America’s Non Christian Founding Principles……

We are living in the Era of Trumpism. An era that is essentially void of ethical values and principles. America, having elected an individual whose only dicernable values are money and what’s in it for me, now has a Head of State that is, for all intent and purpose, running our nation rudderless.

It is for the above stated reasons that we are posting Is The US Founded Upon Christian Principles? It is our hope rational thinking folks will read the article and identify for themselves why Donald j. Trump is indeed a clear and present danger to ourcontinued exstance as a representatie democracy. Evangelicals in paticular seem not to understand ourFounder’s thinking. Nor do a very many conservatives and libertarians of other Christian denominations.

And now the teaser…

Christians claim that the US Constitution and therefore the US itself is founded upon uniquely Christian principles, and that the Christian principles have Biblical sources.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the influential US Founders, a Deist, described the fact that in the deliberations by Virginia statesmen for the wording or the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, which preceded the US Constitution 1st Amendment, the Virginians rejected the linkage of the name “Jesus Christ” to the phrase “the holy author of our religion”:

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” [1]

What are the Christian principles Christians claim are the principles upon which the US Const. and therefore the US was founded? (2)

Full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Increasing Authoritarianism……

The following opinion article from The Washington Post  is spot on. In the era of Trumpism the possibility of increasing acceptance of a more authoritarian govcernment is very real. Trump is not in any way shape or form an honest or true conventional conservative. Trump cannot really be identified as having any real political ideology as he has no core values of any kind. His only value is to do whatever works. For him and his family real estate empire. If any ideology can be applied to Trump is would be might makes right. The ideology that ALL tyrants subascribe to.

 

The strongmen strike back

Authoritarianism has reemerged as the greatest threat to the liberal democratic world — a profound ideological, as well as strategic, challenge. And we have no idea how to confront it.
Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these days, the one for which we are least prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism. We are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a distinct worldview that offers a real alternative to liberalism. Communism was an ideology — and some thought fascism was, as well — that offered a comprehensive understanding of human nature, politics, economics and governance to shape the behavior and thought of all members of a society in every aspect of their lives.
We believed that “traditional” autocratic governments were devoid of grand theories about society and, for the most part, left their people alone. Unlike communist governments, they had no universalist pretensions, no anti-liberal “ideology” to export. Though hostile to democracy at home, they did not care what happened beyond their borders. They might even evolve into democracies themselves, unlike the “totalitarian” communist states. We even got used to regarding them as “friends,” as strategic allies against the great radical challenges of the day: communism during the Cold War, Islamist extremism today.
Like so many of the theories that became conventional wisdom during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, however, this one was mistaken. Today, authoritarianism has emerged as the greatest challenge facing the liberal democratic world — a profound ideological, as well as strategic, challenge. Or, more accurately, it has reemerged, for authoritarianism has always posed the most potent and enduring challenge to liberalism, since the birth of the liberal idea itself. Authoritarianism has now returned as a geopolitical force, with strong nations such as China and Russia championing anti-liberalism as an alternative to a teetering liberal hegemony. It has returned as an ideological force, offering the age-old critique of liberalism, and just at the moment when the liberal world is suffering its greatest crisis of confidence since the 1930s. It has returned armed with new and hitherto unimaginable tools of social control and disruption that are shoring up authoritarian rule at home, spreading it abroad and reaching into the very heart of liberal societies to undermine them from within.
We in the liberal world have yet to comprehend the magnitude and coherence of the challenge. We do not know how to manage the new technologies that put liberalism at a disadvantage in the struggle. Many of us do not care to wage the struggle at all. Some find the authoritarian critique of liberalism compelling; others value liberalism too little to care if the world order that has sustained it survives. In this new battle of ideas, we are disarmed, perhaps above all because we have forgotten what is at stake.
We don’t remember what life was like before the liberal idea. We imagine it as a pre-ideological world with “traditional autocrats” worshiping “traditional gods” who did not disturb “the habitual rhythms” of people’s everyday life, as Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, once put it. This is a fantasy. Traditional society was ruled by powerful and pervasive beliefs about the cosmos, about God and gods, about natural hierarchies and divine authorities, about life and afterlife, that determined every aspect of people’s existence.
Average people had little control of their destiny. They were imprisoned by the rigid hierarchies of traditional society — maintained by brute force when necessary — that locked them into the station to which they were born. Generations of peasants were virtual slaves to generations of landowners. People were not free to think or believe as they wished, including about the most vitally important questions in a religious age — the questions of salvation or damnation of themselves and their loved ones. The shifting religious doctrines promulgated in Rome or Wittenberg or London, on such matters as the meaning of the Eucharist, were transmitted down to the smallest parishes. The humblest peasant could be burned at the stake for deviating from orthodoxy. Anyone from the lowest to the highest could be subjected to the most horrific tortures and executions on the order of the king or the pope or their functionaries. People may have been left to the “habitual rhythms” of work and leisure, but their bodies and their souls were at the mercy of their secular and spiritual rulers.

Revisiting American Pie……

International Versus Domestic Terror……

We would be interested in hearing Trump’s take on this as well as his reasons for why it is what it is. Not that we expect he really has any knowledge of or any interest in the data. Especiay as his own hateful bigoted rhetoric is no doubt responsiblefor some of the domestic violence.

Most people arrested as the result of FBI terrorism investigations are charged with non-terrorism offenses, and more domestic terror suspects were arrested last year than those allegedly inspired by international terror groups, according to internal FBI figures reviewed by The Washington Post.

As government officials and activists debate the best way to pursue violent extremists, the figures show how much of counterterrorism work goes undeclared and unnoticed. Thousands are investigated each year. Hundreds are charged with crimes. But the public and the media see only dozens.

The debate centers on whether federal law and law enforcement are too focused on Islamic terrorism and not paying enough attention to the rise in far right-wing extremism. In fact, according to the data, more domestic terrorist targets are being charged, and in both categories, law enforcement often leverage simpler crimes, such as violations of gun or drug laws, to prevent violence.

“It’s violence that we key in on,” said a senior law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive federal investigative work. “And sometimes, it’s the violence that motivates someone more than any particular ideology.”

The arrest last month of Coast Guard Lt. Christopher P. Hasson, 49, is the latest example of this pattern. Prosecutors have alleged Hasson is a white nationalist inspired in part by mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who in 2011 unleashed two attacks in Norway that killed 77 people.

SKIP

In the 2017 budget year, FBI investigations led to the arrest of about 150 domestic terrorism suspects, according to law enforcement officials. The following year, the figure was about 120.

But because federal law does not designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations, no corresponding terrorism crimes apply to such suspects. And while the number of such arrests fell last year, the senior law enforcement official emphasized that, overall, more domestic terrorism suspects are being arrested.

Read more BELOW THE FOLD.

Prepare For 2020 and the End of the tRump Era……

After a remarkably successful start for the new Congress, House Democrats got themselves tied up in knots this week. In responding to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who accused Israel supporters of loyalty to a foreign country, Democratic leaders encountered the tribalism and extremism that afflict its far left-wing. A resolution condemning anti-Semitism somehow stirred outrage on the far left; the resolution against anti-Semitism became a resolution condemning all kinds of bigotry. (Dual loyalty did get a mention.) Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) weakly offered that Omar just didn’t understand the weight of her remarks.

To its credit, a new group of pro-Israel progressive Democrats, Democratic Majority for Israel, issued a strong statement: “We know that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress, and elsewhere, support a strong US-Israel relationship and abhor anti-Semitism in any form. . . . Let’s be very clear: the issue at stake here is anti-Semitism, not support for, or opposition to, any policy of the Israeli government. Congresswoman Omar’s remarks did not mention a single policy pursued by the Government of Israel.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wrote persuasively as well that the party needed to call out anti-Semitism, and this was just such a time.

Then things got really weird. The voting began, and Republicans started voting “no” — on a declaration condemning hate. No, really. Republican dissenters included a member of the House leadership (Rep. Liz Cheney) and Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), who fancies himself a friend of Israel, as well as veteran crackpots such as Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.). Once more, Republicans snatched back the mantle of racial and religious insensitivity, announcing to the world that they couldn’t possibly be against both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Twenty-three Republicans voted no.

Republicans have become intellectually corrupted and morally perverse under a president they have never voted to condemn. There remains a significant batch of Republicans — not one or two — who feel queasy about condemning hate groups, or in this case condemning President Trump’s Charlottesville remarks (which were also referenced).

Pelosi had just been trying to disband the circular firing squad and get back to business (e.g., voting on the Democrats’ massive ethics bill). Maybe she knew Republicans would blow themselves up once again. Maybe she got lucky. However, she wound up demonstrating a point: Democrats are far from perfect. They have a fringe in their party (supported in this case by three presidential candidates), but there are plenty of adults willing to speak out, plenty who have seen the example of the GOP and know that in letting tribalism and extremism run amok they will destroy themselves. It is essential that this recognition guide them in selecting their presidential nominee.

Republicans have learned nothing, it seems. They are incapable of condemning their party’s leader — or heaven forbid, dumping him! — and remain frightened if not in agreement with the xenophobic, white-grievance crowd, which equates condemning bigotry with “political correctness.” (Whites are the victims, gosh darn it!)

Politics is about choices. Democrats did not have a shining moment, but at least they figured out that tolerating anti-Semitism and excuse-mongering for anti-Semitism is reprehensible. Republicans just reminded us of who they are.

 Yup, politics is about chices. As the article effectivey points out republicans have, for far too long, been making the exact wrong choices. With any luck the party supporting Dotard tRump will completely self destruct . From this erson’s erspective t cannpt happen soon enough.