WOMEN DON’T LIE?

Guercino, Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife, 1649 (from here)

There is an open Senate seat in Alabama, and the “race” has become a close one, Poll: Alabama senate race neck and neck between Roy Moore and Doug Jones. As usual, the news media is covering it like a sporting event. The issues they don’t discuss much. Instead, the national papers have enthusiastically published allegations of sexual harassment against a candidate they most heartily hate.

Should the people of Alabama vote for Roy Moore? Well, Moore has been a prominent politician in Alabama for a long time. Whether he has done a good job is something the folks in Alabama should be able to judge. Myself? I am speaking up because I detest the idea of Liberal Democrats gaining another seat in the Senate. That I know would be disastrous for our country. Republicans, weak-kneed as they are, already have too small a majority in the Senate. The loss of another seat would further stall the legislation needed to reverse the damage Obama and the Democrats have done.

What do the decades-old charges of sexual harassment against Roy Moore hinge upon? It is the belief that women don’t lie about these things, that we can just assume they are telling the truth. As the Bible explains, that’s not true.

Genesis 39:6-18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. It came about after these events that his master’s wife looked with desire at Joseph, and she said, “Lie with me.” But he refused and said to his master’s wife, “Behold, with me here, my master does not concern himself with anything in the house, and he has put all that he owns in my charge. 9 There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do this great evil and sin against God?” 10 As she spoke to Joseph day after day, he did not listen to her to lie beside her or be with her. 11 Now it happened one day that he went into the house to do his work, and none of the men of the household was there inside. 12 She caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me!” And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside. 13 When she saw that he had left his garment in her hand and had fled outside, 14 she called to the men of her household and said to them, “See, he has brought in a Hebrew to us to make sport of us; he came in to me to lie with me, and I screamed. 15 When he heard that I raised my voice and screamed, he left his garment beside me and fled and went outside.” 16 So she left his garment beside her until his master came home. 17 Then she spoke to him with these words, “The Hebrew slave, whom you brought to us, came in to me to make sport of me; 18 and as I raised my voice and screamed, he left his garment beside me and fled outside.”

Whether the women who have spoken out against Roy Moore have spoken the truth I don’t know. I just think the timing of their complaints is far too convenient and that some people too much enjoy the favorable publicity the news media is determined to provide. Therefore, I suggest the good citizens of Alabama look at the candidates themselves. What is their record? Where do they stand on the issues? Can they be depended upon to do the right thing for Alabama and our country?

109 thoughts on “WOMEN DON’T LIE?

Add yours

  1. I had to smile when I read your post and compared it to an ancient King Solomon verse.

    hile I was still searching but not finding– I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.

    If I ever manage to finish my second novel, I will explain who I surmised the one man to be and why.

    In my opinion, as for woman’s lies and minds, the are many mysterious things that Solomon could never explain, especially the thousand women in his life.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That would be interesting puzzle to solve. Who was King Solomon’s upright man?

      With so many wives, I suspect Solomon acquired a dim view of women. I am sure you have read this verse and laughed too.

      Proverbs 21:9 New King James Version (NKJV)

      9 Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop,
      Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

      Any man who wants a thousand wives is still a boy who has no idea just how much trouble one woman can give him.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m not going to give you my answer who I surmised the one man and the Solomon probable reasons that I will give in the coming novel.

        I lead up to the reasons and if you did not first read the lead up, you would probably not appreciate the weight of my answer.

        I also will surmise his reasons for the thousand women in his life.

        Trust me, it has nothing to do with wisdom, and I assure you. and explains why he wrote his rooftop proverb..

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Abused women are coming out against powerful men all over the country right now. You really find it surprising that a woman, or in the case of Moore “a child”, might be afraid and embarrassed to come out against particularly powerful men in the courts, the government, the media and the entertainment industry at the time of the abuse? But why now?

    Perhaps the Weinstein case opened the flood gates and women have found safety in numbers. Or perhaps electing a self confessed abuser as president inspired a desperate backlash that would not have happened had Clinton been elected. Like many movements, the “me too” ground swell probably has many causes.

    Some of these cases, it seems to me, may be putting sexual politics on the same level as sexual assault and sexual harassment, and this could diminish these more serious abuses. However, the accusations against Moore seem particularly credible and heinous (they even tried to ban him from the Mall). And it’s not surprising at all that these girls have waited until now to say, along with many other women accusing both conservatives and liberals, “me too”.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @tsalmon

      “A child”? After 40 years?
      😆

      Weinstein? Everyone in Hollywood knew.

      Abused women are coming out against powerful men all over the country right now.

      That hashtag cracks me up. #MeToo Nobody wants to be left out. Every gal who wants to tell us she is beautiful and abused too is a #MeToo.

      When The Washington Post levels charges at a Conservative Christian Republican, the source has to be considered. That paper is biased to the point of the absurd, but the liars still pretend to be objective. It is obvious that they involved themselves in a race well outside the DC area specifically to take down Judge Roy Moore.

      There is no way to prove or disprove the charges, and they came at a time calculated to do the most damage, when Moore would have difficulty making a comeback from them. That stinks of a smear campaign and is normal behavior for The Washington Post.

      Could the charges be true? Sure, but if they are true then charges should have been made decades ago. Now all that is being accomplished is a smear on a man no one would have suspected such behavior from. Roy Moore is not Harvey Weinstein. Moore is denying the charges.

      Like

  3. last I checked lying was not a gender based characteristic—we lie–as in all humanity—at some point or other in time….. and for some…it has been copious…while for others, little bits—but lies we have all told…and it is splitting hairs to speak of big lies vs little white lie—a lie is a lie is a lie…big and tall or small and demure—each cloaks the Truth in something other than.
    Just as you allude to Tom—

    So why then does the media jump so quickly to assume????
    Could it be that the rage and wrath of angry women who for many, have been long trod upon by man—-while others just so happen to see a moment of profit and greed—

    I suppose it just kind of all depends…profiteer, abused, angry, militant, maligned….

    I for one know how the System has worked down in our neck of the woods throughout much of time…shades of the Huey Longs, George Wallaces and Strom Thurmond always come crashing to the forefront… but then I’m reminded of the Ted Kennedys and the Tip O’Neils as good ol boy politics has been rife in our nation since the beginning of the Democracy—-matters not the domain

    Yet as you say—Moore is being tried in the court of progressive media—and it makes me sick how the national media circles like buzzards over our various states with our various side elections as hungry harbingers waiting to devour those more “human” among us—and that being the ones whose offenses are more prominent than say that of us little people.
    As their sins seem to matter much more than us the little folks, the electorate.

    It reminds of me when I was in Austria in the fall just prior to the US election between Obama and Romney.
    A young lady overheard my aunt, a friend and I all chatting as we waited for our train—our American and oh so southern accents stuck out like a sore thumb but to her is sounded all of sweet music.
    She made a bee line to us and began telling us about our upcoming election and who we should be voting for…Obama had her most ardent endorsement.
    Well, being from the South we know that we don’t discuss politics in polite company…so we politely told her we were voting for Romney and that was that….

    It bothered me to no end that here was a college age Austrian racing over to us in order to tell us Americans how we were to vote in our own election—We would never have told her what to do for Austria….

    and it’s like that with this National fervor of ours—we saw it in your Virginian election, our Georgia election, the New Jersey election and now the Alabama election…the whole Nation salivates and tried their darnedest to tell the collective states what to do—never mind you doing what you think you must for your home state….

