U.S. History Quiz

This history quiz link was forwarded to me by a person who thought that this was rather difficult and a good indicator of one's knowledge of U.S. history.  The test contains 102 questions and was rather rudimentary, in my opinion.  There was only one question that I had to take an educated guess on.  A vast majority of these questions should be, and indeed used to be, common knowledge for anyone that had successfully passed 8th grade U.S. history class.  One wonders if that is even objectively taught any more today.  Indeed, even this test had some editorializing towards a PC - progressive bias with a few of the questions.  Anyway, see how well you can do on this basic U.S. history knowledge quiz.

Matt Walsh: Stop pretending you’re killing Charlie Gard ‘for his own benefit,’ you monsters

I have been monitoring the ghoulishly "enlightened humanitarians" over in the United Kingdom and their "benevolent" reaction towards Charlie Gard and his parents.  It is vile, disgusting, and flat out evil what these folks are insisting must happen with regards to Charlie by effectively sentencing him to death.  Perhaps Charlie will likely die regardless, but doesn't his parents have a right to try to provide all possible care for him, and failing that don't they have the right to at least bring him home to die with them?

Once again, Matt Walsh does a brilliant job in capturing my thoughts perfectly on poor Charlie and his tormented parents at the hands of the socialized health care system in Great Britain.  It is the inevitable outcome that always occurs when the state is granted the power of life and death over its citizens without there being any recourse for them.  We are no longer merely slouching towards Gomorrah in our Western civilized nations.  We have evidently already arrived there in England.

"The parents of Charlie Gard are back in court this week, continuing the struggle to free their baby from captivity and bring him to the U.S. for treatment.

As you hopefully are aware by now, Connie Yates and Chris Gard have been fighting with courts and hospitals in the U.K. for the right to seek medical care for their sick baby. So far, European death panels have determined that Charlie must die, because, in their estimation, his life is no longer worth living. His parents are not allowed to bring him elsewhere for treatment, nor are they even permitted to bring their child home to die in their arms. He is being held as a condemned prisoner in a state funded hospital, with his mother and father permitted only visiting hours to come and weep over the child they are not allowed to save.

But Connie and Chris have been granted one last chance in court to prove the validity of the treatment they hope to obtain for Charlie in the United States. Any sane and decent person would say that it doesn’t matter if some judge or some collection of doctors in London think the treatment will be ineffective. It’s the only chance Charlie has, and his parents have the right to give it a shot. But it doesn’t work that way because the laws in Europe are neither sane nor decent. Charlie had the misfortune of being born into a system of socialized medicine, where government officials get to decide who is worth saving and who must die on the altar of resource efficiency."

Continue reading the rest of this excellently stated essay here. 

UPDATE: Connie Yates and Chris Gard had a court hearing yesterday to see if the judge would allow them to have their baby treated in the United States or other countries that have offered help.  They ended up storming out of the court because of the judge.

Thomas More, The Rise of State Supremacy and Modern Day Persecution of Faith

For the first millennia and a half after Christ first walked the earth, to be Christian was to be Catholic. There were no other “interpretations” of Christianity.  Then in 1517, a rather obscure Catholic monk and scholar by the name of Martin Luther penned his grievances in the form of “95 Theses” that decried much of what he correctly saw as corruption within the Catholic Church. He was not correct however, according to Orthodox Catholic belief, in his new interpretation on sola fide (salvation by faith alone) and sola scriptura (Biblical scripture as the only authority for Christians).  But that is a topic for another time.

That said, the horse was out of the barn, and the genesis of the Protestant Reformation was at hand.  No longer was the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, considered to be the first among equal brother bishops when it came to Christian authority for many Christians following this schism.

A little over a decade later in 1529, King Henry VIII of England appointed Thomas More, a deeply religious Catholic lawyer and scholar as his Lord Chancellor for the kingdom.  At that time England had not yet fallen to the Protestant schism and was still united with Rome in its Catholicity.  Then King Henry VIII desired an annulment from his wife Catherine in order that he could marry Anne Boleyn.  He drafted a letter requesting the Pope’s permission to obtain the annulment and requested that his good and faithful chancellor, Thomas More, endorse his request.  More, due to the dictates of his Catholic faith, respectfully refused.

