say that islam is not a race.
If my memory serves, I seem to recall that there were objections to making catholics citizens of the new nation, as it was felt that they would consider themselves to be subject to the pope rather than the government. That objection was stilled after catholics had joined in the fight for independence.
There was also a requirement in at least one of the original state constitutions that any public servant had to sign a statement declaring themselves to be a Christian before they could take office.
("Delaware Constitution, Art. 22 (adopted Sept. 20, 1776):
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house,
or appointed to any office or place of trust . . .
shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
"I ________, do profess faith in God the Father,
and in Jesus Christ His only Son,
and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore;
and I do acknowledge the holy scripture
of the Old and New Testaments to be
given by divine inspiration."")
There are some still on the books today as it was recognized that atheists were unable to take oaths - including the oath necessary to testify in a court of law - because any person who did not believe that they answer to God would have a reason to tell the truth if it was of more personal benefit to do otherwise.
("Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.")
The concern, then as it should be now, was whether or not someone who is not a Christian would adhere to the form of government being set up by the founders. It was also understood and expected that any man of principle would serve his god over any government. The form of government they created was designed to work with the shared morals, values and ethics of Christianity while not allowing the state to impose a religion on any citizen. (Because only a fool would expect a man forced into a religion to respect or abide by the doctrines of that religion.) And that is why John Jay said that we should select and prefer Christians for our leaders. Because the government would not work without people of principle who believed that they were answerable to God rather than people.
It is admirable that Mr. Klavan wants to be welcoming. We all want to be welcoming of others. And, as the most generous nation on the face of the Earth, it is clear that Americans in general love to help other people. We want to help refugees and we hope that they will be grateful when we do. We think they will see our way of life and want to have it and seek to discover how it is done and adopt our ways.
But we also expect those other people to behave in a civilized manner and if they do not, you don't keep letting them in. The government has a primary duty to protect the rightful citizens of a nation that precludes any obligation of charity to the citizens of other nations. Just as you would not invite a child molester into your home and leave them alone with your children, you don't keep bringing in people who think it is their God given right to rape your women and children and kill whomever they please - as long as that person is not a follower of their barbaric death cult.
This is a situation that calls for peace through strength, not through charity. The followers of muhammed do not regard our charity as a reason to adopt our ways, they see it as an advertisement that we are exactly what their religion tells them we are - weak and required to submit to them. They regard our attempts at charity as their rightful spoils from non muslims. Negotiation, in that culture is an indicator of weakness rather than restraint.
We would be wise to make it clear that it is not.a sign of weakness.
"10 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.
2 A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.
3 Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.
4 If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.
5 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler:
6 Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.
If my memory serves, I seem to recall that there were objections to making catholics citizens of the new nation, as it was felt that they would consider themselves to be subject to the pope rather than the government. That objection was stilled after catholics had joined in the fight for independence.
There was also a requirement in at least one of the original state constitutions that any public servant had to sign a statement declaring themselves to be a Christian before they could take office.
("Delaware Constitution, Art. 22 (adopted Sept. 20, 1776):
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house,
or appointed to any office or place of trust . . .
shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
"I ________, do profess faith in God the Father,
and in Jesus Christ His only Son,
and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore;
and I do acknowledge the holy scripture
of the Old and New Testaments to be
given by divine inspiration."")
There are some still on the books today as it was recognized that atheists were unable to take oaths - including the oath necessary to testify in a court of law - because any person who did not believe that they answer to God would have a reason to tell the truth if it was of more personal benefit to do otherwise.
("Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.")
The concern, then as it should be now, was whether or not someone who is not a Christian would adhere to the form of government being set up by the founders. It was also understood and expected that any man of principle would serve his god over any government. The form of government they created was designed to work with the shared morals, values and ethics of Christianity while not allowing the state to impose a religion on any citizen. (Because only a fool would expect a man forced into a religion to respect or abide by the doctrines of that religion.) And that is why John Jay said that we should select and prefer Christians for our leaders. Because the government would not work without people of principle who believed that they were answerable to God rather than people.