    I’m with you on weak kneed sitting Republicans and overtly dysfunctional democrats and I don’t want to see one more added to that list…

    But we will pray that the people of Alabama will make the right decision for Alabama…which will hopefully in turn spell well the the rest of the Nation…..

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Julie (aka Cookie)

      Thanks for a thoughtful comment. I know some other ladies who don’t exactly agree with me, but as you suggest being tried by a partisan news media is not justice. It is a kangaroo/buzzard court (How’s that for a mixed metaphor?).

      I was listening to an interview on a local radio station. They had called Bill O’Reilly to comment on Matt Lauer’s downfall as some sort of expert. The interview is here (=> https://audioboom.com/posts/6526587-wmal-interview-bill-o-reilly-11-30-17?playlist_direction=forward&t=0).

      O’Reilly would not comment on whether Lauer was guilty. He said he did not know enough, but he made a point of saying he would not vote for Roy Moore. Why? Politics, I guess. He couldn’t know enough about Moore, but he does not like Moore, apparently. The way people are treating this stuff is not rational.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Whether it’s Moore or his accusers that are lying I and nobody else knows except the parties involved. What’s bothered me from the beginning as you know, is the immediate band wagon jumping of those quick to defend Moore and denounce his accusers. Is it a conspiracy by the establishment and di the WaPO make up the story? People keep saying this but not a shred of evidence has been put forward to back this up.

    Such uncertainty abounds and like you said it’s up to the people of Alabama to elect who they want. I would just say that if you believe his accusers as the governor of that state seems to and still intend to vote for more as she does, than you’ve got some bigger internal issues to deal with.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I use to read The Washington Post regularly. Since our government buys copies and makes them available for nothing (Your taxpayer dollars at work.), it gave me something to read at lunch. Eventually, I stopped. The paper is a Liberal Democrat rag. What is the point of filling your head with stuff that is not true?

      Did The Washington Post make up the story? No. They are more clever than that. They obviously invited some women to make up stories. Then they investigated them to make certain the stories could withstand inspection. How do they find such women? I don’t know. I don’t run with a crowd like that.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Tom, you said

    “A child”? After 40 years?”

    40 years is like a week in a woman’s mind.

    You have no idea how good a memory a woman has if a male offends her either accidentally or purposely.

    For example, my wife will brings up things that I did 50 years ago when we get into a tiff.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.g

    Liked by 3 people

    1. My lady does that too, and we don’t go back 50 years. Her memory truly astonishes me.
      😉

      Seriously, eye witness testimony is not necessarily the best sort of evidence. Even though some people have excellent memories, what we recollect from four weeks ago, much less four decades ago, can be dubious. When people are surprised and suddenly find themselves observing what seems to be a crime, they easily get confused by what they are seeing. So even when they have good intentions, prosecutors must take care to get corroborating testimony and evidence.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “40 years is like a week in a woman’s mind.”
      LOL!
      If you attach an emotion to something, you are more likely to recall it. So….well, the rest writes itself, donit? 🙂

      But that doesn’t mean the recollection is accurate.
      See the reliability of eyewitness testimony as an example.
      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

      I cite eyewitness testimony because in that case we are speaking of a (typically) emotional response to a witnessed crime. Yet still, it fails. How about testimony 40 years after the fact?
      Memories aren’t like playing back a video recording. Nothing like that at all, and the longer away the memory, the less accurate it is likely to be.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Tom, you said

    “eye witness testimony is not necessarily the best sort of evidence”

    Women don’t need to see something that offends them by a male.

    Frankly, they have different senses, or instincts, to detect whateve their minds surmise, or even smells about a male that offends her.

    Women’s mysterious circles hear comments and gossip, which are considered many times in a woman’s mind are prima facie evidence to convict a man. .

    Once a woman is offended, regardless of the source of evidence, a male needs to have the skills of a brilliant lawyer like Clarence Darrow to explain why he is innocent or did not mean to offend her. etc. etc.

    Best you delete your comment before your wife reads it.

    Regards and goodwill blogging..

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Very Seldom, unless I ask her to read something she might be very, very, remotely interested in..

        I believe she basically agrees with my political views but it upsets her to talk about them. because she get emotional and upset.

        She still loves me and does not want to argue with me anymore than necessary after 50 plus years..

        I understand,“` even Jesus Christ was rejected when he visited his hometown.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. “Women tend to personalize politics more than men, I think.”

          They definitely do. Most women take little interest in politics outside of gender issues. When I was a mod the ratio was about 10 to 1 men to women in the political debate forum. I tend to like to discuss politics and particularly military issues (I have a vested interest), so most of the forums I participate in are virtually de facto male forums.

          Liked by 2 people

  7. There is a sense here that things cannot be true because their validity would be idiologically inconvenient. @Tricia makes a good point. These accusations are either substantially true or they are not, but they are not (like Schrodinger’s Cat) both true and untrue depending upon the Party of who is looking at them.

    The other thing that confounds me perhaps derives from this new cynicism. It is the idea that everyone is equally immoral, equally lacking in virtue, and therefore we may as well pick the one who is on our partisan side. Christians who once polled highly on the concept that character matters for candidates now poll as caring far less.

    It is a sad state of affairs when so-called conservative Christians who should have a universal yardstick for their morals (Christ) take a more cynical low road to combating corruption than
    Atheistic liberals who know what is right and wrong but don’t really have a genuine fundamental reason why.

    Like

    1. “The other thing that confounds me perhaps derives from this new cynicism. It is the idea that everyone is equally immoral, equally lacking in virtue, and therefore we may as well pick the one who is on our partisan side. Christians who once polled highly on the concept that character matters for candidates now poll as caring far less.”

      I think it’s more along the lines of:
      IF (everyone is equally immoral) THEN (choose the lesser evil)
      Not Everyone = Equally immoral character.

      I’m not sure how the above could be confusing.
      To place this in non-religious context, we against the Nazis and sided with the Soviets when doing so. Was that the right action? Was it the moral action? I think so, on both counts.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @anon

        Without a certain amount of sophistry, I’m not sure on can put this in non-religious terms. The concept of religious virtue is fundamental and universal, but I do agree that it is situational and often, in actual practice, subject to dilemmas for which there is no clear right answer. That really is not the case here. Either Moore is a pedophile or he is not. No one is accusing Jones of anything comparable, unless one is so cynical that he considers pedophilia a lesser evil than just being a Democrat.

        And the standard of proof here is not the same as a criminal trial (reasonable doubt) or a civil trial (preponderance of evidence). Moore is running for the “privilege” of serving the country In a leadership role. If you find the accusers credible, it should be disqualifying, period. If you don’t, then you are not choosing a “lesser evil” – you are just choosing who you want for the job.

        However, if you simply prefer not to find the accusers credible because of partisanship only, then you have to ask yourself, would I find the same accusers making exactly the same accusations about Jones credible.
        If your answer is “yes” to both, then you either don’t have a valid religious basis for evil, or you do and you are simply choosing evil.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          When a politician calls himself a Liberal Democrat, he has just said he stands for things I find morally reprehensible.

          Abortion is murder, and he wants to tax me to pay for it.

          Same-sex marriage is perversion, and he insists we approve.

          The public education system is an infringement on freedom of religion, particularly with crap like multiculturalism and sex education.

          Redistributing the wealth is stealing.

          Identity politics encourages racism, religious bigotry, class warfare, and so forth.

          You say Moore might be a pedophile. Is there any doubt that the Jones is a Liberal Democrat?

