That is diversity, is it not?
And who is the least represented minority in America on the U.S. Supreme Court? Not Catholics, who have two-thirds of the seats. Not Jewish-Americans, who though 2 percent of the population, have 22 percent of the seats. Not African-Americans, who at 13 percent of the population have 11 percent of the seats. And not Hispanics, who at 15 percent of the population will have 11 percent of the seats.
No, the most underrepresented group of Americans — nay, the most unrepresented minority, the largest group of our fellow citizens never to have had one of its own sit on the U.S. Supreme Court in the modern era is — Evangelical Christians.
They are more numerous than Catholics, who at 24 percent of the population have 67 percent of the seats on the court. And, for Republicans, they are a far more reliable voting bloc than Catholics — not to mention Hispanics, Jews and African-Americans, all of whom voted somewhere between two to one and 20 to one for Obama.
Bush II tried to close the Evangelical gap with Harriet Miers, but conservatives opposed her as unqualified.
Republicans should now be searching for highly qualified Evangelical Christian judges and constitutional scholars, women as well as men — and, when falsely accused of being “anti-Hispanic” or “anti-woman,” ought to reply: “What do you liberals have against white Christians, man or woman, not to have named one in 45 years?”
Everybody can play the diversity game
Tag: Christianity
Sad News: Radio Host, Author, Writer, and Christian; Alan Stang dies at 80
Some sad news to report:
Author and radio host Alan Stang, a longstanding champion for conservativism and outspoken opponent of communism in the U.S., died yesterday. He was 80 years old.
Stang began his career in communications as an editor for Prentice-Hall before moving on to radio at NBC in New York City. The award-winning journalist also worked as one of Mike
Wallace’s first writers before Wallace became a fixture of “60 Minutes” and went toe-to-toe in the ratings against Larry King, when the two hosted competing radio shows in Los Angeles. Stang boasted that despite broadcasting on a station of significantly less power, his program drew twice as many listeners as King’s.
Most recently, Stang hosted “The Sting of Stang” show on the Republic Broadcasting Network.
“My dad spent his whole life fighting for this country,” Stang’s son Jay told WND. “He saw something to fight for, just like every one of us. He never gave up, even when he had to fight for his own life instead. His treasure was truly in heaven. He loved Jesus Christ with all his heart, and he loved his family. He was able to hold his first two grandchildren in his arms and look them in the eye. He is happy now and has no more pain or sorrow. He is with his savior.”
via Author, radio host Alan Stang dies at 80 – WorldNetDaily
I will admit it, I did not always agree with this man. In fact, there were times, when I would read his stuff and I would cringe at some of the things he said. But, then I’d smile and think to myself; he reminds me; of myself. Stang’s writings were a mixture of Conservatism, Conspiracy Theory and Christianity. Some of it, I enjoyed, and some; I just read.
May Brother Allan rest in the Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord Jesus be with his fine family.
Rest in Peace Allen; Me, Chuck Baldwin, Freedom’s Phoenix and everyone who stands for Freedom….. We will take it from here.
You can read Mr. Stang’s writings here.
Sounds like a good idea……But!
The Founder of the Largely Neo-Conservative Owned Free Republic, writes the following, While I think it is great. I have some problems with it myself. I will quote an underline the problem areas:
Here is our recourse as declared by our Founding Fathers:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
It cannot be denied that the central government has become destructive of our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and our rights to live free. The government is no longer responsive to we the People. They have stretched and shredded the constitution to the point that they have illegally seized for themselves virtually unlimited powers over the citizens and act as if we have no rights and no powers of our own. They are acting without our consent.
Our Founders established that when our government becomes destructive of our rights then it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to 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.
We have reached the point where the government’s long train of abuses and usurpations has achieved absolute Despotism, therefore it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for our future security.
Therefore, We the People of America choose to exercise our right to throw off and alter the abusive government by peacefully recalling and removing from office the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States and all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives effective immediately.
Okay first off; why does it have to peacefully? We did not separate from Great Britain peacefully. It took a war, and people were; gulp, killed. So, why are all of the sudden the Conservatives becoming peace-nicks? Just a thought, I am not advocating violence; just trying to make a point here.
The next wonderful little issue that I have with this article is this:
Our first unalienable right is the right to life. Protecting Life and Liberty shall be of paramount importance to our central government. Roe v Wade and all congressional acts, regulations, court opinions allowing legalized abortion or the taking of innocent human life are hereby rescinded, overruled, repealed, nullified and voided. Life is fully protected by the U.S. Government.
