“The changes of the 1960’s, with civil rights at their core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival Constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible — and the incompatibility would worsen as the civil rights regime was built out. Much of what we call “polarization,’ or ‘incivility’ in recent years is something more grave — it is the disagreement over which two constitutions will prevail: the dejure constitution of 1788, with all the traditional forms of jurisprudential legitimacy and centuries of American culture behind it; or the defacto constitution of 1964, which lacks this kind of legitimacy but commands the near-unanimous endorsement of judicial elites and civic educators and the passionate allegiance of those who received it as liberation. The increasingly necessity that citizens choose between these two orders, and the poisonous conflict into which it ultimately drove the country, is what this book describes.
The Age of Entitlement; America Since the Sixties — p. 6
The only error above is that the “new Constitution” that Caldwell speaks off didn’t arrive en toto in 1964 with the Civil Rights legislation. What happened in 1964 wasn’t a sudden break with the original Constitution but merely the natural extension of what was put into motion with the 13th – 15th amendments. One should think of 1964 as just another punctuated apex along the way from 1865 forward.
Other punctuated apexes came with Theodore Roosevelt and his square deal progressivism which advocated for TR’s “three C’s; “conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection,” each which were outside the bounds of the original Constitutions delegated and enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government. TR’s grasp at extra-Constitutional power is seen in his “New Nationalism” speech,
“When I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.”
What else is the idea of “changing the rules” except for “changing the Constitution?”
Another punctuated apex that violated the original Constitution came with Woodrow Wilson’s Federal Reserve and 16th amendment. The original Constitution in Article I section 8 delegated to the Federal Government the power to coin money. Though admittedly long debated, the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional addition to the original Constitution. In addition to that the 16th amendment was not legally passed. When Wilson left office the morphing of the original Constitution had continued.
Finally, FDR saw the original Constitution continued to be morphed into a new Constitution with FDR’s alphabet soup legislation which had no justification in the original US Constitution. None of FDR’s Fascist ABC legislation was connected to the original Constitutions enumerated and delegated powers.
Much more could be said on this subject. I do like the Caldwell quote but we need to keep in mind that the Constitution had long been morphing long before the Civil Rights legislation though indeed it is without doubt true that the Civil Rights legislation was and remains completely unconstitutional.
“I don’t want liberty for secularists because secularism is true — it isn’t. Secularism is an opium dream, complete with flashing eyes and floating hair. I want liberty for secularists because Jesus is Lord.”
We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism….We believe this tolerance is rooted in the very nature of the gospel of Christ.
The Desiring Goof
1.) Jesus is Lord therefore we should allow in the public square those who, when consistent, would kill those who say “Jesus is Lord?” Jesus is Lord therefore we should allow in the public square those who are doing all they can to extinguish the Lordship of Jesus Christ? We should advocate liberty for Christ haters because Jesus is Lord?
Keep in mind that when Wilson says “Jesus is Lord,” and then desires to a social order that allows for people to deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ Wilson is saying that “Jesus isn’t Lord.” How can Wilson claim he is postmillennial when he pursues a pluralistic social order where all the gods and there adherents are allowed into the public square? Do those who believe that Jesus is Lord champion, by way of policy, a social order where Lord Jesus is relegated to competing with the other Lords?
If Pope Doug I were consistent why couldn’t he just as easily say; ” “I don’t want liberty for satanists, Muslims, Talmudists, etc. because satanism, Islam, and Talmudism, etc. is true — it isn’t. Satanism, Islam, and Talmudism is an opium dream, complete with flashing eyes and floating hair. I want liberty for satanists, Muslims, and Talmudists because Jesus is Lord?”
Wilson’s words are ridiculous.
2.) Turning to Piper we just have to laugh. The tolerance of atheists is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Remember this Gospel finds Jesus saying… “I am the way the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father except through me?” Remember this Gospel finds Jesus saying, “He who does not gather with me, scatters.” There is no tolerance in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Desiring Goof blasphemes God when he suggest that the tolerance of atheists in a social order is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How tolerant was Paul in Athens?