          Liked by 1 person

        2. “And the standard of proof here is not the same as a criminal trial (reasonable doubt) or a civil trial (preponderance of evidence). Moore is running for the “privilege” of serving the country In a leadership role. If you find the accusers credible, it should be disqualifying, period.”

          I do not find the accusers credible (the ones who accuse him of attacking them).
          Although we aren’t going to a criminal trial standard of proof I believe the burden of proof for damaging a person’s reputation and ruining their career should be higher than decades old unsubstantiated claims.

          I will add it would not surprise me if Roy Moore dated girls in their late teens. That is not pedophilia. My mother was a bartender at 14 (Italy) and dated men in their 30s when she was 16. I know for a fact she would not consider this exploitive. I went on a date with a 28 year old when I was 17 (only one….we had nothing in common so I did not go out with him again). I find the comparison between this and pedophilia absurd in the extreme.

          Like

    2. @tsalmon

      Out of the blue The Washington Post brings charges against a candidate both Liberal Democrats and Establishment Republicans despise. And why are we supposed to believe them? Because we would be hypocritical Conservative Christians if we did not? So you know how to be a Conservative Christian, and you now think it important that I be one?
      🙄

      I think what the Liberal Democratic Party represents is a sad state of affairs. When I compare the morals required to be a Liberal Democrat with criminals, the words that come to mind are white-collar crime syndicate.

      When we are choosing between politicians the mud flies so thick even if one them was a saint we would never know it, especially if one of them wasn’t, that is, a Liberal Democrat.

      I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. ― Margaret Thatcher

      In Alabama, that was the state of affairs before that Washington Post piece. The Democrat did have an issue, and he was losing big time.

      Our government controls huge assets. You don’t think people will libel a man to win a Senate seat? Well, I do, and I think it is foolish to pretend we should pay attention to allegations that can’t be proven.

      The problem is that in our country, they make it almost impossible for politicians to win anything. In England it’s easier to win a libel suit. — Rand Paul

      It is just too easy to make false accusations against politicians in this country, and mudslinging is all the Liberal Democrat press wants to do.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Tom,

    So your answer to the question above is that you idolize political party above virtue? That you would choose someone who you think is likely a pedophile over a Democrat?

    All the rest is just a distraction. The only real issue is whether the accusations are substantiallly true or not.

    Have you ever been to Gadsden, Alabama? I have. If you blew up a poison gas bomb there that only affected liberal Democrats, chances are no one would be killed, including Moore’s accusers. You think that these women won’t pay a price for defying party tribalism there?

    Secondly, if the accusations against Moore are substantially true, then Republicans will have someone who most of the country, including most Republican, believes is a pedophile representing them in the Senate. That will fit nicely with the self confessed sexual predator you elected President.

    Do you really think you will continue to have any credibility prejudging the souls of all Democrats?

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      Typical. The problem has to be me, or I would agree.

      1. I never conceded I think Moore is likely a pedophile. I don’t think the charges are credible, and I have said as much. The timing and the source are too suspicious.
      2. I pointed to serious issues with the Democratic Party which you just blew off. The problems with Liberal Democrats and their policies are numerous and quite serious.
      3. You attacked the people of Alabama as being prejudice. You ignored your own prejudices.
      4. Then as usual you also attacked Trump.

      The point is that you cannot defend what you are voting for. All you can do is attack those who disagree.

      You ought to read or listen to a reenactment of the The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (=> https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm). Douglas did not defend slavery. He just attacked Lincoln. Nothing much has changed.

      I can explain and defend my beliefs. Perfectly? No, but I am willing to do it. If you cannot do the same, you have a problem.

      Hope you find my latest post interesting.

      Like

  9. For the record, knowing Alabama as I do, I think Moore will likely win the election. Democrats will have lost nothing because they never had much of a chance in Alabama. (I think it was Huey P. Long who once said that they would have to find him in bed with a dead girl or a live boy before he would lose an election, and it would appear that the same is true here). However, because I and I think most of the country find the accusers credible, the Republicans will have lost any claim of moral high ground and any claim that they value virtue, justice and our democratic institutions over the idolatry of naked tribal partisanship. That’s a bigger loss to them and to our democracy than one senate seat.

    Our democracy will not be brought down by communist or Islamist invaders. We will more likely tear it down ourselves when we see ourselves as completing tribes rather than fellow Americans deserving of a shared sense of universal human dignity and compassion. And nothing will remain of that shining city on the hill but the stench of our own selfish corruption. But I still have hope that this will not come to pass.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      What the news media finds credible is what it wants us to believe? Amazing how many of these credible people are being charged with sexual harassment. What goes around comes around.

      Anyway, I don’t think the moral high ground is a swamp, but I do agree with this part.

      Our democracy will not be brought down by communist or Islamist invaders. We will more likely tear it down ourselves when we see ourselves as completing tribes rather than fellow Americans deserving of a shared sense of universal human dignity and compassion. And nothing will remain of that shining city on the hill but the stench of our own selfish corruption. But I still have hope that this will not come to pass.

      What does it mean when we share a sense of universal human dignity and compassion? May I suggest you consider some key words from our nation’s founding document?

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      That shared sense of universal human dignity and compassion does not come from government. It comes from self-restraint, not using government power to force our wants and beliefs upon each other. It comes from personally loving each other.

      We cannot create a Utopia; such perfection is not in us. We don’t have the capacity to perfect our neighbors by using government to force them to be perfect. When we try, we just abuse the power. Nevertheless, when we love someone, we can show them how to love. Through love, not government power, we can each save the world one neighbor at a time.

      Like

  10. You are fundamentally mistaken, and thus you have written sad nonsense. No the Declaration is not our “founding” document. The Declaration, as historically important as it was, is at heart a manifesto, a polemic, which declared our independence from Britain.

    The Constitution is our “founding” document. Unlike the Declaration, the Constitution was ratified by the states. The Constitution formed and provides the living blue print for the enduring institutions of our government today. The Constitution and the rights the Constitution enumerates and implies are our “governmental” safeguards for protecting human dignity and, insofar as they do so, are the legal embodiment of our shared sense of compassion.

    I never took an oath to defend and support the Declaration and I never will. I did take such an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    Those who choose raw tribalism over the Constitution, it’s institions, and the rule of law are setting themselves up as domestic enemies. This tribalism and those, such as thugs like Putin and wouldbe thugs like Trump, who foment this hatred and division here and around the world are our greatest threat to the advance of the protection of human dignity through the rule of law and a government of laws, not men, that is embodied in the “foundation” of our government, the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Like

    1. So you celebrate Constitution Day on the 4th of July?

      Those who choose raw tribalism over the Constitution, it’s institutions, and the rule of law are setting themselves up as domestic enemies.

      Before Trump surprised the Democrats by winning the election, we had nothing but ridicule from the Democrats that an election could be stolen. Then you clowns lose the election and instantly turn 180 degrees. How do you rationalize that? Is it yourself and your party you are describing?

      When I advocate limited government, you scream that I am choosing “raw tribalism over the Constitution”. Yet most of the stuff your party advocates and insists upon cannot be found in the Constitution. So what do you do? You make up a living Constitution.

      How is a living Constitution is supposed to protect our rights? If a Constitution just says whatever some old men and women says it means, what good is it?

      What you believe in is government, not God. When men believe in some system men have created, the “tribe” consists of those people who believe in that system. What is “lovely” about such a system is that becomes whatever the people in charge want it to be. In time it becomes more and more tyrannical.

