by baldilocks

Yesterday on Facebook, I asked my friends for writing topics and received some excellent suggestions. Here is one of the fruits of that request. When motivated, I can, sometimes, go on.

Another great request: commentary on our spiritual condition as Americans.  Volumes are possible, but only one example is necessary…for those with “an ear to hear,” as it were.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

–Psalm 111:10, KJV

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

–Hosea 4:6, KJV; emphasis mine

Stefan Molyneux interviews a university professor— Dr. Duke Pesta–who says that most of his students believe that the United States was the first nation/kingdom/entity to introduce slavery into the world.

Of course, there are too many factual refutations to this ridiculous notion and the fact that the US is the only nation to go to war over slavery is most significant for comparison purposes. (Please spare me the arguments about whether the Civil War really was about slavery—unless you’re trying to help me sleep.)

That the most obvious refutations lie in the Bible is even more significant. Even those who don’t read the Bible but are of a certain age have seen the still-watchable Ten Commandments. But with hundreds or thousands of entertainment media vying for our attention in this era, it’s a safe bet that the numbers who’ve seen that classic have dropped off and vary directly with the age of those looking to be entertained.

Back to the origin of the movie. Egypt is not the only kingdom that enslaved the ancient Hebrews. They were also why-study-the-bibleenslaved by Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonia, Assyria and Persia. And, of course, ancient Israel had its own version of slavery. But, those who don’t want to know, don’t know.

Two factors which are most startling to me about the professor’s assertion.

  • That so few young Americans have actually read the Bible, even if it is just to be able to cogently argue against what’s in it, and
  • That young Americans know so little about not only American history, but about on-going present-day crimes with respect to slavery, which do not involve the United States government whatsoever.

Those facts are not evidence of university- or even K-12-level indoctrination or failure, but of parental desire. Parents who want their children to know what is in the Bible will make sure that they know, even in the face of the myriad distractions of 2016. And, of course the opposite is true.

And this Christian says that this factoid is emblematic of our collective—if you’ll pardon the connotations of that word– and spiritual condition as Americans. If the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and the lack of knowledge destroys a people, then an individual–and a people—can be fooled and destroyed by any falsehood.

And, included among those falsehoods, apparently, is that America is the guiltiest of all nations where slavery is concerned and that, as a result, she deserves to be punished over and above all others.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game (click on left sidebar image), was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>>baldilocks

 

 

On July 19th Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey unilaterally banned the sale of most semiautomatic rifles in the State simply because they share characteristics with already banned “assault rifles”.  This is the newest in a long series of threats to our right to bear arms.  The best way to fight against these threats is by arming ourselves and others with knowledge about the original meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment.   We must combat all of the distortions and out right lies about the Second Amendment.  Most of the distortions of the Second Amendment come from those on the left however those on the right are also guilty on a couple key points so please keep reading even if you consider yourself to be an expert on the Second Amendment.

How many times have you heard the one about the Second Amendment being just about hunting?  If you’re like me you’ve heard it way too many times.  The framers of the Second Amendment made it abundantly clear the purpose was defense — self defense, defense of the community, defense of the State, and defense of the nation.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was written in 1776, served as a model for the Bill of Rights.  It is very similar to amendments proposed during the New York and North Carolina ratifying conventions for the Constitution.  The final version of the Second Amendment was an edited down version of this which conveyed the same meaning with less words.  Here is section 13 of that document:

That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Two common distortions which are linked together are that the Second Amendment is a collective right that only applies to members of the militia and the militia was exactly same as the National Guard is today.  Both points are incorrect.  None of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are collective rights.  The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights believed only in individual rights.  The National Guard, which came into existence in 1933, is made up of formal military units composed of a limited number of individuals.  The militia was made up of the entire population.  That was clearly stated in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the amendments proposed during the ratifying convention.  Here are two more quotes regarding the make up of the militia and scope of the right to bear arms:

Richard Henry Lee Federal Farmer 18

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…

George Mason Virginia Ratifying Convention 1787

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

The right to bear arms is not granted to us by the Second Amendment.  That right is granted to every individual by God.  It is one of the God given Natural Rights.  The Second Amendment protects and preserves that right by preventing the federal government from interfering with that right in any way.  All federal restrictions and regulations involving firearms are unconstitutional.  The only role the Supreme Court should play involving the Second Amendment is to declare all federal restrictions unconstitutional.  Unfortunately the federal government, including the Supreme Court, stopped following the Constitution decades ago.

I know I’m going to take heat from some on the right about this but the Second Amendment does not prevent the States from placing restrictions on firearms.  The Bill of Rights does not apply to the States in any way.  That is quite clear from the transcripts form the drafting and the ratifying of the Bill of Rights.  James Madison proposed extending some of the Bill of Rights to the States but that was shot down.  The US Constitution created a bottom up federal republic not a top down national government with the federal government in complete control.  No rights are absolute,  At some level decisions have to be made to determine where exercising your rights becomes an abuse of your rights,  If freedom of speech is absolute what would prevent someone from standing outside your bedroom window all night screaming threats and obscenities at you?  If freedom of religion is absolute then there would be no way to prevent human sacrifice.  The framers of the Constitution believed these decisions should be made at the State level.