It is admirable that Mr. Klavan wants to be welcoming. We all want to be welcoming of others. And, as the most generous nation on the face of the Earth, it is clear that Americans in general love to help other people. We want to help refugees and we hope that they will be grateful when we do. We think they will see our way of life and want to have it and seek to discover how it is done and adopt our ways.
But we also expect those other people to behave in a civilized manner and if they do not, you don't keep letting them in. The government has a primary duty to protect the rightful citizens of a nation that precludes any obligation of charity to the citizens of other nations. Just as you would not invite a child molester into your home and leave them alone with your children, you don't keep bringing in people who think it is their God given right to rape your women and children and kill whomever they please - as long as that person is not a follower of their barbaric death cult.
This is a situation that calls for peace through strength, not through charity. The followers of muhammed do not regard our charity as a reason to adopt our ways, they see it as an advertisement that we are exactly what their religion tells them we are - weak and required to submit to them. They regard our attempts at charity as their rightful spoils from non muslims. Negotiation, in that culture is an indicator of weakness rather than restraint.
We would be wise to make it clear that it is not.a sign of weakness.
"10 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.
2 A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.
3 Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.
4 If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.
5 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler:
6 Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.
7 I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth." ~ Ecc 10:1-7
Monday, April 24, 2017
Friday, April 21, 2017
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Friday, April 14, 2017
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Monday, April 10, 2017
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Political Pistachio: Presidential War Powers, Constitutionally Speaking
"One more quick note: The War Powers Act of 1973 is often brought up in these discussions. While, if in line with constitutional authorities, such laws can be important tools in the debate, remember that no law can change authorities because no law supersedes the U.S. Constitution. In other words, despite arguments to the contrary, including those that use the War Powers Act as their source, the President can, legally, use the military in combat operations (including sending Tomahawk missiles into an airfield in Syria) without congressional approval, or even letting them know he's going to do so in the first place." Read more at:
Political Pistachio: Presidential War Powers, Constitutionally Speaking
Political Pistachio: Presidential War Powers, Constitutionally Speaking
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Friday, April 7, 2017
"Isn't the Bible sexist?" | Reboot Youth Apologetics | Amy Orr-Ewing
"Isn't the Bible sexist?" | Reboot Youth Apologetics | Amy Orr-Ewing
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Monday, April 3, 2017
Political Pistachio: Uncle Sam is not our Heavenly Father
"It is clear that as a virtuous people we are commanded to resist evil. As our American System succumbs to tyrannical power-brokers, it is our duty (and our right, according to the Declaration of Independence), to “alter or abolish” the government, and “institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The Founding Fathers understood that to maintain a system of liberty, the citizenry must not only be moral and virtuous, but vigilant in protecting and preserving their liberty."
Read more here:
Political Pistachio: Uncle Sam is not our Heavenly Father:
Read more here:
Political Pistachio: Uncle Sam is not our Heavenly Father:
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Saturday, April 1, 2017
This wasn't about President Trump
There has been enough nonsense from the talking heads on the alphabet networks about the failure of Mr. ryan's health care bill. They talk and talk and talk and continue to ignore the most basic fact about what really caused this bill to fail. The failure of this bill had almost nothing to do with Mr. Trump and nearly everything to do with Congress.
Since the very air in D. C. seems to cause ordinary people to lose their bearings, their morals, their ethics and their minds, here is the answer they are seeking as to why this effort failed.
The people do not want obamacare. We have never wanted it. We have always seen it as government poking it's nose where it does not belong and where it has no business being.
For some reason, the 111th Congress.passed it anyway. (May they live in infamy)
The people of this nation have spent the last 7 years telling Congress to repeal it. Not to replace it, to REPEAL it. REPEAL, period. Get rid of it. The people of this nation have elected Representatives and Senators and now a president on the promise of repeal. Not replacement, repeal,
Yes, there are things the Congress could have (and should have)done to reduce health care costs for ordinary people. Engaging on a financially unsupportable, privacy invading, government expanding, takeover of what was the best health care system on the face of the Earth at that time was and is not one of those things.