      What is the alternative to tribalism? The Creator God who made everything. The God who calls who love Him His children.

      Do all men believe in and love the Creator God. No. Some men choose their own Gods, idols of various sort. The state is just one of many such idols. Because we are sinful creatures, we cannot completely avoid our divisions. Yet the wise strive to let their neighbors seek God in peace in return for the same consideration. That sort of wisdom, unfortunately, is not to be found in the modern Democratic Party. The party of busybodyism has to control everything.

      Like

  11. “So you celebrate Constitution Day on the 4th of July?”

    No, because it’s call “Independence Day” not “Founding Day” which is exactly why calling the Declaration our “founding” document is nonsense speak. The Declaration is what we call it – the “Declaration of Independence”, a manifesto that declares and polemic that argues for rebellion.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      It seems you only read the first sentence of my last comment to you. I supposed when you are giving a canned response that is to be expected.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      The founders of our nation separated from the United Kingdom for specific reasons, and they carefully considered those reason. They did not hazard their lives carelessly. The Constitution embodies the type of government they hoped would protect everyone’s God-given rights. When he debated Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (=> https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm), Lincoln cited the Declaration.

      Here is what Douglas had to say => https://citizentom.com/2013/09/05/an-example-of-bigotry-part-5/

      Here is what Lincoln had to say => https://citizentom.com/2013/09/09/an-example-of-bigotry-part-6/

      You don’t think the Declaration relevant to the Constitution. Then argue with those two.

      Like

  12. “What you believe in is government, not God.”

    That is an asinine and insulting statement that you know or should know is simply not true. The two things are not mutually exclusive. One can of course believe in God and also believe in good constitutional government. In fact, I would argue that, if one really believes in a loving, just and merciful God, then one also would naturally support Constitutional government.

    Because your whole line of argument derives from fundamentally false premises, its conclusions are flawed.

    Like

    1. One can of course believe in God and also believe in good constitutional government.

      A living Constitution? If you believe in a living Constitution, then what good is the Constitution?

      When I say you believe in government, what does that mean? What do men do when they worship idols. They sacrifice to their idol what they think needful to get what they want. Look at what Democrats want from government. Look at what and WHO you are willing to sacrifice to it. Then tell me you don’t idolize it.

      Like

  13. “You don’t think the Declaration relevant to the Constitution. Then argue with those two.”

    Who said that the Declaration is not relevant? It is highly persuasive of what the authors who wrote it and the men who signed off on it thought when they rebelled us from Britain. However, it is not our “founding” document and it is not “controlling” precedent on the structure of our government, the enumeration of our “legal” rights and responsibilities and of our laws. That would be the Constitution.

    Like

    1. Are there other documents the framers of the Constitution considered when they wrote the Constitution? Yes, of course. Nevertheless, we celebrate the Declaration of Independence because that document contains the first public affirmation of the creed upon which we have for a long time tried to base our laws. Not doing so well these days, unfortunately. But Trump and others are trying to get us back on track.

      Like

  14. “A living Constitution? If you believe in a living Constitution, then what good is the Constitution?”

    Yes, I believe the Constitution figuratively is a living, breathing document similarly to the way the Bible is a living, breathing document. In order for both to be relevant to current facts and times they must be, often imperfectly interpreted and applied to current situations. Otherwise, thou shall not steal would only apply to goats and camels, but not trademarks and patents.

    Men wrote the Constitution and men interpret it so neither the writing nor the interpretation are perfect. But these arguments here sound like outrage in search of a grievance, like the child who woke up one day and discovered his parents are not perfect so he decides to become an anarcist.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      The primary reason you find the Constitution so awfully difficult to interpret is that you want the government to do things the Constitution clearly never authorized.

      The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so. — Ronald Reagan

      When the Constitution was first implemented, the Framers made it quite clear that most government should take place at the state and local level. The Framers understood that republics were extremely difficult to make work when the extend over a large area and population. Therefore, they hoped that in a Federation state and local governments would keep the central government from acquiring excessive power. Has not happened, but that is not because the Constitution has been significantly amended. The 16th Amendment is probably the most significant in this regard.

      Thou shalt not steal does apply to trademarks and patents. What makes you think it doesn’t?

      Successful laws work primarily for three reasons:
      1. People understand the law and the reason for it.
      2. People believe the law is just.
      3. The law is enforceable.

      Patent laws exist because people saw the injustice. In former times, the issues related to trademarks and patents arose so rarely that it never occurred to people to codify anything in the Law, but I suppose if you look into the history of heraldry you would find some things were written down.

      Like

  15. Tom,

    I don’t mean to be harsh. Even scholars who, unlike you, actually understand our legal system, disagree on methods of interpretation, and have been disagreeing and thus expanding constitutional law since the early days of the founding. If you want to understand, just start with Marbury vs. Madison and keep reading for the rest of your life.

    I have admired the Tea Party in its early days for at least getting involved and trying to reform government from within. Trump and Moore, however, have no respect for the rule of law, and for different reasons, want take a wrecking ball to our greatest democratic institutions, just as Putin would love because Putin thrives when the mob, the money and the government are one and the same. Tribalism thrives on the fear and hatred that tears apart pluralistic institutional democracies apart so Putin sews the seeds of tribalism. Like institutional democracy, Christianity is antithetical to tribalism.

    If Trump is not in thrall to Putin, then he seems to be doing everything that Putin would want him to do anyway. God help us if God fearing people like you don’t wake up to this soon.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      I don’t wish to be harsh either, but our Constitution is not that complex. It just says how the Federal Government is structured and what powers it has.

      Is the Constitution difficult to implement in practice? Yes. There are some decisions that need to be made that leave us scratching our heads, but if our leaders are thinking of the people’s welfare and not their own, their decisions will not usually be controversial for Constitutional reasons.

      Here is the problem.

      Ecclesiastes 7:23-29 Good News Translation (GNT)

      23 I used my wisdom to test all of this. I was determined to be wise, but it was beyond me. 24 How can anyone discover what life means? It is too deep for us, too hard to understand. 25 But I devoted myself to knowledge and study; I was determined to find wisdom and the answers to my questions, and to learn how wicked and foolish stupidity is.

      26 I found something more bitter than death—the woman who is like a trap. The love she offers you will catch you like a net, and her arms around you will hold you like a chain. A man who pleases God can get away, but she will catch the sinner. 27 Yes, said the Philosopher, I found this out little by little while I was looking for answers. 28 I have looked for other answers but have found none. I found one man in a thousand that I could respect, but not one woman. 29 This is all that I have learned: God made us plain and simple, but we have made ourselves very complicated.

      King Solomon abused his power, and he had a large number of wives. Made his life difficult.

      Solomon wrote this too.

      Proverbs 21:9 Good News Translation (GNT)

      9 Better to live on the roof than share the house with a nagging wife.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “If Trump is not in thrall to Putin, then he seems to be doing everything that Putin would want him to do anyway.”

      Please elaborate on this. Please list something that we are doing that goes against US interests and furthers Russia’s interest. I can’t think of a single thing, let alone “everything”, so that’s quite a statement.
      I can easily come up with two things we’ve done that have gone against Russia’s interest. We bombed Syria after an ostensible chemical weapons attack, and haven’t let up the sanctions (think they slapped some new sanctions on them also but I’d have to look it up).

