Thursday, October 29, 2020

The Democrat Party’s Designs for the Supreme Court are Anti-Constitutional

            

             Although the U.S. Constitution art. 3 is not specific regarding the agenda of the Supreme Court, our founders made their intentions on this matter clear in the Federalist Papers (1777-78) by giving rationale for ratifying the Constitution which was accomplished on June 17, 1778.  In the government document “The Court and Constitutional Interpretation,” James Madison is summarized to have said, “Constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process.  If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining…,  the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.”  The document further says, “Despite this background, the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.  In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.  That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is."[1] 

               In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, 

the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to the Court to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”[2] 

            When at the hearings, Democrat U.S. Senators railed against Amy Coney Barrett’s apparent political stance or bemoaned the ultimate stan-dard to which she would appeal her deliberations, they are betraying a profound ignorance of the historical formation and development of the Court. 

To be continued…



[1]The [Supreme] Court and Constitutional Interpretation.”  https://www.supremecourt.gov/ about/constitutional. aspx#:~:text=As%20the%20final%20arbiter%20of,Justice%20Charles%20Evans%20Hughes%20observed.

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Why the Left Cannot Possibly Deliver on Utopia part 1

 

For my people have hewed out…broken cisterns that can hold no water.” – Jeremiah 2:13

 

This paper rejects the rational validity of mindless naysaying.  Opponents to a given Presidential candidate are intellectually obligated to name specific reasons why their alternative choice is superior to the former.  This challenge aligns with the investigational path Charles Darwin employed in correlating his data with the thesis of his work, On the Origin of Species, where he conceded that if his views didn’t account for factual reality, his “theory would absolutely break down .[1]  Consequently, the stakes for the choices about to be made will be greater than wounded, or ecstatic pride; but either good or dreadful concrete consequences.  Every person will reap what the majority in actuality will sow (Galatians 6:7).     

At the outset I want you to note that I am not pitting persons against each other as though some people are innately morally superior to others.  To do that would be to embrace a common ploy of the Left, which habitually dismisses conservatives with their assertion that our views are rooted in a spirit of “hatred” against certain groups of people.  My skepticism of Leftism instead is grounded on assessing the recent (d)evolution, the internal (il)logic, and the current trajectory of the Democrat platform in view of their “promises” for the future that they hold before their followers.

The word “utopia” means “an imagined perfect location” in that such a place has never actually existed with the exception (I argue) of creation prior to Adam and Eve’s fall into sin (Gen. 1:31; 2:16-17).  “Utopia” fittingly describes that “vision” which leftists hold out as both their impetus and the goal to-wards which they are pushing our society today.  It is on the one hand an utterly obscure vision of the future for the reason that it is nothing more than an anti-vision that consists merely of destroying present realities instead of creating new ones.  In any case it can lead only to chaos.  For both antifa and their toppling of images of the past (statues of forefathers, etc.), and the present practical Democrat platform of “anything but Trump,” a crisply-clear plan for the future is nowhere laid bare.  To the obvious question of how I can possibly associate anarchist thugs with the Democrat party, I reply with highlighting the correlation between Democrat mayors and associates whose solemn obligations are to protect their people, and the actuality of the states of affairs on their very own “streets.”  Notice for example that their charge to oversee well-armed police forces, ironically issues in riotous thugs, ram-paging unopposed precisely for the reason that the hands of the police have been persistently tied behind their backs, figuratively speaking.  Conservative critics are not obligated to psychoanalyze the motives of the former in order to establish that the failure of Democrat leaders to empower, let alone encourage, police to put down such rampages establishes their tacit approval of 14 billion dollars[2] “worth” of destruction plus the death of innocents.  Since, furthermore, no denials of such charges have been issued, it is far-from-safe[3] to conclude that the video cameras do not lie by their exposure that the streets Biden will “build” will not be “paved with gold!”  Yet the bottom line is that this devolution of the Democrat platform extends farther back than Antifa, but all the way to that rebellion which preceded “Adam’s” Fall when Satan defied God’s authority prior to creation (Isaiah 14:12, Luke 10:15,18).  Quite apart from citing biblical texts however, one obvious foundational contention in our day is over whether authority is to be derived from God, or whether it is to be dug out from within one’s own gut.[4]   

To be continued...

[1] A Facsimile of the First Edition. (Harvard, 1964), p. 189.

[2] Fox and Friends. Fox News.  09/17/2020.

[3] This phrasing is deliberate.

[4] As for our republican democracy, John Adams stated, “Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the governance of another.” (“National Archives.gov. Founders.gov.  From John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1789).  

Saturday, October 24, 2020

Rioting Gone Wild; But Why “No Longer?”

