Write thoughts on historical rebellions.

 Write Thoughts on Historical Rebellions

By Ralph L Myers

Recently, President Biden said, during a press conference announcing his new gun crime prevention efforts, “The Second Amendment has always had limitations, and those who think they need weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government would need F-15 fighter jets and nuclear weapons.” But what he really means is, just in case, and to be on the safe side, we better disarm those who would attempt to overthrow a tyrannical government.

I don’t argue with Mr. Biden’s logic that American gun owners would not stand a chance against the U. S military’s might and power. But I disagree with him if he thinks, even for one moment, the oppressed citizens of America would not fight back in the face of overwhelming odds against them. Let’s look back on some historical precedents, starting with our American Revolution.

On the night of April 18, 1775, hundreds of British troops set off from Boston toward Concord, Massachusetts, to seize weapons and ammunition stockpiled there by American colonists. Early the next morning, the British reached Lexington, where approximately 70 minutemen had gathered on the village green. Someone suddenly fired a shot—uncertain which side—and a melee ensued. When the brief clash ended, Americans had killed eight people and injured at least an equal number, while one redcoat had sustained a wound. The British continued on to nearby Concord, where that same day they encountered armed resistance from a group of patriots at the town’s North Bridge. The colonists and redcoats exchanged gunfire, resulting in the death of two colonists and three redcoats. Afterward, the British retreated to Boston, skirmishing with colonial militiamen along the way and suffering several casualties; the Revolutionary War had begun. Ralph Waldo Emerson later memorialized the incident at the North Bridge in his 1837 poem “Concord Hymn,” which opens with the stanza: “By the rude bridge that arched the flood/They unfurled their flag to April’s breeze/Here, the embattled farmers once stood/And fired the shot heard round the world.”

Nathan Hale, a heroic American patriot, uttered these powerful words during the American Revolutionary War. “Give me liberty or give me death.” His unwavering commitment to freedom and independence resonates throughout history. Historians believe that an American Colonist, soldier, and patriot named Patrick Henry uttered these powerful words during the American Revolutionary War. After being led to the gallows, legend holds that the 21-year-old Hale said, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”    

 

“The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The wrong part will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death, to public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as facts and pardon and pacify them. What signifies a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

 “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson.

 “Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subject of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.” — Woodrow Wilson

“I am an American, free born and free bred, where I acknowledge no man as my superior, except for his own worth, or as my inferior, except for his own demerit.”–Theodore Roosevelt.

 

Fighting against an overwhelming military, the Colonists faced a massive British Navy and Army. Just like President Biden has threatened. Throughout all phases of the American Revolution, they employed guerrilla warfare. First used at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, this style of unconventional fighting proved invaluable to the Continental Army. Revolutionary war tactics varied depending on the phase of the war and location. For instance, during the winter of 1777, Washington encouraged the military to raid British supply lines and ambush larger detachments of British soldiers to catch them by surprise in the Forage War. It ultimately resulted in about 900 casualties for the British. Similarly, George Washington used a spy network called the ‘Culper Ring’ to gain intelligence on British troops and troop movements, as well as spread disinformation to deceive the British into thinking that the Continental Army was much larger than it actually was. In the West, frontiersmen, such as Daniel Morgan, also took part in fighting and harried British forces for portions of the war.

However, the greatest use of guerrilla warfare during the American Revolution occurred during the Southern Campaign. During the later years of the war, the American general, Nathanael Greene, and Baron Friedrich von Steuben actively employed guerrilla warfare. In the forests of the South, Greene could draw British forces away from their supplies and then engage them with small fighting units to inflict damage. By dividing his forces, Greene could spread his soldiers across a wider area. As a result, British General Charles Cornwallis and the Southern detachment of the British Army often found extreme difficulty finding the Americans and successfully contending with them in skirmishes.

 

Our third president, James Madison, stated, “Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” To me, this is what President Biden has in mind with his F-15, nuclear weapons comment. I believe David, with far less inferior weapons to what Goliath had, prevailed in his battle with the help of God. The odds of patriots succeeding in a battle against the government are impossible. The administration should not take them for granted.

President Madison also observed, “The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences of the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.   

