Author: Patrick

Short Bio: I started blogging about politics in 2006, as a populist, skeptical left of center type, with a blog called simply, "The Populist."I suspect, but cannot prove; that my blog might have been hacked by some evil neoconservatives. I cannot prove that at all and also too, around the same time. Hackers from China where attacking wordpress blogs. I believe either the Neocons or the Chinese got my site. I don't know honestly know which.Either way, by 2007, I began to see that I really did not fit within the Democrat Party and liberal circles and after my blog was hacked; I created a blog called "Political Byline" and I kept writing; first as a Centrist and then as a Conservative PopulistFor my long bio, see the "About Me" section on this blog.

Guest Voice:David Cloud – In Essentials Unity

This is a reprint of an article written by Missionary David Cloud, a Fundamentalist Baptist Missionary and founder of Way of Life Literature. David Cloud’s writings and tireless research into the history of Pentecostalism and my personal doubts with its core doctrines were the reasons why I left that movement in 2004. 

Here David Cloud makes a strong Biblical case for Christian separation. One of my personal gripes with the evangelical Christian movement as a whole, is an outright acceptance of Churches, who teach doctrines, which are in direct conflict with the Word of God. This article tells the truth about this sort of “Unity” among the apostate Churches. It is my pleasure to reprint this on my blog. 

(Link to original article)

The evangelical philosophy is often stated by the dictum, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.”

Though commonly attributed to Augustine, it was apparently first stated by the 17th-century Lutheran Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin).

It became the rallying cry of the Moravians, who had a wonderful missionary zeal but retained such Romanist heresies as infant baptism and an ordained priesthood and who promoted unity above the absolute truth of God’s Word for the purpose of “revival.”

The “in non-essentials liberty” principle was adopted by the fundamentalist movement of the 20th century. Fundamentalism focused on a unity built around “the fundamentals of the faith” while downplaying “minor issues.” The pragmatic objective was to create the largest possible united front against theological modernism and for evangelism and world missions.

“Historic fundamentalism has always been characterized by a core of biblical, historic, orthodox doctrines. … Most fundamentalists would be content with terms like ‘major doctrines’ or ‘cardinal doctrines’ to describe their consensus. … [T]here are other doctrinal distinctives that some may claim for themselves as fundamentalists. But to make these beliefs articles of fundamentalist faith would cut the movement’s channel more narrowly than history will allow” (Rolland McCune, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall 1996).

Continue reading “Guest Voice:David Cloud – In Essentials Unity” →

Bloomberg: 37% of likely Republican voters support Muslim ban on immigration

Well, they didn’t ask me. I don’t support such silliness. 🙄

Almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.Those are some of the findings from a Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll, an online survey conducted Tuesday, that shows support at 37 percent among all likely general-election voters for the controversial proposal put forward by the Republican front-runner.“We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” Doug Usher, who runs polling for Washington-based Purple Strategies, said in his analysis of the findings. “This indicates that, despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, this is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign.”

Source: Bloomberg Politics Poll: Trump Muslim Ban Proposal – Bloomberg Politics

Others: Politico, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, No More Mister Nice Blog,Washington Post, Hot Air, Outside the Beltway, FITSNews, Hullabaloo, PoliticusUSA, Rush Limbaugh, Allen B. West, Business Insider, Vox, The Week, Political Wire, Daily Kos and The Daily Caller (via Memeorandum)

On Donald Trump’s Statement on Muslim Immigration

Here’s the statement in its entirety:

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, — Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.” – Donald J. Trump

Here is the problem with this idea. It is, in fact, a total violation of our First Amendment. Not to mention it is straight up discrimination.

If trump was elected and he tried to do this, the ACLU would have a field day with it and lawsuits would fly like crazy. The reason I say that it is a First Amendment, is because if the Federal Government gets in the business of telling which religions can enter the Country, we put the First Amendment in jeopardy.  There is also this thought from the Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore:

The United States government should fight, and fight hard, against radical Islamic jihadism. The government should close the borders to anyone suspected of even a passing involvement with any radical cell or terrorist network. But the government should not penalize law-abiding people, especially those who are American citizens, for holding their religious convictions.

Muslims are an unpopular group these days. And I would argue that non-violent Muslim leaders have a responsibility to call out terror and violence and jihad. At the same time, those of us who are Christians ought to stand up for religious liberty not just when our rights are violated but on behalf of others too.