Now this is where I am going to get into trouble with the Pro-life, Right to life, Nazi Republicans. I just do not believe that the Federal Government has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. What these so-called “Pro life” Zealots call the protection of the unborn life. I call the unconstitutional exertion of Federal Governmental power. Abortion is and always should be a State Governmental issue; it never,ever should be a Federal Government issue. One cannot have it both ways. Either you believe in limited Government or you do not. Either you believe that the Federal Government has NO RIGHT to controls one’s movements, life or property; or you believe it has the right to control ALL of your life, movements and property. These Republicans who speak out of both sides of their mouths are speaking a language that borders of a bi-polar disorder. The reason ROE v WADE was decided like it was; was because it was determined that the Federal Outlawing of the practice of Abortion was unconstitutional. I am afraid, as a federalist, that I agree with that decision. Not in the grounds that I support abortion; because I do not support such ungodly practice, but rather on the grounds of Constitutionality and because of my personal convictions towards a centralized Government. When the Government supposedly protects, it is exerting powers over the people. That is centralized Government and I oppose it in ALL of its forms. If people do not want to have an Abortion, they should be able to CHOOSE NOT to have an Abortion. It simply boils down to this. When the United States Government has to “Protect”, it automatically assumes that “We the People” are not smart enough to choose the right thing. That my friends flies in the face of the founding principles of what this Nation was founded upon.
The rest of this article is border bellicose and simply aspirational in nature. But it is interesting reading.
The Liberals, of course, are going to have fit about it. Because they believe in a socialistic form of Government, which is basically a Communist-lite form of a Government. Keith Olbermann will most likely feature it in his “Head-exploding” Worst person in the World segment.
Others: Little Green Footballs, Right Wing Nut House, and Macsmind
Movie: Light of the World
Possibly one of the greatest depictions of the Gospel Story of Jesus Christ ever.
By Jack Chick
An Aunt's Grief
Headline of the Day
Every now and again; I see a headline that stops me cold in my tracks. Here’s the one I saw today:
“Christian Believers Would Be Excluded From Government If The Left Liberals Had Their Way”
You will never be able to guess where I saw such a headline…… Go on, guess!
I know.. “What?!?!“; that’s what I thought too, when I saw it.
Money Quote:
As it happens, one doctor to whom I spoke (he is a professor at the Harvard Medical School and vice president for research at one of its teaching hospitals) compared the Collins group’s identification of the errant gene that causes cystic fibrosis to the discovery of one disabled bulb in the entire American electric web. No mean piece of work.
So what’s wrong with Collins?
He is a practicing and believing Christian. It’s odd–isn’t it?–that this fact should make a scientific designee unfit or unsuited for a job. Soon we will hear the same about judicial nominees. The establishment mounted a sustained campaign in the Senate (and outside) against President Wilson’s nomination of Louis D. Brandies to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the candidate was Jewish, although some of his critics tended to be euphemistic rather than direct about their objections. Not so those who are against Collins.
The president must have anticipated this reaction. It is reassuring that he did not crumble in advance.
Needless to say, there are some liberals that are NOT happy with the wording in this article. Well, the way I see it. Anything that makes the far left Liberals Angry is usually just well-written or is filled with absolute truth about them.
I think I have a whole new respect for The New Republic. It’s recent past notwithstanding.
The Reading Room: Liberalism or Christianity?
(Source)
Liberalism or Christianity?
by J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Originally published in THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, Vol. 20, 1922, Page 112
An address delivered, in substance, in the Wayne Presbyterian Church, Wayne, Pennsylvania, November 3, 1921, before the Twenty- Eighth Annual Convention of the Ruling Elders’ Association of Chester Presbytery, on the subject, “The Present Attack against the Fundamentals of our Christian Faith, from the Point of View of Colleges and Seminaries.” Originally published in The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 20, 1922, Machen later turned this short essay into a manuscript which was published in 1923 under the title: Christianity & Liberalism (Macmillan, 1923). This article, however, is now in the public domain (original pagination has been kept intact for purposes of reference). This electronic edition was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink.
The attack upon the fundamentals of the Christian faith is not a matter merely of theological seminaries and universities. It is being carried on vigorously by Sunday School “lesson-helps,” by the pulpit, and by the religious press. The remedy, therefore, is not to be found in the abolition of theological seminaries, or the abandonment of scientific theology, but rather in a more earnest search after truth and a more loyal devotion to it when once it is found.
At the seminaries and universities, the roots of the great issue are more clearly seen than in the world at large; among students the reassuring employment of traditional phrases is often abandoned, and the advocates of a new religion are not at pains, as they are in the Church at large, to maintain a pretence of conformity with the past. In discussing the attack against the fundamentals of Christianity “from the point of view of colleges and seminaries,” therefore, we are simply discussing the root of the matter instead of its mere superficial manifestations. What, at bottom, when the traditional phrases have all been stripped away, is the real meaning of the present revolt against historic Christianity?