Henry was enraged and over the next couple of years he isolated More in ever greater measure as he purged many of the clergy who supported the Pope that had refused to grant him his annulment.  It was becoming obvious to Thomas More that King Henry VIII was breaking away from the church in Rome.  This was something that Thomas More could not abide and thus he offered his resignation to the king in 1532.  King Henry accepted the resignation but was deeply vexed by what he considered to be More’s failing loyalty towards him.

By 1533, King Henry VIII had already declared himself to be the head of the Church as well as the State so that he no longer fell under Rome’s Christian authority thereby allowing him to establish the Church of England which subsequently allowed him to marry Anne Boleyn.  Thomas More, still a loyal English subject, refused to attend the wedding or coronation of Queen Anne but sent a letter of congratulations instead.  King Henry was highly insulted by this perceived slight from his friend.

King Henry, on April 13, 1534, ordered Thomas More to take an oath in which he acknowledged the legitimacies of Anne's position as queen, of Henry's self-granted annulment from Catherine, and the superior position of the King as head of the church. While acknowledging Anne as queen, More refused to acknowledge Henry as head of the church, or his annulment from Catherine.  The king was furious and had More arrested, tried, and imprisoned in the Tower of London accordingly.

Exactly 482 years ago today on July 6th, 1535, Thomas More was executed for his "conspiracies against the king" accordingly.

Five hundred years later, we now have closer to 30,000 different Christian denominations, all proclaiming their own authority for their beliefs and wildly varying interpretations of Christ’s message for all of us.  Sadly, as the world has become ever-increasingly coarse, crass, and not coincidentally more secular, the more orthodox Christian faiths are becoming ever more under attack from society and the state.

There are signs of this rising secularism and attack on sincere religious belief everywhere.  Indeed, a little over two weeks ago Sweden’s Prime Minister, Stefan Lofven,

“suggested that all Church of Sweden priests be compelled to perform gay marriages, despite the Lutheran church’s position that clergy members should have the right to refuse… The prime minister indicated in an interview with a church magazine that if a priest cannot bless a gay marriage, they should consider another vocation. 

‘We Social Democrats are working to ensure all priests will consecrate everyone, including same-sex couples,’ Lofven told Kyrkans Tidning magazine.

‘I see parallels to the midwife who refuses to perform abortions. If you work as a midwife you must be able to perform abortions, otherwise you have to do something else… It is the same for priests,’ he said…

In the interview, Lofven, who is not religious, defended the perceived political incursion into the practice of religion, saying ‘the church must stand up for human equality.’"

This seems to be the trend in which our modern enlightened society is inexorably heading.  Indeed, our neighbors to the north in Canada have passed “hate speech” laws that are chilling for Orthodox Christians to say anything negative about the sin of homosexual acts, even from the pulpit.

The government of Wales has proposed registration and inspection of religious schools and churches to evaluate if they are complying with “fundamental values”—an option Welsh evangelicals call highly intrusive and “an unwarranted incursion into private religion and family life.”

In America, bakers, photographers, and other business owners with deeply held religious beliefs have been excoriated in the press, secular society, and even the courts for their refusal to bend to secular law in its requirements to provide goods or services for same sex couples when celebrating what they deem as a religious rite of marriage.

Even former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders recently questioned Russ Vought, the nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, in antagonistic fashion because of Vought's Christian beliefs, specifically in the form that those that do not accept Christ as their Lord and savior are condemned by God.  It is a belief that is common amongst all three of the orthodox Abrahamic faiths that refusing acceptance of their core beliefs invites possible damnation.

Now never mind the minor detail that the United States Constitution itself states that there is to be NO religious test administered for those seeking public office, the fact remains that we, as Americans, should be free to exercise our religious faith and answer to our own consciences in line with our first amendment, and more importantly, God-given rights.

When the state, president, or king would usurp those rights of conscience given to us by God, are we not obligated to follow our faith in God over that of the laws constructed by man?