Make no mistake. A government that can shut down mosques simply because they are mosques can shut down Bible studies because they are Bible studies. A government that can close the borders to all Muslims simply on the basis of their religious belief can do the same thing for evangelical Christians. A government that issues ID badges for Muslims simply because they are Muslims can, in the fullness of time, demand the same for Christians because we are Christians.

I may have disagreements with the SBC on many things, mostly because they’re evangelical and I happen to be an old Fundamentalist Baptist. However, on this issue here, he is right. We simply do NOT want the United States Government getting involved in religion at all.

What should happen is this: There should be a 10 year moratorium on ALL immigration in this Country or at least until this Country figures out a way to screen every last person coming into this Country and figures out a way to share information with other Countries as to the background of all persons coming into this Country. Furthermore, the United States of America should be going after the Muslims that are suspected of having ties to extremists, who are living here already.

Furthermore, we should be stepping up to the fullest extent possible, the surveillance of Mosques here in America that are suspected of preaching radical jihad; and the Imams who are preaching this sort of thing, should be arrested, tried and deported out of the Country, never again allowed to return to America. If they are from the United States, they should be tried with promoting hate speech. Also, their connections and money trails should be fully investigated as well.  If the Imams are found to be taking money from radicals, they should tried for that as well.

The point is this: We already have the means and the ability to track these things and put a stop to them. The problem is that political correctness stopped it and now, we are paying the price. The blood of all those killed in London, San Bernardino and everywhere else, so far; is on the hands of the political correct and civil rights people. Protection of the Republic of the United States, and its people come first. This President has failed horrible on this issue, because he wishes to placate the liberal wing of his Party. Because of this, people have been killed and if President Obama is not real careful, that will end up being his legacy.

Others: Talking Points Memo, New York Times, BuzzFeed, USA Today, Salon,FiveThirtyEight, Breitbart, NBC News, CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC, Vox, Press Enterprise, RH Reality Check, The Hinterland Gazette, Power Line, Slate, The Week,Bloomberg Business, The Gateway Pundit, Political Wire, Gothamist, Taylor Marsh,Hot Air, Guns.com, Scared Monkeys, SaintPetersBlog, Political Insider blog, BizPac Review, Mashable, Towleroad, ImmigrationProf Blog, Daily Kos, The Hill, KRQE-TV, Mother Jones, TalkLeft, Fox News Insider, The American Conservative, Center for Security Policy, The Moderate Voice, Independent Journal,Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, PoliticusUSA, Althouse, No More Mister Nice Blog and Politico (Via Memeorandum)

 

Local News: Honest protest against ISIS or just staged for the media?

This comes via WXYZ TV in Detroit:

On one hand, I am glad to see Muslims stand up against terrorism; but the cynic in me, honestly wonders if this is just is not just some attempt to save face by the Muslim community in Detroit. After all, this blogger here, has went undercover and caught Islāmic Imams preaching hate of Christians and Jews from their pulpits.

So, this little protest really means nothing to me really.

The Left knows no shame

The reason I say this, is because of this article below; which essentially blames one of the shooting victims for his own death at the hands of a terrorist. This LINDA STASI, should be fired for writing such tripe. They know no shame at all, which is why I stopped voting for that party in 2008.

Check out: San Bernardino killers were radical, ISIS-loving monsters — but one of their victims was just as bigoted

Others in Agreement:  Breitbart, RedState, protein wisdom, The American Conservative and Erick on the Radio

Best thing I’ve seen at HotAir.com in a long while

Go Read: Oh no… we wouldn’t want to engender any hate or vitriol toward Muslims, would we? (a rant) 

Best part:

Perhaps all of the liberals heading for their fainting couches over the idea that we need to be finding the terrorists who are now proven to be on our own shores can, just this once, get a grip and decide which side of this war they are on. And if not, they should get out of the way, STFD and STFU. We have work to do and some of it’s not going to be pretty. But if we’re not willing to do it then I don’t want to hear any more crying from them about lives lost or gun laws or discrimination when the next group of ISIS “inspired” animals pops up here at home and wipes out another group of people at a Christmas party.

Amen and Amen. We have to protect this Republic and that’s the biggest thing. We can disagree on Wilsonian foreign, when it comes to Nation building and so forth. But, this is an attack on the Republic. We need to quit pussy footing around and get to work to destroy these people, once and for all.