      Liked by 1 person

  16. @anon

    I would have to write treatise here which I don’t think Tom would appreciate and anyway, no amount of data would be convincing if we do not share a common understanding of terms. But you seem like an incredibly smart and erudite person so go ahead and do your own research and I think the threat will become clear. Start by answering for yourself these questions:

    What is a modern democratic state? How has ours developed from before our founding? How is it different from other states in the world that we also would define as modern democratic states? What do we hold in common? What complex institutions are required (elections, free press, rule of law, markets, a merit based professional military and civil service system, etc.) and how do you define these institutions? What values must we share? How is a democratic state with a diverse population (racially, ethically, culturally, and religiously) more challenging for a modern democracy than a homogeneous population? Is Putinistic Russia a modern democratic state (no) and why not? How is Putinism a threat to our modern democratic state and our allies? What kinds of things would Putin encourage to undermine our confidence in the necessary institutions of the modern democratic state?

    After you have answered these questions for yourself, then just look at all the ways that Trump is working to undermine our confidence in, corrupt or outright destroy these necessary institutions?

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      You missed the fundamental question. That is the one the Declaration of Independence addresses.What do we need a government for? Why do we have to have a government?

      If we just have the government we need, most of your questions don’t make any difference. Here is the one matters. What do we hold in common? Do enough of us value the rights of our neighbors? Do we love each other enough to let each other run our own lives? Do we love each other enough to help each other out of our own resources instead of stealing from each other.

      You say Trump is corrupt. Maybe, but you are obviously partisan. Why? Your standard of proof leaves something to be desired. You voted for H. Clinton.
      1. Benghazi: Lies to cover up incompetence.
      2. Email server: If you or I had done the same thing, we would have been in heap big trouble. We just found out the FBI agent leading the investigation was blatantly partisan. Even Mueller had to throw him off his team, and his team is partisan.
      3. The Clinton Foundation: As Secretary of State, H. Clinton made a point of meeting with foreign agents after they had donated to her foundation.
      4. Speaking fees: Bill Clinton went overseas and took huge amounts money from foreign interests. Hilariously, Democrats want to impeach The Donald because foreigners book rooms in his hotels.
      5. And so forth.

      The Clinton’s are worth a couple hundred million dollars. Well paid civil servants, don’t you think?

      The point is that the Clinton’s did not even seem to care about the appearance of impropriety. They just denied wrong doing, claimed forgetfulness, and parsed words. The Clinton’s knew their voters had been bought and paid for.

      Like

      1. “You missed the fundamental question. That is the one the Declaration of Independence addresses.What do we need a government for? Why do we have to have a government?“

        Yes, that is a good question. I think the more controlling place to start historically, however, would be the Preamble, not that the Declaration isn’t important too:

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.“

        And the answer to your question also does not stand still, but has evolved over time along with technology and economic reality. For example, Britain replaced their patronage system for military and civil service positions with a merit based professional system long before we did. Why? Because the Prussian Kaiser had already done it and it made their government and military more efficient and threatening to England. (The Kaiser did it to diminish the power of the nobility and insure loyalty only to him). Because we did not have this threat close to home, we did not make the leap for almost another Century. Your utopian theories of a static limited government come down from God to our singularly minded founders notwithstanding, the actual history of the reasons and role of government is far more interesting, complex and dynamic.

        As for your Clinton whataboutisms, get over it. She lost. Trump won. He is the corrupt president of the United States. Even if one accepts that the Clintons are corrupt, they are the president of nothing.

        Like

        1. That’s funny.

          Nothing against the Preamble itself, but the abuse of it is horrid. Because the word “welfare” is in the Preamble, that justifies a welfare state? Apparently. After all, the Preamble is the controlling document.

          Just pretend the Preamble says what you want. Then you don’t have to read the rest of the controlling document.

          Documents have no influence unless we respect their intent.

          Like

  17. Indeed, funny, because if you actually read the cases, then you would know that argument is not the one made or accepted by the Supreme Court. Like I said, sometimes what we have here is just a lot of uninformed outrage in desperate search of a grievance, real or imagined. That’s ok though. Given that we all have to have an opinion on every complex thing here and expertise is not to be trusted, we are all bound to be wrong more often than not. I’m sure I am. Good thing our opinions don’t matter that much.

    Like

  18. BTW, I think that the General Welfare Clause you wish to demonize is in Article I, Section 8 of the actual Constitution, not the Preamble.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      Yeah! But you just made that argument. You cited the Preamble as the purpose of our government. Is it? Only in the most general sense, but I have no doubt that those words sooth more than a few afflicted consciences, consciences like your own.

      The judges are often a bit more tricky. They are much smarter than you or I. So when in defense of Social Security the politicians told our elders it is not a tax, the judges, to find a fig leaf to cover an outrageous decision, told them that it is a tax. The same sort of thing happened with Obamacare.

      What about that clause you mentioned. Well, we have discussed it before => https://citizentom.com/2011/09/14/another-viewpoint-on-social-justice/

      Since that clause is introductory and followed by a list of specific powers, it would be absurd thing to use as an excuse for a welfare state. Yet we have one, and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that justifies it. As you just indicated with your lame excuse, Liberal Democrats just want us to be like Western Europe.

      Of course, there is considerable irony in your excuse. In the process of supporting a Utopian state, you accuse those resistant to the idea of Utopianism. Have you ever read Saint Thomas More’s book? In his book, Moore makes an argument against private property. You may as well own up to it because that is where you are headed.

      Like

  19. Do you even know if either of the General Welfare Clauses were used before or adopted by the Supreme Court in the cases involving governmental powers like social security?

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      We have such a complex legal system that lawyers specialize, and then you have the gall to try to criticize me with a question like that. That’s funny. My problem is when I read the Constitution I cannot see anything in it that justifies more than half of what our government spends.

      The issue isn’t whether either of the General Welfare Clauses were used to justify the welfare state (although in a sense you just did). What is the issue is what justification was used. Can you point a justification that actually makes sense? You have never even bothered.

      Like

    1. @tsalmon

      Put yourself in my position. I asked a simple question. Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government acquire the authority to set up a welfare state. That welfare clause in article 1, section 8 is all there is.
      https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/a-constitutional-welfare-state

      The 16th amendment gave Congress the power to tax like crazy. So our glorious leaders do so, but they just assumed the prerogative to spend even more crazily.

      Like

  20. As I said before:

    “ If you want to understand, just start with Marbury vs. Madison and keep reading for the rest of your life.”

    Speaking of Marbury vs. Madison, did you know that there is nowhere in the Constitution that actually says SCOTUS has the power to adjudicate constitutionality? In the Marbury case, the Supreme Court first claims this power, and they essentially said so in the dicta rather than the main holding.

    If you read about the political power plays that we’re going on at the time, then this seemingly innocuous case comes to light as a brilliant maneuver by Chief Justice Marshall to assert SCOTUS’s check on executive power. Do you think that this was just a an unconstitutional power grab by Chief Justice Marshall, or do you think that the mainly lawyer founders would have just assumed judicial review as something implied in the Constitution because of an institutional tradition of juris prudenence tgat already went back centuries?

    Regardless, the constitution expanded beyond its four corners with that case to include the concept of judicial review and no serious person then or now really questions that essential SCOTUS power as one of the absolutely necessary checks and balance of our constitutional system. It’s one of the first cases you read in every law school and it’s settled law. The Constitution therefore began expanding (living and breathing) before the ink was even very dry.

    You might also want to look up the term “res adjudicata”. And then just keep reading for the rest of your life.