Sanders wrote in his defense of his statements against Mr. Vought:

“In a democratic society, founded on the principle of religious freedom, we can all disagree over issues, but racism and bigotry—condemning an entire group of people because of their faith—cannot be part of any public policy.”

Senator Sanders fails to understand that even people of deeply held religious convictions, (and sometimes especially those very people) absolutely can and do work with and befriend others of differing or no beliefs on a daily basis.  Senator Sanders, by his pronouncement would basically preclude any Christian, Muslim, or Jew from holding office by his own secular PC standard.  Only the secular world and man’s law should hold sway over our governance in Sanders' world, it would seem.

Saint Thomas More, the patron saint of lawyers, politicians, civil servants, and religious freedom, refused to compromise his own beliefs five hundred years ago in order to accommodate the powers of the secular world as commanded by King Henry VIII.  He refused to surrender his faith and his integrity even for the crown and at the pain of the forfeiture of his own life.  He understood the supremacy of God’s law foremost.  More saw it as scripture teaches, 

“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” ~ Mark 8:36

If only our modern day public servants and leaders were to exercise such integrity and follow the enormously brave example of conscience demonstrated by St. Thomas More.

Hate Trumps Love from the Left

I recall several years ago how Sarah Palin was castigated by many on the Left and in the mainstream media (but then I repeat myself) for having the temerity to release a map that "targeted" certain congressional districts for which Republicans could concentrate.  The word "targeting" was labeled as hateful and inciting violence to shoot Democrats, as it was released shortly after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords by a mentally deranged man.  It was patently ludicrous and nothing but faux outrage.

Fast forward to today and we have the unhinged, out-of-power Left waxing eloquently, or not so eloquently, with their far more explicit hate speech towards President Trump and the Right.

Although I am not a fan and do not listen to him, I have come across this list that Sean Hannity's staff has put together of recent hate speech spewed from some of our Leftist brothers and sisters who purportedly wanted to make "love trump hate".  I'd say they were off to a very bad start, wouldn't you?

* Hollywood Actor Mark Ruffalo calls on NBC News to "cease hiring white conservatives."

* "Knights for Socialism" group at a Florida University teaches students how to "fight the fascists."

* Anti-Trump "resistance" leaders say they want to "Make America Ungovernable," call for "direct action" tactics against Republicans.

* Kathy Griffin's photoshoot depicting President Trump's severed head.

* Charlie Sheen wishes death on Donald Trump, tweeting, “Dear God; Trump next, please! Trump     next, please!" following the death of actress Carrie Fisher.

* President Trump murdered in musician Marilyn Manson's music video.

* Katie Tur insinuates Donald Trump will begin killing journalists on MSNBC, saying “Donald Trump has made no secret about going after journalists"

* Unhinged NYU professor calls on students to attack conservative speaker Gavin McInnes, calls his supporters "Nazis."

* Rachel Maddow says Donald Trump wants to murder journalists.

* Comedian Jim Carrey supports Kathy Griffin's photoshoot, says he dreams of killing President Trump.

* Madonna says she wants to "blow up the White House" during a speech.

* Black Lives Matter say they want to "fry cops like bacon" during a rally in Minnesota.

* President Obama urges liberal activists to, "Get in their faces."

* Actor Mickey Rourke goes on anti-Trump rant, says "F*** him, F*** the horse he rode in on, his   wife's one of the biggest gold-diggers I know."

* Rapper Big Sean raps about murdering Donald Trump with an icepick.

* Late-Night host Stephen Colbert goes on anti-Trump tirade, calls him "Vladimir Putin's c***-holster."

* Comedian Bill Maher jokes about Trump family incest.

* Rapper Snoop Dogg stages phony execution of 'clown' Donald Trump.

* NBC and New York Times contributor Malcolm Nance calls on ISIS to suicide-bomb Trump-owned properties.

* NYC Theater group stages performance of 'Julius Caesar,' showing the savage stabbing-death of  'Donald Trump.'

* Protesters in Philadelphia chant "Kill Trump - Kill Pence" during May Day demonstrations. "

And sadly, this doesn't even come close to listing all of the over-the-top hateful and violent rhetoric coming from some on the Left.  Yes, I know the Right has been guilty of going over the line in the past too, but nothing like this, especially considering the actions following some of this hateful speech.  Hateful and violent speech like this is never acceptable from anyone, regardless of party affiliation.  We should ALL stand together and condemn it accordingly!

But, it seems that we are indeed a nation sorely divided and returning to civil discourse, let alone reuniting as fellow Americans appears to be a lost cause.  In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"  Sadly, the answer from the Left appears to be a resounding " HELL NO!"

A Pope, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Princes, and Their Pictures

I have seen several leftist websites and mainstream media sources (but then I repeat myself) promulgate the notion that Pope Francis was not happy when he met with President Trump recently as was reflected in their group photo.

Even my good friend Burr Deming at Fair and Unbalanced picked up on this new trendy left-wing meme on his site.

The problem is that not everything is as our brothers and sisters on the left would seem to want it to be.  Yes, a picture can say a thousand words, but when we look at all of the pictures, they also can tell a completely different story if we only take the time to truly look.

Here is a typical version of what the anti-Trump Left is posting.  They will first show a picture of President Obama standing next to a smiling Pope Francis and then contrast that picture with a dour looking Pope standing next to President Trump.  Of course the implication is that Pope Francis adores President Obama and is not pleased with President Trump.

But as Paul Harvey would say, here is the rest of the story.  It isn't hard to also find a picture of a seemingly displeased Pope standing next to many of the world's leaders, regardless of their political ideology.  

Below is a picture of a Canada's very leftist Prime Minister Trudeau smiling beside a seemingly grumpy Pope Francis.

Or how about this one where Israel's right-wing Benjamin Netanyahu is posing with a surly Pope Francis. 

Perhaps the apolitical (left-wing) Prince Charles would cheer up the Pope... or not.

Is it perhaps possible that Pope Francis simply doesn't typically smile for staged photographs?  There are myriads (more than two) of candid pictures of him smiling and laughing with numerous world leaders that are easily found on the inter-webs, but for the staged photographs, he presents a more stoic countenance that can be taken for a disapproving or grumpy attitude towards the official with whom he is being photographed.  

For those that attempt to make political points by pulling merely two pictures out of thousands in order to justify a talking point, they come off as being naive and self-deluding or perhaps even intentionally dishonest in their presentation of the facts.  I know beyond all doubt that it is not the latter but far more likely the former in the case with my friend Burr Deming.

I guess we sometimes need to stop and ask ourselves a question.  Is it possible that sometimes we only search long enough to see just what we wish to see and nothing more?

A World of 6.5 Billion Truths

Right or wrong.

There is a distinct and discernible difference between the two.   

This increasingly morally relativistic world would like us to think that it is comprised of 6.5 billion shades of gray, but honestly there are far more issues in the world that come down to a truly black or white decision than what we may believe; that come down to a choice between a falsehood or truth.  There is a right answer and a wrong answer.  There is the correct path and the path that leads to desolation.

I know— I know—

How presumptuous of me!  After all, I haven’t walked in your shoes so I don’t know what issues you have had to face. 

And that is true.  I haven’t walked in your shoes.  Perhaps I have been in similar circumstances and faced adversaries or dilemmas that were very much like the ones you have faced, but that doesn’t mean they are exactly the same.

But, that doesn’t mean that truth changes because circumstances are slightly different for you either.

I have often heard in recent years some version of “it’s her truth” or “that is the truth as he sees it”.  Well folks, that may or may not be THE truth.  Rather, that is their perspective. 

Truth is not subjective.  It simply is.  It is factual and unwavering, no matter how much one hopes to color it in deeper shades of gray with one’s own individual circumstances.  It does not change based on one’s gender, color, sexual orientation, political ideology, shoe size, or for which NBA team one cheers. 

God is Truth.

“Gasp!  Well what if I don’t believe in God?  What then?”

What then, indeed?  That is actually a very good question.  If my statement is correct that God is truth, and you don’t believe in God, then how do you define or determine what truth is?

When the Jewish priests handed Christ over to Pontius Pilate, they did so because Jesus challenged “their truth”. 

So Pilate said to him, "Then you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice."

Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" When he had said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in him.”   ~John 18: 37-38

You can almost hear Pilate spit out his response, “What is truth?”  The irony is that The Truth was standing right before Pilate and was crucified because He contradicted the Romans’ and the Jews’ version of the truth.

But back to our original question.  If you don’t believe in Christ –in God- then how do you define and determine what is the truth?

Is our government the arbiter of truth?  As American’s we’d like for them to be, but honestly if you assume that simply because the government says it is so and therefore the truth, you will be sadly mistaken more often than not.

Do we look to teachers, professors, family, or friends to determine what is right and wrong ...what  is the truth?  Sometimes.  Sometimes we are met with wise counsel from these good people too.  But they are still human and therefore subject to the same foibles and failings that you and I are.  They can make mistakes, even when discerning what the truth is.  The wisest and most holy man or woman on earth can still be mistaken and lead one away from the truth.

“Exactly! So if I cannot count on anyone else to lead me to the truth and I don’t believe in God, then I guess I just have to count on myself to define my own truth.”

Easy there, Skippy! 

Do you really think you are going to be any less prone to errors in choosing between right and wrong and finding the truth than the wisest and most holy among us?  That is rather arrogant if one is searching for THE truth, instead of just a version that fits your specific wants, desires, and perceptions.

But if God is a myth and you cannot necessarily depend on others, then the only person you have to answer to is yourself, right?   This journey of yours is singular. It is a lonely walk that you must take by yourself. No one can guide you, direct you, or tell you which way to go. You alone must chart your course because you alone know your circumstances –your truth.  You get to decide what is right and true for you, even if it conflicts with what your parents, teachers, or society says is right and true.  After all, they aren’t living “your truth” in your circumstances, right?

It is in defining these alternate individual “truths” that we each come to justify our own immoral actions.  Shacking up with our girlfriend/boyfriend, living a homosexual lifestyle, promoting or procuring an abortion, lying, cheating, polluting our planet, or ignoring the least among us in need all become permissible if the ultimate arbiter of truth is ourselves – if we are the ones that determine what is true.

There are two faculties or powers of the immortal soul that are given to us by God.  They are reason and free will. Using our reason, we can think about things such as the morality of a proposed action as defined by God ...as defined by the Truth. Using our free will, we can decide whether to do it. Faculties that we share with animals are senses and emotions. Our emotions are more varied and complex than those of animals, though there is no denying that my dog can be happy with his tail wagging at a frenzied pace as we play fetch or scared when he sees the car approaching the dreaded veterinarian’s office.

We call reason and free will higher faculties; emotions and senses are our lower faculties. It is a serious mistake, though one that is common in our culture, to allow the lower faculties to govern our actions. This leads us to believe that a proposed action must be good if it is pleasurable to our senses or if it makes us feel happy. I have heard individuals justify immoral acts by saying, “God wants me to be happy.” This is true, but there are acts that will give us momentary pleasure but not long-term happiness. God wants us to live in eternal happiness, and to use reason rather than emotion and sensual pleasure to guide us there.  Drugs, alcohol, or promiscuous sex may give us momentary pleasure, but in the long run will only lead us to more sorrow and misery.

All of us sinners have, to one degree or another, bought into the lie. At the heart of the lie—and we can see it in the Genesis account—is the deification of the ego. I become the center of the universe, I with my needs and my fears and my demands.  And when the puny “I” is the center of the cosmos, the tie that binds all things to one another is lost. The basic reality now becomes rivalry, competition, violence, and mistrust.  And The Truth is subjugated in the world to “my truth” and the varying “truths” of billions of other people whom fail to seek, acknowledge, and live by The Truth that is God.

In such a world, right and wrong are always relative.  In such a world there is no singular transcending all-encompassing Truth.

As for me and my family, we will always strive to serve the Lord ...and The Truth.

Michael Smith: Separate and Equal (but Special)

Michael Smith wrote a very interesting piece on Facebook a few days ago.  I thought it was worthy of being shared here.  Enjoy!

The Supreme Court ended the doctrine of “Separate but Equal” when it handed down the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, overturning the decision on Plessey v. Ferguson on May 18, 1896 that affirmed Louisiana state law mandating “equal but separate”. Homer Adolph Plessy bought a ticket on the East Louisiana Railroad, from New Orleans to Covington, La. Mr. Plessy , seven-eighths white and one-eighth Negro, took a seat in the coach designated for whites on the segregated train. When challenged, he refused to move, he was taken off and jailed.

Reflecting the social and legal environment of the times, the Plessy decision was not even close - the decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. This decision established legal segregation by race as the law of the land and it stood for 58 years until society changed and recognized that separate but equal is anything but equal.

Brown v. Board of Education has now been law for 5 years longer than was Plessy (63 years vs. 58). Proving that certain segments of mankind never learn anything from history, the SJW’s (social justice warriors) of contemporary times seek to return to the days of Plessy (with a twist) by working with government to be separate and equal (but special). Blacks are calling for “black only” instruction in college and black only police and government in majority black areas. Muslims are demanding Muslim only public accommodations – the same is true with the LGBT community. Feminists want to be free of the “heteronormative patriarchy” by removing men from their roles in society. The entire “safe space” idea is not just to provide protection for thin-skinned progressive adult children and academics (but I repeat myself) but to exclude people who hold opposing ideas and prevent them from being heard. These folks say they want to be treated as equal but demand to be separated from others and in doing so, they also expect special protection and treatment.

Affirmative action programs were created to “cure” the discrimination created by the “separate but equal” doctrine. These programs created the first classes of people who were separate and equal (but special). The idea was to carve out special privileges for blacks that would eventually help a class of citizens overcome historical inequality. Looking at black America today, it is obviously possible to make the case that black individuals have benefited – but as a socio-economic class, affirmative action can hardly be considered a success - and yet it continues apace.

In 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), SCOTUS upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School by defining the very quota system found unconstitutional in 1978’s Regents of the University of California v. Bakke as “not a quota system” (a lot like how John Roberts redefined Obamacare’s tax as not a tax and a tax at the same time in order to find Obamacare constitutional). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a “compelling interest in promoting class diversity.” Never mind that the Constitution says nothing about “diversity” and everything about equality, the important aspect is that Grutter v. Bollinger affirmed the same “separate but equal” doctrine as did Plessy v. Ferguson (with the special twist of approving reverse discrimination).

Progressivism is riddled with self-contradictory ideas and affirmative action is no exception – it seeks to create equality by creating inequality (i.e. lowering standards, mandating quotas, grading on the curve, etc.), proving that Brown v. Board of Education was demonstrably correct – separate is not equal, especially when discrimination is thought to be cured by more discrimination against an out of favor class. Progressivism is built on building protected classes and “curing” their ills by disadvantaging another class. Proving that progressives are the least self-aware class on the face of the American political landscape, this is the basis for the Plessy decision in 1896 making the modern SJW’s little better than the post-Civil War segregationists.

Separate but equal is not equal. Equal but special is not the same as being equal. Separate but equal was wrong in 1896 and progressivism’s doctrine of separate and equal (but special) is just as wrong today.

Mr. Smith makes some very interesting and accurate points, in my opinion.  I was always of the opinion that there was indeed a time when affirmative action programs were necessary to balance out the systemic racism that would not allow people of color to even have a chance to get a foot in the door of some colleges or businesses.  I also feel that time is past and affirmative action is no longer necessary.

Nowadays, affirmative action, in my opinion is just as Michael Smith intimated, a system of reverse racism.  Affirmative action tells our brothers and sisters of color that they cannot make it on their own merits today.  They must be propped up with quotas in order to be allowed entrance to universities and careers.  Today, such is NOT the case and is frankly demeaning to myriads of well qualified folks.  It is interesting when a program that was enacted to combat racism has outlasted its usefulness and has thereby become racist in itself.