Both Wilson and Piper remain children of the Enlightenment. That is seen by their embrace of tolerance and false notions of liberty that include tolerance. What they are advocating doesn’t really allow for tolerance. Where is the tolerance for those Muslims who only want to see Allah served in the public square? Where is the tolerance for those Christians who only want to see the God of the Bible served in the public square? Now, it is possible that they would reply to this by saying, “Very well then. We want tolerance for all those who will accept tolerance but not for the intolerant.” However, at this point they have insisted that the one way tolerance must work is for their singular one way of allowing for every way except for those who desire just one way. Do you see the contradiction they are in? They and their tolerance in the end is just as intolerant as those who desire only the God of the Bible and His adherents to rule in and occupy the public square.
With these convictions Wilson and Piper really are working against the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
This morning in my daily scan of the “News,” I noticed two stories burrowing in on the Qanon phenomena.
Clearly, the Qanon reality has the lugenpress nervous. One might suggest that the sudden attention being given to Qanon by the Political structure and the Press is an example of “Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much” protesting.
The ABC story had this quote,
“In its broadest outlines, the QAnon conspiracy theory rests on the baseless belief that Trump is secretly battling a global network of billionaire pedophiles, devil-worshiping Democrats and baby-eating Hollywood stars and their “deep state” counterparts embedded in the U.S. federal government’s sprawling bureaucracy.”
ABC news article
Let’s briefly say something about how ABC is desperately trying dismiss Qanon as nothing but a conspiracy theory.
1.) I remember Pizza-gate, Spirit-cooking, the Podesta brothers story on the missing child in Europe connected to them, and Anthony Wiener’s computer story. I believe this theory, without even having read QAnon.
2.) I believe the stories of childhood actor Cory Feldman. I remember Hollywood Director Roman Polanski’s tryst with a 13 year old wherein he was charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14.
3.) Jeffrey Epstein was only two years ago. Can this ABC article think we are so stupid as not to be able to remember all the pedophilia Epstein and Clinton and Dershowitz and others were involved in?
National Pinko Radio (sometimes mistakenly referred to as National Public Radio and hereafter labeled as NPR) has a new podcast series out called “No Compromise.” It is a series of radio broadcasts serving as a vehicle by which to smear the Dorr Brothers and their work championing the cause of the 2nd Amendment. I have just finished the third installation and so am now up to date with this hit piece. I thought I would offer my observations.
Complete disclosure here… I have a daughter and grandchildren who have the last name Dorr, consequently I do have a dog in this fight. I know one of the Dorr brothers fairly well. Having said that, while I am aware of some aspects of the business I am in no way a chap who has inside knowledge of the business. However I do share the Dorr Brothers commitment to the 2nd amendment and have preached, more than once, on the fact that God’s Word (Bible) supports the duty to keep and bear arms. I also grew up around guns for the purpose of hunting but learned at a tender age that the right to keep and bear arms was not primarily about hunting but rather was about the ability to check the appetites of a potentially tyrannical government.
One more disclosure. Like most Americans I’m weary with the American Lugenpress. NPR is no exception as these broadcasts substantiate.
The following analysis of the NPR broadcasts is not intended to be exhaustive. I recommend all folks to listen to the broadcasts for themselves. The setting forth of the claims are not sequential as brought forth in the broadcasts.
The Dorrs don’t talk to legislators therefore they are not really doing their job.
I’m pretty sure the Dorrs would dispute this but even if the Dorrs never darkened the door of a legislator that would not prove they not doing their job. The very fact that Iowa legislator Matt W. Windschitl is losing his cookies over the Dorrs is suggestive that the Dorrs are making an impact on legislators and legislation. There are more ways than one to influence legislators and even if it were true that the Dorrs weren’t taking the beaten path of lobbyists by wining and dining legislators it doesn’t mean the Dorrs are not doing their jobs. The Dorr methodology in regards to legislators instead is to bring the pain. The Dorrs expose the hypocritical nature of legislators who promise one thing but who refuse to hold the line when push comes to shove. The Dorrs don’t allow legislators to get away with compromise on the legislation that gun owners hold dear.