Continue reading “The Reading Room: Liberalism or Christianity?”
Next time someone tells you that Islam is a Religion of peace; Show them this video
The Synopsis of this video:
This is a video of David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi asking questions at Arabfest, Dearborn. The date is June 21st, 2009. There was a booth at the festival which had a banner titled “Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers.” From their table, we picked up a pamphlet claiming that Islam promotes peace. We noticed that it was full of poor logic and errors, so we decided to make a video refuting it. We went to the booth that gave us the pamphlet to give them the opportunity to defend their claims. Security, however, stepped in and forced us to turn off our camera.
We left the booth, received advice from police, and found out that the actions of the security guards were illegal. We went back to the booth to record a potential answer again. Realizing that the Muslims present had no answer, we left.
When we came outside, we were asked some questions by two young men, who had been sent by security to entrap us. While we responded to them, festival security started assaulting us, as you will see in this video. The conclusion of this video is a mob of festival security attacking our cameras, pushing us back, kicking our legs, and lying to the police.
We ask you, is it a coincidence that the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States is the city where Christianity is not allowed to be represented (let alone preached) on a public sidewalk? Is it coincidence that in this city, people will say “No way!” when we say “This is the United States of America”?
Is this what will happen when Islam takes over the United States?
You see Ladies and Gents, THIS is what celebrating diversity does to you. It gets you attacked by Islamic terrorist THUGS! Rick Warren and his purpose driven life, “Let’s love everyone and not judge”, kind of Christianity is just that; it celebrates diversity. Islam, a religion of peace….. What a lie! 😡 This is why, if I ever was going to film, I would go armed. Any security person who approached me and tried to hurt me, would be killed.
Enjoy this video! (Via Gateway Pundit)
WAKE UP AMERICA to the LIE OF ISLAM!
D.C. Churches ain't good enough to the magic one
Click here to read.
Of course, when you’re a pseudo Muslim Faux Christian, what do you expect?
John Dickerson at Slate Magazine on Sanford
Perhaps one of the best things that I have seen yet on Sanford:
Sanford’s fumbling efforts to explain how he’s tried to rescue himself with his faith offered some people an opportunity to make fun of his religion, as if a confused, lost, flawed person were the right spokesman for anything. People tend to think the most awful thing about a person is the most true thing. They also apparently think it’s the most true thing about his or her associations. So an e-mail arrived asking, “[I]s there any Republican not sleeping around?” Maybe Sanford should have been a presidential candidate. He apparently represents an entire party and an entire religion.
What Mark Sanford seemed to be trying to say is that he screwed up, in the biggest possible way, because he lost his bearings. He lost his self-control. He was indulgent. He forgot that there were other humans in the world. Yet in the constant flow of abuse, joke-making, and grand conclusions about his failings, it seemed everyone having a good time pointing at his self-indulgence was also engaging in a form of it.
via The strange, heartless glee at Sanford’s downfall. – By John Dickerson – Slate Magazine.
Quite true. If one wanted to wax philosophical on this whole situation; one could say that those who gleeful about Sanford’s downfall, are actually saying that they are not capability of committing such an offense. Which we all know is quite untrue. However, it is not to try and say that Sanford’s actions are not above scorn. However, one could establish that the very one’s that are scorning Sanford are violating one of the most simple of Christian principles, and that is forgiveness.
Further more, much of anger by those on the Neo-Conservative right, is simple based upon one thing; Because Sanford embraced the principles of Paleo-Conservatism, most notably; a non-interventionist foreign policy. Personally, my feelings of disappointment are of a selfish nature. I was hoping that Mark Sanford would be able to make a run in 2012. I was hoping to be involved in his campaign. Hence the enormous let down. I suspect that this is why there is such disappointment among Paleo-Conservatives. Plus, he was seen as someone who would carry on the mantel of Ron Paul.
Again, it is a huge disappointment and it will be a huge blow to the G.O.P., As there is no clear leader for 2012. Sarah Palin is big Government and a “Do as I say, not as I do”, Republican and Mike Huckabee is not someone I believe needs to be in the White House, as he is too much of a Theocratic Republican and Mitt Romney is a Mormon; who is quite the asshole as well. So, if they pick him for 2012. I’m voting Libertarian again and possibly will leave the Country.
As I’ve said here many times before; it is going to be a LONG four to eight years.
(H/T Instapundit)