    Like

  21. “Speaking of Marbury vs. Madison, did you know that there is nowhere in the Constitution that actually says SCOTUS has the power to adjudicate constitutionality?“

    That was not correctly worded. Artcle III implies the power to try cases brought under the Consition, but it does not expressly give the Court the power to review an executive action, or for that matter, congressional legislation.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      Judicial review comes with the territory. Never challenged the concept.

      When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is supposed to make its decision based upon the Law. With respect to the cases that come before them, that implies that judges must review the constitutionality of the executive actions and congressional legislation.

      Consider why the Constitution divides power between three branches of government (checks and balances). Unless judges review the constitutionality of executive actions and congressional legislation, that three legged stool only has two legs.

      Since the concept had not been put into practice before, I doubt that many of the Framers well understood how what they had designed would work. Hence, many of the founders were caught by surprise when the courts started reviewing the executive actions and congressional legislation, but judges swear to support the Constitution. Abiding by that oath REQUIRES judges to take issue with both executive and legislative overreach.

      Unfortunately, our judges are no better than us, and many of us just go through the motions when we take an oath.

      Like

      1. “Judicial review comes with the territory. Never challenged the concept.”

        But the Constitution doesn’t actually, literally say that SCOTUS has the power to declare actions by the Executive and the laws of the Legislative branches unconstitutional. To accept this sort of judicial review one has to go ourtside the four corners of the Constitution and accept a vast body of juris prudenential precedent and procedure as implied. And as you say, one also has to look at the practical necessity and recognize that, if SCOTUS which has no police force or money of its own, does not provide this check on the other two branches, then the system does not work. Finally, one has to remain confident in and loyal to the institution despite how one feels about the merits of any one case., that once a thing is decided, it becomes settled law.

        Judges sometimes get it wrong therefore the Rule of Law, a necessary institution of the modern democratic state, should be deligitimized? A free and antagonistic press, a necessary institution of a modern democratic state, big surprise, has a liberal bias so that institution should be deligitimized and there are no longer such things as facts and figures? I could go on but you get the point.

        Life is not perfectly fair, but we don’t shoot ourselves in the head for spite. Our institutions are not perfect but we don’t just don’t just discredit and destroy them. Some older men marry teenage girls without taking advantage of them so now there is no legal age of consent and a thirty something man stalking teenage girls at the mall is fine with you?

        We can swap barrages of whataboutisms all day long until we’ve destroyed each other and our democracy. There is nothing conservative about doing so. In fact, it is the opposite of conservatism.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          Has a Conservative ever told you how to be a Liberal Democrat, except in jest? Think about it. I don’t want you to be a “good” Liberal Democrat. I don’t consider it good for your soul.

          I have already stated that the function of judicial review is implied by the Constitution. When the Constitution set the judiciary up as a coequal branch, it gave judges the power to decide how to apply the law in making judicial decisions.

          The United States was not set up as a monarchy. Our judges do not kowtow to some king. Instead they swear fealty to the Constitution, not a man.

          Instead of relentlessly arguing for judicial activism, just consider the basic problem. You are a judge. You are presented with a case. Some poor sap has been charged with breaking the law, but you look at the law, and it violates the Constitution. Congress has just passed a law that violates one of your favorite rights, freedom of the press. Based upon that law, DOJ intends to seize the poor sap’s news business and throw him in jail for ten years. What do you do?

          As a judge, before you decide a case you have to decide which law is authoritative. Is that law the First Amendment or a statute passed by a rabidly partisan Congress? If you have sworn an oath to support the Constitution, isn’t the answer obvious?

          Consider the nature of bias. Note how your bias works. You have got Judge Roy Moore judged and convicted based upon news media accounts. What does the activist news media do? They publish one side of the story. They make only that one side sound credible, and they play it up with hysterical enthusiasm, but it is not true. You have know how this works. So why do you rant on and on about what is most likely just a smear?

          Similarly, you are stuck on the notion of judicial activism. The Constitution exists to protect our rights. It does so in two ways. It defines, thereby limiting, the powers of the government (Look at the 10th Amendment.), and it defines our most important rights. If judges can decide that the Constitution means whatever they think it ought to mean, then the document become useless. Judges can use whatever excuse they wish to issue a decision. Yet you refuse to consider that issue. Instead, because they are so wise you want to assign judges broader powers they are not morally equipped to handle. Nobody is.

          Like

      1. It’s unbelievable. Particularly unbelievable how misleading and erroneous statistics go completely viral and are believed absolutely.
        Anyone married to the frequently peddled “women never lie about sexual assault” statistics should read that very thorough and thoughtful analysis.
        But (as stated in the article) it requires facing some uncomfortable truths.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Just one more anecdote, and I’ll drop this.
          But it seems pertinent.
          Last night I had dinner with the spouse of a very high ranking officer. She and her husband have been married 33 years.
          They started dating when she was 17 and he was 23. I thing there is an odd trend to infantilize people in their late teens these days. They are not babies. I think of pedophilia, I think Turning of the Screw, where the villain was after the children, not making moves on the children’s governess. Use a little perspective people.

          We have wives who are 17. One spouse of a soldier here is 16 years old. These soldiers aren’t much older themselves. We had soldiers in WWII who were 16-17 years old, sent off to fight and die.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. The problem is people in the late teens have little experience. So to make the Democrats happy we let them vote and give them citizenship rights when they are 13, but they cannot drink, drive, or have sex until they are 21?

          I don’t have good answers to these sorts of things, but I think the charges against Moore are politically motivated.

          Like

  22. “I don’t have good answers to these sorts of things, but I think the charges against Moore are politically motivated.”

    I don’t think so. Well, certainly not as much as the charges against the Clintons have been politically motivated. And yes, more pertinently, far less than the defense of Moore is basically only politically motivated. How much does our partisan motivation blind us to truth, or in the case of Moore, make us disregard truth in favor of pure tribal partisanship?

    Like

  23. “Has a Conservative ever told you how to be a Liberal Democrat, except in jest? Think about it. I don’t want you to be a “good” Liberal Democrat. I don’t consider it good for your soul.”

    You nailed the problem Tom – labeling someone to the enemy tribe and condemning their soul just because the disagree with your politics. Is that what passes for evangelism these day?

    Like

  24. What is going on here is neither conservative nor Christian. I can’t explain it better than this:

    “Assume you were a person of the left and an atheist, and you decided to create a couple of people in a laboratory to discredit the Republican Party and white evangelical Christianity. You could hardly choose two more perfect men than Donald Trump and Roy Moore.

    “Both have been credibly accused of being sexual predators, sometimes admitting to bizarre behavior in their own words. Both have spun wild conspiracy theories, including the lie that Barack Obama was not born in America. Both have slandered the United States and lavished praise on Vladimir Putin, with Mr. Moore declaring that America today could be considered “the focus of evil in the modern world” and stating, in response to Mr. Putin’s anti-gay measures in Russia: “Well, maybe Putin is right. Maybe he’s more akin to me than I know.” Both have been involved with shady business dealings. Both have intentionally divided America along racial and religious lines. Both relish appealing to people’s worst instincts. Both create bitterness and acrimony in a nation desperately in need of grace and a healing touch.”

    A quote from Peter Wehner. You can read the rest of the op ed here:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/opinion/sunday/wehner-evangelical-republicans.html

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      I don’t think so. Well, certainly not as much as the charges against the Clintons have been politically motivated. And yes, more pertinently, far less than the defense of Moore is basically only politically motivated.

      The charges against Trump and Moore have to be true because the charges against the Clintons were politically motivated?