 

            If you have rarely, if ever, tuned to the Fox News Network, you may not have noticed that the unbroken chain of one hundred+ nights of rioting in certain cities across America has largely stopped, since you were never duly informed of their occurrence in the first place.  I am not aware of any actual announcement from any news media that that upheaval had stopped.  The indications that this change is indeed so, is only apparent because of the sudden silence about this matter by Fox News specifically.  It alone is to be singled out regarding this issue, for the reason that every other TV network has intentionally withheld videos of the rioting from appearing on their newscasts.  The only articles addressing this issue at all emphasized instead that Antifa must not be connected to the kindling of some of the wildfires that have devastated Oregon in particular.[1]  How bizarre it is that, in regard to fires Leftists are certain of the innate innocence of Antifa, despite the fact that their riotous destruction is all documented on video.

            The clear reason for omitting an announcement is that such a declaration would almost certainly fatally damage the Democrat Party’s (DP) election chances.  Think about it.  Were Left-leaning news outlets to announce an abrupt ending of the rioting, it would raise the haunting question, “By what power or authority could you possibly make those thugs desist?”  Should such a command be not only announced publicly, but also be received by the perpetrators in a spirit of compliance, it would clearly indicate collusion (either directly or indirectly) between DP officials on the one hand, and a hierarchical-structured group of thugs whose goals aligned with the DP as opposed to the Republican Party (RP).  This connection would strongly indicate that the DP is prepared to create even terror insofar as it serves to advance its purposes.  Since this pragmatic arrangement would be abhorred by the vast majority of Americans, the only viable alternative for an effective strategy for DP leaders is to remove the dreadful scene of rioters who did their deeds unopposed by local Democrat officials, by dismissing them “quietly.”

            In either case, the fact that over the course of a hundred days DP mayors and governors encouraged the nightly devastating rioting by overtly resisting intervention from our President and refusing to protect either innocent citizens or police officers, indicated a harmonious cooperation between the goals of the DP and the anarchist movement in general.  This clear relationship between the two, however, not only condemns the DP in regard to its recent past, but also serves as a warning as to what almost certainly lies in the future.  If Donald Trump wins a second Presidential term, the warnings are clear from Democrats that the rioting will resume.  Does that not mean logically that if the DP actually prevails at the ballot box, terror will be on the table to the further advancement of DP “designs” upon our nation beginning shortly after?



[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/us/fires-oregon-antifa-rumors.html.  On my search engine this article was surrounded by identical screeds.

Friday, October 23, 2020

The Bible Must Harmonize with Science to Qualify as Truth pt 2

Scientific Causes Cannot Possibly Create a Universe

 

            While scientific data gives virtually irrefutable evidence that the universe began out of nothing at the BB,[1] that creation point cannot be explained by appealing to scientific processes.  Since prior to its singularity beginning there existed neither matter, nor energy, nor space, nor time,[2] nothing material could have caused it.[3]  Materialistic cosmogonists have tried to evade this problem by resorting to theoretical conjecture as opposed to testable or measurable evidence.[4]  Yet this ploy utterly disqualifies their research from being scientific since abstract conjectures don’t rest on verifiable facts.  Consequently, the cause of the cosmos cannot be an entity from within nature, but must instead be Almighty God, the transcendent[5] Creator.

 

What is at Stake in the Weight that Christians Give to Science?

 

The matter of scientific authority has no bearing on the question of God’s competence or power, but instead seeks for the relevant data of nature to indicate how God freely chose to create.  I hold that God could easily have created the entire universe in an instant should He have chosen to do so.  My paper instead endeavors to recover a robust biblical delineation of the validity of both empirical science and biblical revelation and their relationship to each other.  Thirdly, I seek to assist parents in offering a more constructively reply to their children whenever they suggest that the “science” they are learning in school contradicts what they were “taught from the Bible about creation.  On the authority of the Bible, both realms are valid and, at the very least, do not necessarily conflict.  As for the question of conflicting with respect to their contents, two things may be said.  Firstly, a careful look at the text of Genesis 1 reveals nothing specific as to exactly how God created or made anything.  Secondly, everyday conversation that includes even scientists, easily accommodates both analytical language and every-day speech in the absence of any notion that they contradict.  For example, to the com-mon question, “How did this pie get on the table?” both the reply, “You carefully correctly put the ingredients together and bake them at the right temperature,” and, “Aunt Matilda loves baking!,” are both correct!  Likewise, instead of suggesting that either science or the Bible must be wrong, ask instead whether either or both are overstating their views. Should it be the case that one or the other transgresses their intellectual boundary, that error does not require over-throwing the trespasser altogether.  The biblical goals after all are to, at bottom, bring the two parties together instead of forcing either one to “walk the plank.”  And with respect to the young Christian questioner I imagined above, may he or she be fully persuaded so as to embrace science as committed Christians.  In this way only, others may witness their faith and likewise enter the Kingdom of God in the full conviction that the Gospel is true



[1] Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos. (RTB, 2018), pp. 85-107.  ** William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith.(Crossway, 2008), pp. 126-150.

[2] William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith. (Crossway, 2008), p. 140, states, “A watershed of sorts seems to have been reached with Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s formulation establishing that any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have a spacetime boundary.

[3] Frank Tipler. The Physics of Christianity. (Doubleday, 2007), p. 2, says that “Many physicists dislike [an absolute beginning] because it requires the universe to begin in a singularity. That is, they dislike it because the theory is consistent only if God exists.” Tipler is Professor of Mathema-tical Physics at Tulane University.

[4] Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos. (RTB, 2018), pp. 85-107.  , pp. 126-150.

[5] To transcend is to stand entirely the system or circumstance that is under consideration.  

Saturday, October 17, 2020

The Bible Must Harmonize with Science to Qualify as Truth part 1

                      The Bible Must Harmonize with Established Science

            The Bible makes bold claims pertaining to both nature and our relationship with it.  For example, Psalm 19: 1 says that both the starry heavens above and natural phenomena of living creatures and inanimate things below (“the firmament”), in themselves, all “declare the glory of God.”  The positive assessment this passage assigns to that testimony clearly highlights nature’s innate trustworthiness.  Consequently, Romans 1:18-20 warns of the sinfulness of suppressing testimony derived from our study of nature, specifically as it pertains to God’s existence.

            The Bible also, everywhere without exception, assumes[1] as valid “the Law of Non-Contradiction” which holds that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same way and at the same time.  Also, Scripture demands our obedience to truth in this sense, both in our consciences and in all social interactions.[2]  Consequently, young-earth creationism (YEC) cannot be correct if it requires denying unassailable facts that the universe is billions of years old.  Even in a court of law, testimony must reconcile with established facts and not vise/versa. Indeed, despite YEC claims to the contrary, the Bible never defends its truth by dismissing facts, but instead urges us to affirm its truth by testing it against the facts of science and history.[3]

Embracing Science Does NOT Require Compromising on Scripture.  Genesis ch. 1, especially in Hebrew, yields indicators that challenge young-earth creationism.  It also yields positive clues which are consistent with Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) and old-earth creationism.[4]  

Scientists Too Must Reconcile their Views with Science

            While scientists are trained to discriminate truth from error in nature, their title is no guarantee that they are right about everything.  Like the rest of us, they must compensate for their own limitations and prejudices.  So their views can only be justified if they actually square with the firm scientific facts.  One common highly consequential barrier to truth-seeking among scientists is an unprovable materialistic belief of many (not all), in the non-existence of spiritual beings.  This bias for example, compels them to evade hard scientific indicators of a beginning of the cosmos out of nothing solely because that suggests the existence of a transcendent[5] personal Creator.  This view also denies free-will to “soul-less” human beings in general, while it ironically celebrates the insights of its spokespersons (thereby contradicting that very tenet). 

To be continued...       


[1] Although we are heavily indebted to Aristotle for clarifying principles of logic, it would be fallacious to suggest that he thereby invented them.

[2] Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. (Thomas Nelson, 2001) lists over 900 biblical references which affirm this concept of truth.

[3] Request my paper, “The Pervasive Employment of Apologetics in the Bible,” at my email address, gjensen549@gmail.com.

[4] Request my papers, “15 Clues from Genesis 1 that Creation is Ancient,” and “How Genesis 1:1 Beautifully Accommodates the Big Bang,” at my email address. Ibid.

[5] To “transcend” is to stand entirely outside creation. See my paper, “Was the Big Bang the Big Beginning?” at my email address, Op.cit. (3).

Friday, October 9, 2020

Harris’s and Biden's Naked Lies about Donald Trump’s Character part 1

 

You shall not bear false witness…” (Exodus 20:16)

Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light.” (Jesus, in Luke 12:3)

 

At the recent Vice-Presidential candidate debate on 10/7/2020 between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, she stated to the audience, “The President of the United States took a debate stage in front of seventy million Americans and refused to condemn white supremacists.  And it wasn’t like he didn’t have a chance.  He didn’t do it.[1]

The question of whether Harris’s statement was accurate can be objectively established since both Trump’s and her words were not only aired before multiplied millions of people, but also officially recorded by the Debate officials so as to become a matter of public record.  The printed transcript of the relevant portion of the earlier, Presidential debate, is as follows:

WALLACE: “Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups…”

TRUMP: “Sure.” 

WALLACE: “And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we’ve seen in Portland” 

TRUMP: “Sure, I’m prepared to do it, but I would say almost everything I see is from the left-wing not from the right-wing. I’m willing to do anything, I want to see peace…”

WALLACE: “Then do it, sir.”

BIDEN: “Do it, say it.”

TRUMP: “What do you want to call them? Give me a name.”

WALLACE: “White supremacists and right-wing militias”

BIDEN: “Proud Boys” 

TRUMP: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left.”[2] 

            The fact that this transcript indicates that Donald Trump answered both of Wallace’s opening questions with the reply, “sure” (in boldface) indicates in no uncertain terms that he was condemning racism, thereby putting the lie to Harris’s assertions.  Yet the transcript ought further to raise an obvious question.  Since Trump already vocally met Wallace’s demands, then why did the latter continue, “Then do it, sir”?  The audio record makes it perfectly plain that immediately after Wallace had posed his questions, he proceeded to talk over him by entering into an oration of his own, to the end that he didn’t bother to listen to Trump’s replies to him.  

To be continued...