There are two levels of defense built into our constitutional system to prevent the States from becoming abusive to our rights.  The first line of defense is the State Constitutions.  Every State Constitution has a Bill of Rights.  All but a few protect the right to bear arms.  Here is what the Massachusetts Constitution has to say on this subject:

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Since guns are meant for common defense and those so called assault weapons are perfect for common defense aren’t they protected?

The ultimate line of defense is “we the people”.  It is up the people of the States to decide when the State governments go to far in the regulations of firearms,  They must play an active role and hold the State governments accountable.  They must educate their fellow citizens, organize protests, and vote out all that want to go to far with restricting guns.  I firmly believe that permit less open carry with no restrictions is the model for all States.

Who is Jon Fournier — Im a strict constitutionalist who has studied the Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, the transcripts of the State ratifying conventions, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and the writings of the framers of the Constitution. I have also studied economics through the writings of Adam Smith, F A Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman.

A note from DaTechGugy: I hope you enjoyed Jon Fournier’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar So if you like Jon Fournier’s work please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it don’t forget to mention Jon Fourniers post is the reason you did so.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Pseudolus: [to Hysterium] Calm yourself down! I’ll tell you when it’s time to panic!
Miles Gloriosus: I smell mischief here!
Pseudolus:  It’s time.

A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Forum 1966

 

If Don Surber smokes he’s lighting a cigar right now because here is Nate silver site this morning

time to panic

It’s one thing for a guy like me or Glenn or Don Surber or Even Rush Limbaugh to tell Democrats that they are in trouble it’s another thing to be told this by Nate silver the day after the Democrat convention and a week of the MSM lionizing all they did and said.

If you thought you saw some low tactics before given the combination of Clinton & Obama Panic you ain’t seen nothing yet. How Donald Trump handles will make all the difference.

Closing thought, Fyi to Dr. Jill Stein be aware that as a clear and present threat to their power the same anvil aimed at Trump by Clinton/Obama/DNC is heading for you too.

Update: Instalanche thanks Glenn, I see Nate is already revising and viola Hillary is up 51.7 – 48.2 but consider that not only has Nate underreported Trump in the past this still means that Hillary’s post election bump, isn’t.

BTW we have a series of six new writers who will be trying out here over the next six weeks. They are Tech Knight, Christopher Harper, Rh/NG36B , Ellen Kolb, JD Rucker Jon Fournier Each will be writing a piece a week here for six weeks and the ones who draw the most hits (both in views and via DaTipJar) will be staying so give them a peek and help decide who joins our existing Magnificent seven writers.

Update 2: Meet the MSM’s New favorite Rookie poll

Unexpectedly that is.


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



There is a lot of fuss about the “Historic” nature of Hillary Clinton’s nomination by the Democrats but I’ve not been one of them for a couple of reasons.

Either years ago when everyone saw “history” being made, I saw the raising of a corrupt chicago machine pol to the highest office in the land as was the recipe for disaster.

Likewise where people again see “history” I see the raising of a corrupt political insider whose basis for power was hitching herself to a man with great political skills which he used to feed his even more voracious sexual appetites by any means necessary, and sticking with him come hell or high water till she can ride his coattails to power. I don’t see something to celebrate.

However for those looking for an actual sign of history in the nomination of Hillary Clinton and proof that it was important for the cause of equal treatment for the sexes (as opposed to the Andrea Dworkin version of it) in this subheadline at the Wall Street Journal

Hillary Clinton’s Historic Moment Divides Generations of Women
Presidential candidacy reflects hard-fought gains in gender equality so widespread that some women see little urgency in crashing another barrier

and this quote repeated by the Daily Caller

“It never occurred to me that a woman couldn’t be president. I don’t feel like I have to vote for a woman just because she’s a woman,” Susan Willes, a 53-year-old Democrat who is undecided, told The WSJ.

While people may not realize it, that is the sign of incredible progress.

The greatest sign of inequality before within culture is urgency.  The whole idea that “We can never be a part of the culture until X happens to prove we belong.”

But the concept of the equality of the value of women and men in the workforce has so become the norm that women do not see the urgency of electing Hillary Clinton to change the culture and instead can judge her on her own merits.

And while that last paragraph strikes unmitigated fear in the hearts of Democrats it’s a sign that women have actually reached cultural equality in the workforce.

And hopefully they’ll prove it by rejecting Hillary Clinton as the abysmal failure she is.

Tangeltal musing:  This incidentally is why Christianity was so radical when it appeared on the scene.  The idea that all regardless of sex or position were equal before God was paradigm shifting, which is why is was and still is, so violently opposed.  And it was that concept that lead to the ideal of equality before the law.


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level