Kudos to the House of Representatives, who passed more than 40 bills to repeal all or part of obamacare during Mr. obama's tenure only to have them single - handedly blocked by Mr. reid who refused to bring a single one of them to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
You said the people needed to give the GOP the House after this monstrous thing was passed.
Since the very air in D. C. seems to cause ordinary people to lose their bearings, their morals, their ethics and their minds, here is the answer they are seeking as to why this effort failed.
The people do not want obamacare. We have never wanted it. We have always seen it as government poking it's nose where it does not belong and where it has no business being.
For some reason, the 111th Congress.passed it anyway. (May they live in infamy)
The people of this nation have spent the last 7 years telling Congress to repeal it. Not to replace it, to REPEAL it. REPEAL, period. Get rid of it. The people of this nation have elected Representatives and Senators and now a president on the promise of repeal. Not replacement, repeal,
Yes, there are things the Congress could have (and should have)done to reduce health care costs for ordinary people. Engaging on a financially unsupportable, privacy invading, government expanding, takeover of what was the best health care system on the face of the Earth at that time was and is not one of those things.
Kudos to the House of Representatives, who passed more than 40 bills to repeal all or part of obamacare during Mr. obama's tenure only to have them single - handedly blocked by Mr. reid who refused to bring a single one of them to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
You said the people needed to give the GOP the House after this monstrous thing was passed.
We gave you the House
You said the people needed to give the GOP the Senate when Mr. reid blocked all the bills the House passed, so that you could get one of them to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
We gave you the Senate.
Then you said we needed to give the GOP the presidency because even if a bill managed to pass both the House and the Senate, the person sitting in the office of the POTUS would veto it and you didn't have enough votes to override a veto. (Because, apparently you do not trust the people to pressure the democrat and independent members enough to get you the votes you need.)
We gave you the presidency.
And what do we get? This. This thing that must be broken into three parts and would leave much of the regulatory nonsense associated with obamacare intact to bite us in the behind down the road. That is why this bill failed. Not because Mr. Trump did anything wrong - aside from trusting you - GOP congressmen and women. But because you promised us repeal and then you gave us this. You are lucky you aren't all facing recall elections. Don't count on retaining your seats if you refuse to repeal obamacare. We were promised and we expect a full repeal.
( “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.” ~ Thomas Jefferson)
Then, and only then, we can talk about other measures that could and should have been tried long, LONG before that monstrosity we now call obamacare should have made it to the floor.
Things like interstate portability to allow competition between insurers to bring down prices. Things like tort reform so that doctors don't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance. Things like requiring health care facilities to provide price lists for goods and services so that people will know how much it will cost them to speak to a doctor for 15 minutes or to get a strep test.
REPEAL IT.
Can you hear us now? Or would you prefer to be told with tar and feathers? We can do that if you continue to lie to us and treat us like children who can't understand the way things "have" to get done. The plain fact is that if you can't get this done with the House, the Senate and the presidency behind it, then you are incompetent or worse and should be removed as a political party. The democrats may promise pie in the sky and downright evil, but at least they actually think they can get it for their constituents - and have been doing so by increments for the last century while you keep trying to get the democrats to like you by giving them those very same increments. Stop it. We did not elect you to win a popularity contest.
Yes, the media and the democrats will scream bloody murder about it. That's what children do when they don't get their own way and the democrat party has been taken over by communists who have been doing their level best to bring the political discourse in this nation down to the level of spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum. Because children don't get to vote, and if they can convince enough citizens to act like children, then they can argue that they are the adults who know best for all of us. It is national suicide to give them their way in this.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Oh, and this post is not an April Fool's joke, unless the American people are the ones being pranked by a Congress that never had any intention of repealing that pig of a bill, in which case it is a very poor jest indeed.
Oh, and this post is not an April Fool's joke, unless the American people are the ones being pranked by a Congress that never had any intention of repealing that pig of a bill, in which case it is a very poor jest indeed.
27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
28 For the kingdom is the Lord's: and he is the governor among the nations.
29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.
30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this. ~ Psalm 22:27-31
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