      You nailed the problem Tom – labeling someone to the enemy tribe and condemning their soul just because the disagree with your politics. Is that what passes for evangelism these day?

      Tony, think about what it means to disagree with your politics. The Liberal Democratic Party is all about making “other people” do things, for their own good, of course. Big government requires bigger and greater force. When someone like a Obama tries to fit a square peg into a round hole, what does he do when it does not work? Well, nothing is ever his fault. So he just demands more power and demonizes those “tribal” groups who oppose him. Then he uses that power to hammer those tribal groups into the little pigeonholes he has prepared for them.

      Consider how you justify your position. You don’t. Whenever I challenge you, you attack Trump, Moore, or my supposed tribalism. Yet your political party is the one making demands that you cannot even justify with the Constitution.

      So you have another article from the New York Times, that old gray propaganda rag with pretend Conservatives.

      Wehner worked in the second Bush administration. The Bushes and the Trump’s are hardly on the same side. In fact, Jeb could not get enough votes to get his campaign going. He had plenty of money, but Republicans are sick of the Bushes. They would not fight. They would talk the talk, but they would not walk the walk. That required what Trump has done. He fights. Moore fights.

      So now Wehner publishes for Liberal Democrat rags. What a Conservative! And what does Wehner talk about? How wonderful he is. How wonderful Bush was. How awful the Republican Party is for not supporting the candidate he pinned his hopes upon. Well, you can cry all the crocodile tears want, but I am still not sympathetic.

      Trump has been in office for almost a year. He is doing his job. Nothing to say about that? Wonder why?

      Like

      1. Tom,

        You have some cartoonish horned image of a “liberal Democrat” and you cast everyone who disagrees with you as part of that enemy tribe simply because they don’t cling faithfully enough to your ideological dogmas. Do you think that you might assume everyone is an ideological extremist because you are one?

        Why on God’s Earth would I want to defend your enemy tribe’s ideology when I don’t believe in such tribalism, whether it’s ideological, political and especially religious. That is what you don’t get. That is why you are so frustrated when I don’t dutifully play your straw man caricature. Like most important things in life, (Constitutional law is a complex institutional systemic based upon balance and compromise, not black and white dogmas.

        And as I said before, Christianity is the antithesis of such tribalism. Christianity is about uniting us, not finding ways to divide us and condemn each other. We, as Americans, hold far more in common than we have differences. The focus of Christianity is love.

        What worries me about your support of Moore is not that you sympathize with Moore as a sinner. It is that you have no sympathy for his victims, that you ignore the hate he spreds in the name of Christianity because you would rather be consumed by that same tribal hatred, and you are worried about my soul? Thanks, I guess.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          Do I have a cartoonish horned image of a “liberal Democrat”? No. I just have to refer to the party’s agenda and platform.

          My “dogma” is not something I invented, and it is not particularly complicated. Whenever we have a choice, we should let others run their own lives. Since we abuse power, we should use it any more than is absolutely necessary.

          Throughout most of history, including today, tyrants have dominated the world. Therefore, to avoid the tyranny of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and so forth, we should make a practice of preferring private enterprises over government collectives.

          How does Christianity figure into this? Well, there are things like the Ten Commandments. When the things you want the government to do involve lying and stealing, you are probably asking government to do too much. There is also original sin. Just as Adam and Eve did, we tend to make matters about “ME”, not the welfare of our neighbors. When we do that, we divide into factional interests and fight each other for power.

          Anyway, you are making this tribalism thing so complex, I can’t follow it anymore. I got this part, however.

          What worries me about your support of Moore is not that you sympathize with Moore as a sinner. It is that you have no sympathy for his victims, that you ignore the hate he spreds in the name of Christianity because you would rather be consumed by that same tribal hatred, and you are worried about my soul?

          If I don’t believe Moore’s “victims”, why should I feel sorry for them?

          You think I am spreading hate. Yet what I have tried to do is point out abuses of power and suggested we strive for Biblical values. That’s hateful?

          I have pointed out that Christianity, because Jesus said we should love each other, does not excuse bad conduct. Yes, love covers a multitude of sins, but that is because we don’t sin against people we love. Instead, we use the gifts God has given us to help each other. Christianity is not an excuse for a government-run welfare system. Christianity is just a bunch of sinners united in their love for Jesus Christ and each other.

          Like

        2. TSalmon are you familiar with the charges? I’m curious because I read the op ed piece you linked to, which provided another link to “These nine women have accused Roy Moore of sexual misconduct”. It seems to me sexual misconduct has been redefined.
          “We dated for months for months when I was 17 and all we did was kiss”
          “I was 18 and we dated.”
          I see only two real cases of (ostensible) sexual misconduct as described. Why are the other seven there? Asking someone for a date isn’t sexual misconduct. And this is all forty years old. Are we really comparing this and actual assaults and affairs with subordinates (with recent and concrete publicly documented evidence) while sitting in office? One is reliable, the other forty years old. No one accused Clinton of touching a woman’s bottom on the train out to Moscow thirty years prior. This is absurd beyond belief.

          Like

        3. If anything, the majority of those women provide exculpatory evidence on his behalf. Okay, he dated one for months (and there’s probably far more evidence of this if true) and acted the perfect gentleman (unless gentlemen don’t kiss?). Yet he’s Chester the molester with an unsuspecting near-stranger 14 year old who forty years later after a string of awful history remembers it well. Is it POSSIBLE? Sure. But which is more probable? I think it’s far more likely that her memory fails her and after a laundry list of abuse over decades she misremembers something 4 decades back when she was a teen (I’m younger than her and can’t remember that far back with any real clarity).

          Liked by 1 person

  25. @anon

    So you agree that it’s pretty clear from Moore’s own statements and the statements of his accusers that Moore dated and attempted on numerous occasions to date teenage girls when he was a thirty something assistant district attorney, so much so that he became a nuisance at the local mall, and you don’t find that creepy? Even if your immature teenager daughter was excited about the prospect of dating such an older man, you’d be fine with that?

    If it were my daughter at that age I would have been likely to beat Moore to a bloody pulp?

    Like

    1. I hate it when people personalize politics. Is this about you or Roy Moore?

      In the past there was nothing unusual about a older man marrying a much younger woman. If Moore had the mother’s permission and behaved himself, then what is the problem. His values or your refusal to accept his values. As it is, the stories don’t jive with each other, and that is to point anon made.

      Like

    2. I believe he dated some girls in their late teens. I think it depends on the context. I don’t find it that strange in the context of the times, no. People married far younger on average in the seventies and eighties than they do now. I was married at 19. If he were that much of a menace at the mall there would be some documentation to show for it. And the manager from back then said he didn’t remember that nor was there any record of it.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Just to add. At the time I thought thirty two was the perfect age for a husband. Mine was 23, and far less mature than I was at the time. I don’t think he was as grown up as I was at 19 until age 35 (well after our kids had been born). I’m sure everyone’s mileage varies, but….just sayin’.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Just to add (again…Hope Tom does not ban me for being spammy and rambling…might be the cold medicine).
          We’re going to celebrate our anniversary at the same hotel we honeymooned. I recall there was a long pool that meandered throughout the entire resort and my husband took a snorkel and thought it was great fun to try and sneak stealthily past the five star restaurants under water like secret agent man or something. It was really immature. At any rate…I brought this up to the kids because they are going with us (yes, we’re bringing them on our second honeymoon…but our oldest is in college and they will have their own room). My husband corrected me and said that was Thailand (ten years later). So either he was playing Aquaman at 23 or 33. Which goes to show that memories can be pretty illusive and incorrect. And also how immature a man can be even if he’s officially mature enough to be in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars of kit.