What all the bitching about the Dorrs not visiting with legislators really amounts to is sour grapes over legislators being held accountable on every detail of behavior in regard to gun legislation.
The Dorrs keep funky financial books.
There is a great deal of innuendo and angst by the NPR journalist hacks over the Dorrs 501-c4 non-profit status and how they keep their books. However, in the end, after howling like bloodhounds hot on the trial of their prey Chris and Lisa end up admitting that while the Dorr books in their opinion and the opinion of their expert are irregular there is nothing illegal. Lisa and Chris insisted there was fire but it turned out that all there was, was NPR smoke.
A slight addendum here. I find it hilarious that NPR, which is funded by the American Taxpayer as well as by donations has the chutzpah to complain about the fund raising of another non-profit organization. If I had my way NPR would have the tax-payer tap turned off.
People from other gun rights organizations don’t like the Dorrs.
I’m shocked that the owners of McDonald’s don’t like the owners of Burger King or that the owners of Hershey don’t send Christmas cards to the owners of Nestles. Shakespeare made his fame out of noticing that the Capulets and the Montagues didn’t like one another. And let’s not even mention the Hatfield and the McCoys. Obviously the point is that other gun rights organizations are competitors with the Dorrs. They compete for the same dollar, the same potential membership, the same growth in their respective companies. It is not unnatural that competing organizations in any industry don’t particularly care for one another. Why, I’ve even been known not to care for ministers of competing denominations.
NPR uses a interviewee to say that the Dorr’s raise a call to violence by their activism.
On this score my conviction is that if government is going to deny our God-given right to keep and bear arms then there needs to be violence. However, that’s just me.
The idea that the Dorrs are raising a call to violence is what people who don’t like icky guns say about those who are convinced that weapons are a necessary tool to keep tyrannical governments at bay. Without direct quotes in context this claim is just someone’s girly opinion.
NPR uses interviewee to say the Dorr’s are anarchists not wanting any Government.
NPR uses interviewee to say the Dorr’s are political anarchists.
This is what I would expect from NPR types. NPR types are suckling at the Federal teat and so anyone who wants to reduce the size of Government is an anarchist. Those of us who desire genuinely limited Government look like bomb throwing anarchists to those who desire total Big Brother Government. Again, this is pure NPR subjective opinion passing as journalism. Thank you lugenpress.
NPR intimates that Dorr’s have raked in millions over the years from all the membership fees collected. Hints that the Dorrs are gun-rights Magnates who are filthy rich.
Well, maybe this is true. I hate it when my daughter shows up here flashing all her diamonds and fur coats from the Dorr money vault. (Sarcasm off)
This NPR slander by innuendo is filthy. There is zero proof of this and yet the lugenpress can get away with this indirect slander. Ah well, I suppose there is a reason that they say that all is fair in love and war.
NPR compares Dorr Bros. w/ traveling salesmen who have a woman in every port.
I’m not even sure what the point of this comparison was.
NPR reporter named Chris hinting how dishonest Aaron Dorr is because he talks to several states at once. Later claims deception because Aaron Dorr does more than one video a day at the capital wearing different suits.
There are three brothers covering several states. How else are they supposed to run a multi-state business without using their time as effectively as possible? And NPR lugenpress complaining about people being deceptive and dishonest is like Madonna complaining that Miley Cyrus has loose sexual morals.
So the Dorr brothers change their suits to do different videos? So they address states at the same time while covering one particular rally? So, hang them.
NPR subtly mocks the belief of members of Dorr gun groups that God is the one who gives us our Second Amendment rights with the Constitution merely recognizing the right.
I guess this is OK, because I confess that I subtly and not so subtly mock lugenpress institutions for their belief that second amendment is not a God given right. It’s just that I hate seeing middle class Americans mocked by people who themselves desperately need to be routinely mocked. I really hate the Lugenpress’ smarmy and condescending attitude toward Conservatives.
NPR reporter named Lisa claims she is really nervous about talking to the Aaron Dorr. Lisa’s whole shtick suggests that the Dorr’s are scary.
I’d be willing to bet top dollar that the only thing Lisa is afraid of is the Dorr’s agenda being successful. The whole shtick that she thinks the Dorr’s are scary is just to help the lugenpress create an ambiance of overbearing-ness and meanness when the Dorrs are considered.
The Dorr Brothers were once caught up in political chicanery as existing in the 2016 campaign organizations between Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul thus intimating that the Dorrs were engaged in criminal behavior.
The thing is… no Dorr was charged with a crime. No Dorr was brought before a judge. No Dorr was incarcerated. From this I can only conclude that the Dorrs were not guilty of ANYTHING. More smoke but no fire on the part of the lugenpress.
The below are my impressions after listening to the first two episodes.
Finished episode #2 of NPR hit piece on the Dorr Bros. Episode #2 spent most of the time characterizing the Dorr Bros. followers. By the end it is clear that NPR think these followers poor gullible fools. More Lugenpress sniffing contemptuously at the hoi polloi. Episode #3 has been set up so as to expose how the Dorr Bros. are horn-swaggling their fan base.The Dorr Bros. have succeeded at what Talk Radio does and that is combining information with entertainment. The only difference is that Talk Radio, generally, covers politics while the Dorr Bros. cover gun rights. Alternately, a way to view what the Dorr Bros. are doing is an ongoing version of the TV game show, “The Family Feud.” The Dorr Bros. are one family and they are opposing the State as the other family. The survey questions have to do with gun information with the extra advantage that the Dorr Bros. are seeking to neuter the State. People identify with the Dorr Bros. the way that sports fans identify with their local professional sports team. NPR and other media will never be able to break the bond that exists between the Dorr Bros and their fan base. Only the Dorr Bros. could do that. The media didn’t make the Dorr Bros. and so the media won’t be able to break the Dorr Bros. In point of fact the media when it attacks the Dorr Bros. only increases both their fan base and the ardent support of the existing fan base. It’s difficult to believe that the media doesn’t get that. I already know where NPR is going to go with this series. By innuendo and by damning with feint praise NPR is going to seek and tarnish the image of the Dorr Bros.It won’t work because the American Bears who support the Dorr Bros. are smarter than the Lugenpress.
“A new survey on Holocaust knowledge reveals how many Americans live in alternative realities in which Holocaust denial and neo-Nazism are acceptable. Here are five factors shaping such radical and dangerous views.”
TGC (The Gospel Coalition)
Also sometimes known as “Those God Cursed.”
1.) Why should we be surprised that Americans, who can’t even locate North America on a map don’t know what “the Holocaust” was?
2.) Shouldn’t we be more concerned that Americans don’t know US History before we are concerned that they don’t know European history?
3.) I’d wager that Americans know even less about the Holodomor then they do about the Holocaust. Should we make it a priority that they learn about the Holodomor before they learn about the Holocaust since the Holodomor makes the Holocaust look like going without a meal in terms of total numbers.
4.) And what of the other genocides? The Turks attempt to snuff out the Armenians at the turn of the 20th century? The Khmer almost wiped out by Pol Pot? The Irish potato famine? Shouldn’t Americans prioritize knowing about them because they really were far more severe either in total numbers lost or in terms of percentage of population impacted.
5.) Even in Carter’s article he has misinformation claiming that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. That number has been reduced by 1.5 – 2 million since Auschwitz so vastly reduced the estimated numbers of death there in the 1990’s. So Carter is guilty of the very thing he is warning people about in his TGC article.
Joke Harder, why do we prioritize knowing about the suffering of the Jews when there is so much other suffering that was far greater?