My thoughts on the San Bernardino Shooting

I really do not want to write about it. Didn’t we just have one of these, a few days ago?

Well, here we go again. Another shooting, more political stupidity, more posturing. It just gets old.

My feelings are this: Whatever the reasons for this shooting, people died. I have stated before here on this blog; that there does need to be better and stricter regulations on the purchasing of high-powered rifles, including mental health and possible terrorism type checks as well.

As for the political stuff, this video basically sums up my feelings: (via the CFCC)

youtube placeholder image

Scott Shackford at Reason.com makes a good point

This guy gets it, and for that, he gets credit. I’m glad someone has finally told the truth about the reaction to the mass shooting.

Quote:

Socially, Americans and American media have developed a pattern in responding to these sudden incidences of mass violence. It starts with the initial hunger for any and all information, often absent of much concern about its accuracy. Give us all of it, and we’ll sort it out as we go. But even from the very start, we’re not just looking for information about the incident. We’re looking for who is responsible for the violence. No, not the actual shooters. Who else is responsible? Speculation begins immediately about the shooter’s political affiliation, as though this is any way relevant. Dear’s voter registration has him listed as a female! Does this mean he’s transgendered? Is this the transgendered movement’s fault? No, it turned out to be a data entry error, and even if he did identify as transgendered, the answer would still obviously be no, the transgender movement was not responsible for his actions. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) got into some hot water for speculating about this odd little detail, though really he was trying to point out that it was awfully early to be speculating about Dear’s motives.

The problem, though, is that Dear’s motives may matter to the courts and to the law, but why is this a matter for presidential candidates, politicians, and society at large? Because, for some people, it can’t just be Dear’s fault. The culture war demands that everything bad that happens is due to the actions and attitudes of one’s ideological opponents. Everything bad that happens is due to the failure of society to monolithically embrace one’s view of how the world should be run. And when people operate under such collectivist attitudes (on either the left or the right) about society, obviously the behavior of a person who acts out in violence is (and must be) an indictment of whatever ideology or philosophy that person operates. Dear is an indictment of anti-abortion conservatives. ISIS attacks are an indictment of leftist support for diversity and the entire Islamic faith.

[…]

Since nobody’s ideology can lay claim to all the world’s mentally ill people, because that’s not how serious mental illness works, we end up with absurd comparison stories like this clickbait from William Saletan at Slate, arguing that Christian extremists from the Carolinas have killed more Americans in the United States than Syrian refugees. His goal is ultimately to challenge the argument that the fleeing Syrians are a terror threat to the United States, but his poor logic begs to be thrown back in his face by pointing out how tiny even that number is (less than 100) compared to the total number of Americans murdered in just 2014 (14,249). And even the total number of Americans murdered annually pales in comparison to the number of Americans out there (nearly 320 million). Statistically speaking, if you’re an American, you’re unlikely to ever be murdered at all, be it by mentally ill ISIS death-cultists or Americans suffering some sort of psychotic break from reality.

But no media site ever got readers by telling them, “You’re probably never going to be murdered,” and no politician wins votes that way. If every crisis is an opportunity, then every person with signs of mental illness is a potential crisis, and therefore an opportunity.

Given this regularly occurring cycle of responses to mass violence by the disturbed, is it really any mystery how college campuses turned into one massive emotional freak-out session? Where did they get the idea that invoking vague mental health issues to demand “trigger warnings” and safe spaces and declaring speech that contradicts their opinions or offends them to be a form of “violence”? They learned it from us, of course. They’re just extending it to its natural, absurd conclusion.

Go read the rest : Stop Using the Mentally Ill to Advance Your Ideology – Hit & Run : Reason.com

Man, is he right. The response for both sides has been, quite frankly, morbid. 😡

Why I am not blogging about the Colorado shooting

I am, of course, referring to this here.

The reason I am not really blogging about it, is because of the stupidity of the left and the stupidity of the right. I mean, the man was obviously mentally off of his rocker. The best the right and left can do, is make idiotic political statements about the tragic event.

The left is hollering “more gun control!” and the right is making just downright asinine statements about the shooting. I refuse to be a part of it. The truth is, some dude, whose elevator didn’t go past the lobby floor, went and shot up a planned parenthood. Now, everyone wants to make it about politics. It’s sickening, cynical and high school at best.

…and I want no part of it. I’m not playing the game, at all. People were killed and I won’t turn a tragic event, like this, into a political debate, at all.

Just letting y’all know.