          Liked by 1 person

  26. Tom,

    I’m personalizing it when I say what any normal parent in America would say? Are my social norms on this really different than yours and how you would feel about your daughters?

    We give our children the space to mature. We don’t let much older men take advantage of them when they are still teenagers in high school and junior high.

    We call thirty something men who stalk teenage girls predators and creepy perverts because that’s what any sensible parent believes that they are.

    Seriously folks! If these same accusations were made against the Democrat, would you still be equivocating the morality’s of it?

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      Yes, you are personalizing it. Instead of arguing the merits of the case, you are arguing the seriousness of the charge. If you don’t accept a presumption of guilt, we cannot be good parents.

      Like

      1. Ok. Let’s argue the merits. Moore as much as admitted to dating high school children when he was in his thirties (before he decided that it was creeping even his supporters out so he decided to lie and deny everyYou don’t seem to dispute

        Like

        1. (Accidentally hit send)

          … before he decided to lie and deny everything). Assuming nothing else but that were true, you don’t find it morally reprehensible? You don’t find it pretty sad parenting even if it were true that he got parental permission for a thirty something man to prefer to go out with a high school teenagers? You would let your daughter date Moore when he was in his thirties and she was in high school?

          These are the facts that are either admired to by Moore or that are not really much in dispute according to Your ownbest account. They go to an immoral pattern and practice by Moore of preferring underage children to adults who are at least above the age of consent. This adds to the credibility of the other accusations of pedophilia.

          Like

    2. “Seriously folks! If these same accusations were made against the Democrat, would you still be equivocating the morality’s of it?”

      I’m always going to be skeptical of claims made without evidence, especially decades after the fact. There aren’t any Democrats I can think of with similar circumstance (decades old and unsubstantiated). Cosby was accused of sexual crimes decades after the fact. I’m not familiar with the evidence but if there is none I view it similarly. I don’t think Al Franken should’ve resigned due to accusations unless those accusations have merit (by resigning, he’s essentially admitting as much in my estimation…had he not resigned I’d view it similarly unless and until evidence presents itself).

      Liked by 1 person

    1. I can only imagine how outraged you were when Clinton was president and exploiting his own intern in the White house (with scores of sexual assault claims against him and a known documented policy of philandering and sexual exploitation).

      Per Roy Moore, ah well. The long game looks far more interesting now that it’s apparent all one needs is allegations (even if unproven, even if decades old). One doesn’t have to be Sun Tzu to note that’s a massive leverage of power that will be exploited (better leverage that asap, because soon there will be so much crying wolf no one will care).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @anon

        Actually, back then, Tom and I were on the same side of the Bill Clinton argument. I voted for President George H.W. Bush – I still think he was one of the greatest statesman Presidents we ever had.

        Prior to when a boat called “Risky Business” became a household name, mere sexual dalliances by politicians were considered off limits to the press. Now it’s the partisan red meat of opposition research teams.

        I was just disgusted by Clinton’s adulterous behaviors, but thought Clinton’s lying under oath was disqualifying for someone who was supposed to enforce the rule of law.

        In order to play the long game, you have to know the history you are living in and remain consistent to your principles.

        For most of my military life I was a Cold Warrior. USSR was the existential threat to our constitutional democracy. The existential threat today is the corruption and destruction of our democratic institutions from within and from without. From without, that threat manifests in Putinism. From within, it is represented by hate spewing demagogues like Roy Moore self-serving greed inspired kleptocrats like Trump. America won a small battle yesterday in Alabama, but the long war to preserve institutional democracy goes on.

        Like

        1. Respect, Tsalmon. If the above is true you are a man of your principles.
          And I think the same of Bush senior. I think he is the most under rated president of all time. A truly GREAT man.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. @tsalmon

          If you think the greater threat comes from the likes of Moore and Trump, it is because you still believe the mass media.

          It seems you still have not figure out the problem. People lie. If you want to know the truth, then you have to trust, but verify. Some, like CNN and The Washington Post, we should not trust at all. Their track record reeks of deception.

          Like

    2. A question, Tsalmon (it’s related to the topic and i don’t know when this will come up again). Since you were a JAG (I think?) are you familiar with the Lt Colonel Wilkerson case or the Tech. Sgt. Jennifer Smith case that led to the leadership firings at Shaw AFB?

      Like

        1. Ah, Okay. Thanks for the response. For some reason I thought you were USAF.
          I asked because I’m familiar with a lot of the people involved in both of those cases. What made headline news was not the truth, and it’s hard to not be jaded (about unsubstantiated claims) after my familiarity with both of those cases (as well as many others since).

          Like

  27. @anon

    Sorry. Not familiar with that case.

    I too worry, however, that the unrealistic hunt for an asexual world may go too far, and may inspire a backlash that will harm progress on real issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault. I don’t have any answers though.

    Perhaps I’m just lucky to have always been terrified of my wife (for 37 years now) so that I can’t even imagine any of the behavior that is being alledged and exposed daily lately. Perhaps I’m just naive, or too old school about this stuff but, as a father of a daughter, I know what would make me want to smash someone’s head over.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Congrats on 37 years!
      We’re taking a trip out tomorrow to Hawaii to celebrate our Silver anniversary (25).

      As a side note, are you familiar with Neptunus Lex?
      I really liked that blog (RIP, Lex).
      He was a Naval aviator.
      At any rate, here is a link:
      https://thelexicans.wordpress.com
      (I received a few personal e mails from him. He seemed to appreciate my wit for some reason) 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

    2. We have school board members who think the fact that a guy claims to be a gal entitles him to use the gals restroom. Moreover, it seem to be okay with the geniuses rationalizing such policies if the sexually confuse change their preferred sex based upon whatever sex they prefer on a particular day. Still, school teachers will get in trouble if they don’t address sexually fickle students with their preferred pronoun.

      Like

  28. Tom,

    Way too much worry (by all sides) about sex and not enough worry about what is violent and abusive behavior. Way too much condemnation of harmless sexual peculiarity and not enough compassion and mercy for a fellow sinner. Jesus didn’t judge the promiscuous whore near as harshly as He will judge those who will not help the least of these. “The least of these” are not the innocent. We are all sinners. “The least of these” are those who most need mercy and the goats Jesus will consign to the fire are those who offer them instead only smug condemnation rather than God’s unconditional love. Let us be loving sheep, not condemning goats.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      This is coming someone who votes for Democrats? Do you know what a double standard is?

      Try to talk about issues? Democrats attack candidates like Trump and Moore personally.

      Try to apply Christian beliefs to politics? Democrats tell us to keep religion out of the public square. Of course they don’t have to keep their religious beliefs out of the public square.

      Jesus didn’t judge the promiscuous whore near as harshly as He will judge those who will not help the least of these. “The least of these” are not the innocent. We are all sinners. “The least of these” are those who most need mercy and the goats Jesus will consign to the fire are those who offer them instead only smug condemnation rather than God’s unconditional love. Let us be loving sheep, not condemning goats.

      Using the government to steal money from some people so we can give money to other people is not going to keep anyone out of Hell fire. We will, however, tempt voters to vote for the candidates who offer them the most money from the Federal treasury.

      Just curious. Have you finally decided Hell is real?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Musings Of An Imaginary Billionaire

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Christians in Motion

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: