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.

Claim #1

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.

Claim #2

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.

Claim #3

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.

Claim #4

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.

Claim #5

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.

Claim #6

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.

Claim #7

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.

Claim #8

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.

Claim #9

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.

Claim #10

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.

Claim #11

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.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factors-fueling-dangerous-beliefs/

“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.”

Joe Carter
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?

I forwarded your post on “A Brief Paean Unto White Privilege” to a friend and he responded … Just thought you would like to know his response:

Bret at his dumbest. This piece is idiotic, nonsensical, emotional GARBAGE. There’s no substance to even refute. He’s just picking things that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the color of your skin and claiming it’s some impossible-to-actually-define “white privilege,” and just because he says so.

Notice he made no attempt to justify any of this trash with Scripture. (That would have just made it doubly embarrassing.)

“I’m white, and amazingly, so were my parents and grandparents and neighbors, and we were all nearly perfect people, so… that must prove that whiteness equals goodness. Case closed.”

Are you forwarding this because you agree with him, that Christianity has some direct and exclusive link to “whiteness”?

Jim

___

Dear Jim,

1.) Well, I’m quite willing to admit to being dumb. Just this morning I put my shoes on the wrong feet and ate my porridge with a butter knife. Someday I am hoping to advance past dumb to merely moronic.

2.) Said smart person has made the ongoing reductionist error thinking that race has only to do with melanin. Races can and do have particular strengths and weaknesses that end up impacting the way that cultures are formed. Using just one example, does anybody really believe that a race that has an average IQ of 85 is going to have the same strengths or build the same culture as a race that has an average IQ of 105? If differences are going to show up in this area then why can there not be other racial differences related to genetics, which also end up demonstrating themselves in the tendencies of various races or peoples in their respective cultures? The idea that genetic differences among peoples makes an impact on cultures used to be a common idea. Everyone has heard of the idea of “Dutch clean,” or “Scot stubbornness,” or “German precision,” or “Italian passion,” or “English understatement.” Do those observations have nothing to do with Dutch, Scot, German, Italian, or English ethnicity? My observations about white people was merely the same idea only as applied to a more broad scale (larger) category.

Even if races with these different IQ averages believe in the same God of the Bible they are still going to build different cultures and have different strengths. Grace does not eliminate who God has genetically made us to be though it does work in us to the end of being sanctified peoples and individuals as connected to the genetics God gave us when in Christ. If God’s grace doesn’t change women into being men or men into being women then why would we think grace will change us in terms of the tendencies of our racial and ethnic identities?

My smart interlocutor complains that I was “picking things that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the color of your skin,” and yet there is nothing about me or people groups in terms of our behavior that hasn’t got something to do with who God created me and us genetically and racially to be. Now, to be sure, behavior is also related to our fallen-ness but even that fallen-ness is going to express itself consistent with the genetics God gave us and the environment we were raised in as well as our belief in the false gods served.

Christians certainly don’t absolutize genetics, just as we don’t absolutize environmentalist arguments regarding individual and racial behavior but we are not so stupid as to say that cultural behavior of people groups has nothing whatsoever to do with the genetics God ordained that we would inherit. To deny this basic reality would make us Gnostic and that may just be worse than being dumb.

3.) The piece that finds me being dumb was written in response to the dumb people who are “just picking things that have nothing whatsoever to do” with who white people are. If the enemy can just randomly pick completely contrived pejorative things connected to “white privilege” in order to turn my people into hewers of wood and drawers of water then I can equally pick the positive characteristics that I see to counter the silly arguments of those who are seeking to genocide White Christians.

4.) I did not seek to justify any of my observations with Scripture because Scripture does not teach those observations, just as the Scripture doesn’t teach that the sky is blue, or how many colors are in the rainbow, or how dumb one has to be in order to truly be dumb. Even Gordon H. Clark’s Scripturalism does not require someone to give proof texts for these kind of observations.

5.) Of course white people are not perfect. However, white people have been, by God’s grace alone, the carriers of Christianity and so those whom God has ordained to build Christian civilization. Remember, it was white Europe that was once referred to as “Christendom.” So, while white people have not been perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it simply is the case that it is white people who have been blessed with being deeply influenced by Biblical Christianity. White people have about them the smell of Christ and it is for that reason alone that white people are being attacked. An attack on white people is a back door attack on Christ and that only because God in His sovereignty has chosen imperfect white people to be the historic carriers of Christianity.

It was Charles Martel — a white man — who rolled back the Muslim hordes at tours in 732. It was John Sobieski — a white man who stopped that same horde at the gates of Vienna in 1683. It was John of Austria … a white man whose Admiralship stopped the Muslims at Lepanto in 1571. It was Hernan Cortes — a white man — who ended the rapacious and bloody reign of the Aztecs in 1520. White explorers expanded the known world. White Reformers restored Biblical Christianity. White Christian Kings sent the Gospel with their conquering Armies to far off lands. White Crusaders sought to relieve the plight of Christian pilgrims on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. White inventors made the world a more tame place in which to live. White missionaries, often at the cost of their very lives, took the Gospel to strange and foreign lands. White people invented the hospital and printing press. And all this is only the very tip of the tip of the iceberg on the glories of white people. Peoples around the world have been blessed by white privilege and while the sins of the white man are plenteous we are seldom reminded anymore how the God of the Bible chose out of mere mercy and grace to build the glories of Western Civilization (Christendom) by His calling and blessing of the white man.

So, yeah Jim, I do believe in white privilege and I believe it has been a positive good and I believe being white has significant input (not the sole input) on the building of glorious cultures. Obviously God’s great undeserved and unmerited grace is the sole reason but who says that God’s great undeserved and unmerited grace excludes our genetics in combination with our nurture and our belief system? Culture is the expression of all those factors but it is God who determined each of those factors by His grace.

6.) Clearly Christianity is not exclusive to white people. Only a dumb person would say such a thing or think someone said that when they never got close to saying that. However, one might say rightly that building Christians civilization has, to date, been predominantly connected to being white.

Honestly, Jim, I don’t mind being called dumb. But how dumb is it for someone to complain about my dumbness who hasn’t thought through these matters and seems to respond with an emotional outburst that basically amounts to sticking his tongue out and saying..”Nuh Uh?”

The below is a stirring defense of Christianity as written by Joseph de Maistre. Now, de Maistre and I would have been opposed to one another on what Christianity is and means as de Maistre was a Roman Catholic and I am Reformed. However, putting that aside, I find this to be a masculine statement of confidence in Christ and Christianity and could only wish that the spirit we find in de Maistre’s defense was somewhere to be found in Reformed clergy here in America as we find ourselves facing the very kind of thing that steam rolled France’s Roman Catholic Christianity in 1789. I pray daily that God would raise up de Maistres of the Reformed faith here in the States and give them the eloquence, resolve, and confidence that I find in de Maistre.

I shed no tears for the defeat of Roman Catholicism in 1789 France though I shed plenty of tears over the animals and demonic horde that defeated Rome in Paris and all of France. Roman Catholicism was then and remains now thoroughly corrupt and blasphemous. However, I can still admire the courage of de Maistre in his defiance of the French Revolutionary Philosophes. His words stir my blood and make me wish I could grab my claymore, go back in time, and rally to the defense of Christ’s oriflamme.

Note de Maistre’s implicit understanding of the antithesis. Notice his optimistic eschatology. If de Maistre, who did not have the truth, could be this bold, why can we who do have the truth not be even bolder?

Finally, ask yourself if you in your wildest dreams could ever imagine a R2K minister getting even close to this kind of rallying cry.

____

“The present generation is witnessing one of the greatest spectacles ever beheld by human eyes: it is the fight to the death between Christianity and the philosophy of the philosophes. The lists are open, the two enemies have come to grips, and the world looks on. As in Homer, the father of gods and men is holding the balance in which these two great causes are being weighed; one of the scales will soon descend.

To the prejudiced man, and especially to the one whose heart has convinced his head, events prove nothing; he having taken one side or the other irrevocably, observation and reasoning are equally useless. But all you men of good faith who may deny or doubt what I say, perhaps the great example of Christianity, will settle your uncertainty. For eighteen centuries it has ruled a great part of the world, particularly the most enlightened portion of the globe. This religion even predates antiquity, for it is linked through its founder to another order of things, to an archetypal religion, that preceded it. The one cannot be true without the other being so; the one boasts of promising what the other boasts of having, so that this religion, by a chain that is a visible fact, goes back to the beginning of the world: It was born the days the days were born.

How remarkable that when we reflect on this institution, the most natural hypothesis, the one suggested by every probability, is that of divine origin! If this is a human creation there is no longer any way to explain its success; by excluding the miracle you require more miracles.

They say that nations have mistaken copper for gold. Very well, but has this copper been thrown into the European crucible and been subject to chemical observation for eighteen centuries? And is the result of this test in its favor? Newton believed in the Incarnation, but Plato, I think, put little stock in the miraculous birth of Baachus. Christianity has been preached by the ignorant and believed by the scholars, and in this respect it is absolutely unique.

Moreover, it has survived every test. They say persecution is a wind that nourishes and spreads the flame of fanaticism. Very well Diocletian favored Christianity; but by this supposition Constantine should have stifled it, but this is not what happened. It has withstood everything – peace, war, scaffolds, triumphs, daggers, temptations, pride, humiliation, affluence, the night of the Middle Ages, and the bright daylight of the centuries of Leo X and Louis XIV. An all powerful emperor, master of the greatest part of the known world, once used all the resources of his genius against it. He omitted nothing in his attempt to revive the ancient beliefs, cleverly associating them with the Platonic ideas then in fashion. Hiding the rage that animated him under a mask of purely external tolerance, he used against the rival cult arms that no human creation had ever resisted: he exposed it to ridicule, impoverished its priesthood to bring it into contempt, and deprived it of every assistance that man is able to give his works; defamation, intrigues, injustice, oppression, ridicule, force, and cunning were all useless. The Galilean triumphed over Julian the philosophe.

And finally, in our own time, the experiment is being repeated in still more favorable circumstances, and nothing is lacking to make it decisive. So pay close attention, all you for whom history has not been instruction enough. You say that the scepter supported the tiara. Very well! The scepter no longer counts on the world stage; it has been broken and the pieces thrown in the mud. You wondered to what extent a rich and powerful priesthood could influence acceptance of the dogmas that it preached. I do not believe that it really had the power to make people believe, but let that pass. There are no longer any priests; they have been exiled, slaughtered, and debased; they have been despoiled, and those who have escaped the guillotine, the stake, daggers, fusillades, drownings, and deportation today receive the alms that they formerly gave themselves. You feared the force of custom, the ascendancy of authority, the illusions of the imagination. None of these things are left; there are no more customs, there are no more masters, each man’s mind is his own. Philosophy, having corroded the cement that united men, there are no longer any moral bonds. The civil authority, favoring with all its strength the overthrow of the old system, gives to the enemies of Christianity all the support that it once gave to Christianity itself. Every means imaginable to the human mind is used to combat the old national religion. These efforts are applauded and rewarded, and contrary efforts are regarded as crimes. There is no loner any reason to fear visual delights, always the first to deceive; displays of pomp and vain ceremonies no longer impress men before whom everything has been mocked for seven years. The churches are closed, or open only for the feverish discussions and drunken revels of an unbridled populace. The altars are overthrown, filthy animals have been paraded through the streets in bishop’s vestments, chalices have been used in abominable orgies, and on the altars that the old faith surrounded with dazzling cherubim they have placed nude prostitutes. The philosophy of the Philosophes no longer has any complaints to make; all the human chances are in its favor; everything has been done for it and against its rival. If it wins, it will not say like Caesar, ‘I came, I saw, I conquered,’ but in the end it will have conquered; it can applaud and sit proudly on an overturned cross. But if Christianity emerges from this terrible ordeal purer and more vigorous, if the Christian Hercules, strong in his own strength, lifts up the son of the earth and crushes him in his arms, patuit Deus (God is open). Frenchmen, make way for the very Christian king, carry him yourselves to his ancient throne, raise again his oriflamme, and let his coinage, ranging again form one pole to the other carry everywhere the triumphant device

CHRIST COMMANDS, HE REIGNS,
HE IS THE VICTOR!

And all the people of the land rejoiced. And the city was quiet, because Athaliah had been put to the sword at the royal palace. 2 Kings 11:20

When the righteous thrive, the city rejoices, and when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy. Proverbs 11:10

Since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice of SCOTUS we have seen numerous social media posts by well meaning Christians insisting that though they may have disagreed with Ruth Bader Ginsburg she was a fine woman and an great example of what it means to be a Justice of SCOTUS. There have been those who thought she was an example to Americans by her friendship with SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia. We are told that friendship by two Justices with polar opposite views is the way that Americans should view one another with whom they disagree.

Here are some examples of that kind of “nicer than God piety;”

“I am sure I would have disagreed with her vehemently on many, many things. Polar opposite on some, passionately. But the respect is proper, and the sentiment true.”

Joel McDurmon
Former Theonomist
45 year old Law Student

Justice Ginsburg became a legend. Many of us disagreed with her legal positions, but none of us can disagree with her legendary status as a truly Supreme Justice. Hopefully the politicians will not treat her passing as a political opportunity, but rather as a time to honor her.

Don Blakenship
Presidential Candidate — Constitution Party

“As a conservative, it was easy to disagree with “notorious RBG.” She was a woman of fierce progressive judicial conviction. But it was hard to disrespect her. Her deep friendship with her near-polar ideological opposite, Justice Antonin Scalia, was the stuff of legend. Her life story was inspirational. “

David French
Columnist Representing the Emasculated Right

Now consider just a wee bit of who Ruth Bader Ginsburg was. The woman was a monster. She was complicit in moving the country in a luciferian direction. There was nothing noble about her. No reason to cast even the slightest encomiums in her direction. She now has found a nice toasty corner in hell, in all likelihood having John McCain and Teddy Kennedy as fellow bunkies.

Here is the Ruth Bader Ginsburg the emasculated right is praising,

Judge Ginsburg served on the national board of the ACLU when it adopted positions opposing any restrictions on pornography (including child pornography), opposing any restrictions on prostitution, and opposing
the criminalization of adult/child sex.

Judge Ginsburg testified during her hearing that she opposes discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Judge Ginsburg has written that the Supreme Court’s decisions that the Constitution does not require the public funding of abortion are “incongruous”8 and represent the “[m]ost unsettling of the losses” for women’s rights.9

Judge Ginsburg co-authored a report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights purporting to identify “Federal laws which allow implicit or explicit sex-based discrimination” and offering recommendations.10

Her social vision, as outlined in this report, includes: Drafting women,11 and sending them into combat.12 Legalizing prostitution, which she believes is protected by the Constitution.13 Lowering the age of consent for sexual acts
to 12 years.14 Terminating all public financial support of 4-H Boys and Girls Clubs,15 Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys’ Clubs of America, Big Brothers of America, and other organizations until they open their membership to both sexes, change their name by using only sex-neutral language, and purging any activities and purposes that “perpetuate sex-role stereotypes.”16 Single-sex prisons.17 Replacing fraternities and sororities at colleges and universities with single-sex “social societies.”18 Constitutional protection of bigamy.19

Judge Ginsburg even included the statute establishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays as one that allows “implicit or explicit sex-based discrimination” though did not offer a specific recommendation for correcting this problem.20

All taken from the Congressional Record,

https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/statements.pdf

When are Christians ever going to stop esteeming their enemies? Does any one think that Jesus would have spoken well of Judas after Judas’ death?

If the denizens of the land rejoiced when Queen Athaliah was put to the sword then I can turn cartwheels and praise God for the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who made Athaliah look like Fanny Crosby in comparison.