The anti-gun, anti-second amendment proponents often resort to an argument that the firearms available during the founding of America and the establishment of the 2^nd Amendment, the technology of firearms in America’s founding is entirely different from that of today. James Madison made this observation clear about this when he said, “The Second Amendment isn’t about technology, and it isn’t even about guns. “It’s about a principle, the right and ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. That principle is as legitimate today as it was in 1791.”

The right and advice to overthrow a tyrannical government probably doesn't exist in other countries, unlike what America's founding fathers advocated when drafting the Bill of Rights. Military and civil coups are as old as civilization itself. To say that America has reached the boiling point of another civil war, and civil insurrection, is not far-fetched. She has far too many problems that are being ignored, or advocated by an administration that too many are tyrannical.

The purpose of my essay is to express my opinion and observation of what I sincerely and fearfully feel is the path America is on. Unless we alter the direction she is heading, it may well be the death rattle of the Republic and democracy.

Ralph L Myers  

Christianity and Christians, adversaries against the Evil One

 An online publication, "The Daily Digest," has published an article about research showing that those they have labeled as Christian Nationalists and Christians who believe the Holy Bible is to be taken literally are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

As in every argument, I think it is necessary to put all arguments in a proper context. The article used Christians' religious beliefs as a basis to assume that all of them believe in conspiracy theories. The article has, in a sense, profiled Christianity. Profiling is a practice that the secular world decries. Yet, it appears to be a major tool used by secularists to discredit those whom they don't agree with.

The argument that Christians are more susceptible to believing in "conspiracy theories" falls right into a definition known as "the fallacy of composition," which states that the fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

Scripturally, in 2 Timothy 3:13-16 Christians receive a warning about evil men and seducers who continuously worsen, deceiving and being deceived. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience, 11Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12Yea and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But you, continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

This article exemplifies the battle that is raging in the U. S, and the secular world today. A battle between evil, yes Satan, and the scripture's teachings. 

Ralph L Myers 

What is a Christian? Conflicting views, scriptural and secular.

 What is a Christian? Conflicting views, scriptural and secular.

A Rebuttal Written by Ralph L Myers

 

The following is an opinion article written by Chauncey De Vega of Salon, a progressive, independent journalist.

“Christian fascist” caucus: Mike Johnson brings MAGA fully into the House of Representatives.

 

Chauncy De Vega comments in black and rebuttal comments in red.

Christian nationalists are key, if not indispensable, members of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement and the larger neofascist coalition. In Trump, they see a type of martyr and prophet who is a weapon for them and their God to create a Christofascist theocracy and Apartheid state. Christian Nationalists sincerely and deeply believe that they are fighting to preserve “their way of life” and “traditional American values” in a titanic battle between “good and evil”–where, of course, like other religious zealots, they are God’s elect as opposed to villains and evildoers.

Rebuttal: Christians are not and do not believe, they are fighting to preserve their way of life. As the Apostle Paul wrote in his letter to Timothy, 2 Timothy 4:7-8 ⁷ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race; I have kept the faith. ⁸ Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me but also to all who have longed for his appearing. Rather, they are living a life as commanded in the Bible; they have fought to live a life that is by God’s will, so that they may receive the heavenly reward of a home in heaven on the day of judgment.

 

As public opinion and other research have repeatedly shown, Christian nationalists (White Christian supremacists) and those allied with them believe in and support the use of political violence as a way of achieving their revolutionary plans for American society. Their belief also legitimated the support for political violence and other cruelty by Christian nationalists and other members of the Christian right that the world is in a mythological End Times battle. Donald Trump, a masterful propagandist, has repeatedly signaled to this through his repeated use of language such as a “final battle” and the need to get collective “revenge” on the Democrats and other “enemies” of so-called real America. It was predictable and by design that Christian nationalists would play a prominent role in Trump’s Jan. 6 coup attempt and the lethal terrorist attack on the Capitol.

Rebuttal: Jesus said in John 18:36, “³⁶ Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” As Christians, the so-called “final battle” this article refers to is to resist the world’s sinful ways, not seeking an act of collective revenge. New Testament scripture teaches Christians to be prepared, not for revenge, but as a warning against false teachers. (Acts 20:28-30),

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves, men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Rebuttal continued.)

 Rebuttal: The Apostle Paul in his final charge to Timothy, after telling him to preach the word, explained (2 Tim. 4:3-4), ^“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” These scriptures are a warning to faithful Christians, not a credible argument saying Christians advocate violence, as outlined in the article in reference. “It was predictable and by design that Christian nationalists would play a prominent role in Trump’s Jan. 6 coup attempt and the lethal terrorist attack on the Capitol.”

 To better understand the role of militant White Christianity in America’s democracy crisis and the Age of Trump, I recently spoke with Bradley B. Onishi, president of the Institute for Religion, Media, and Civic Engagement and the Founder of Axis Mundi Media. In 2023 he published, “Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism.” He is also a faculty member in Religion and Philosophy at the University of San Francisco. In this conversation, Onishi explains how violence is central and not peripheral or somehow coincidental to Christian nationalism and how the events of Jan. 6 highlighted the dangers of such a movement to the country. Onishi also warns about the type of antidemocratic and (even more) cruel America that the likes of Speaker Mike Johnson and the other Christian nationalists are trying to impose on the American people — and how Dictator Trump would be the vessel for that dystopia.

Rebuttal: While not excusing, or advocating violence, the scriptures continually warn us about people that hold the beliefs the author of this article apparently has. Romans 16:17-18 New International Version ¹⁷ I urge you, brothers, and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. ¹⁸ For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery, they deceive the minds of naïve people.

 

What is the role of violence in the Christian Nationalist movement? “Militant” Christianity is far from being peaceful or benign as its leaders and followers would (dishonestly) like to suggest.

Rebuttal: This argument raised in this article is a prime example of a secular viewpoint of what Christians are. If their beliefs go against the popular confines of a secularist world, ergo, they must be a part of this perceived vast Christofascist movement. We could express this same argument that those who want to end Christianity, and see religion abolished, like Lenin for example, who stated that religion was the opium of the masses. Using the writer’s coined term, Christofascist is indeed reverse fascism. Referring again to Romans 16:17-18, the Apostle Paul, summed it up succinctly. ¹⁷ I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. ¹⁸ For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery, they deceive the minds of naïve people.

 

There is a wonderful framework in Gorski and Perry’s book “The Flag and the Cross.” They talk about how White Christian nationalists focus on a trinity consisting of freedom, order, and violence. White Christian nationalists only believe they can experience freedom if the social order is in its proper form. That means that all the various constituents of American communities must know their place in the social order and live out that role culturally, politically, and so on. If all the constituents don’t live out and/or accept their roles, then the social order is out of place - and thus White Christians can’t experience the freedom they believe to have been promised. As Gorski and Perry argue, White Christian nationalists reserve the right to use violence in order to put the social order back in place. When they act violently, it is as patriots, godly warriors, and real Americans. When others, including Black folks and people of color, and immigrants, and queer people, use protest or uprising to change the social order, they are deemed terrorists, extremists, and threats to the American way of life. 

 We’ve seen how Christians used violence in the past to put the social order back in the place they think it should be in. Scholars have shown us the iteration of the KKK in the 1910s and 1920s was a thoroughly Christian movement to reify the American social order in the wake of Reconstruction.  I can see Jim Crow as an extension of this movement. And of course, there were many in the thirties and forties who joined organizations and movements like the Christian Front and the America First movements inspired by people such as Charles Lindbergh or Father Coughlin, who did so in the name of faith.

All of that, when the social order feels out of place to the white Christian nationalists, they feel as if they are not experiencing American freedom.  And then they feel as if they may use violence to rectify that situation. January 6 is no different. And since then, we’ve only seen the calls coming from many sources in Christian America for further violence, for civil war, for a national divorce in order to make things, in their minds, how they should be.

Rebuttal: In today’s society, particularly a woke one, whenever they can’t come up with a valid argument, they always have the “Race Card,” to play. That and blaming all the ills in society on white supremacy, or religion. God has allowed me to be on this earth for over 80 years, and in that time, they have attacked family and Christian values, many times destroying them. It did not matter what color, race, or creed you were a part of. 2 Tim. 4:3-4), ^“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” Ephesians 6:12 ¹² For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Many of the identifications of various groups or organizations referenced in this article are not true Christians in a scriptural sense, but a part of those that seek to disenfranchise whomever, or whatever they are against. To borrow a secularist argument, Christians, like persons of color or race, are being profiled. Romans 13:1-2 says: “Obey the government, for God, is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.” We need to digest and obey this verse. The only time we are to disobey a law is if it is morally wrong, not in our opinion but in God’s sight. Otherwise, we are to be good citizens and make the church and state work together for good. Throughout history, lawmakers have enacted many laws that contradict the laws of God. It is these laws that Christians, as instructed by the scriptures, are not supposed to obey.

 

 

What role did White nationalists and other “Christian” militants play on Jan. 6 with Trump’s coup attempt and the attack on the Capitol?

January 6 was a religious crusade. If you look closely at the symbols present on January 6, you will see of course American flags, but you’ll also see Confederate flags. You’ll see Christian flags. You’ll see the Appeal to Heaven flag. You’ll see people who are carrying icons of Mary and statues of Christ. You will see people who are praying at almost every stage of the insurrection, whether that is outside the building or inside the Senate chamber. 

January 6 was for many of the rioters a chance to take back the country for God. And for the people whom God had rightly given the country to.

Rebuttal: This could also be a rhetorical question. During any protest, there will be flags, signs, posters, etc. expressing one’s viewpoint. That there were American flags, Christian flags, religious icons, etc. I don’t believe those displays, and the protestors carrying them contributed to acts of violence any more than left-wing agitators like Antifa do. So-called White Nationalists, or Christian Militants, have the same First Amendment right to protest as do those opposed to them. I always think back to America’s founding fathers who advocated overthrowing a tyrannical government if necessary.  The Capitol building, and the Halls of Congress, to me, are the people’s house, and they had every right to enter them.

Mike Johnson is elevated to Speaker of the House and there is all this discussion about Christian Nationalism/White Christian supremacy. That lasts for a few days or perhaps a week or so, then it disappears. Mike Johnson is still Speaker of the House; he has not disappeared just because the media has stopped focusing on him. How does that feel given your years of sounding the alarm about the danger(s) such forces represent to the country?

I understand that we live in a situation where there’s a 24-hour news cycle. For quite some time, there have been more crises to pay attention to than most of us have the bandwidth for. I think for me, the critical thing in my work is to continue to point out the threats that Christian extremists pose to our democracy.  

I think at the moment we are in the eye of the storm. We’re about a year from the election. And there’s been a sense that the threat of Trump’s reign is in the past. However, I think more folks are now coming to realize that the 2024 election is approaching.  And the elevation of Johnson to speaker is a kind of foreshadowing of the kinds of retrograde social order that MAGA nation and Christian nationalists want to put in place in this country. So, for me, the task is to continue to point out how dangerous these ideologies and approaches to government are for our society. One of the biggest challenges in this media landscape is for people to realize that it is possible for White Christians to be dangerous.

Rebuttal: The scriptures continually warn us of sin, sinners, and sinful acts. In the book of Genesis, God expresses He is sorry for creating man, and decides that He will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth. He was also going to destroy the beast, creeping things, and birds of the air. And, as I have already written about, the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy warns against those in a secular society who will not endure sound doctrine. In 2 Timothy 4:3-4, ^“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” We are certainly in “that time.”

Whenever a portion of society expresses a viewpoint that goes against the secularist views, they become a threat to American Democracy. Yet those progressive views are a much greater threat to democracy, e.g., altering the freedom of speech through “wokeism,” or other such attempts to cancel history or values.

What type of America and world do Mike Johnson and the other Christian nationalists want to create?

White Christian nationalists want an American society in which their particular interpretation of faith is privileged over all others. This means that, as Johnson says, the church has a profound influence on the government by way of policy, education, and law. If they had their way abortion would be banned, no-fault divorce would be illegal, and gay marriage outlawed. What does that equate to? It equates to a social order in which heterosexual Christians who adhered to a patriarchal family structure are the real Americans - and everyone else is seen as either deviant or second-class (unwilling or unable to attain the status of the real American). This social vision is retrograde. It prioritizes White Christian men, heterosexual families, native-born Americans, and treats the rest of us as “other.” 

Mike Johnson’s political vision is representative of many white Christian nationalists in the country.  And what it represents is a demand that their particular interpretation of faith and values be implemented in our laws and policies. For them, if that vision is not implemented, then America is off course and they, as people of faith and as American citizens, are being persecuted.  I’ve said it many times, but for those who are accustomed to privilege, equality in the public square feels like persecution.  And so for Johnson and his cohorts the representation of other faiths, the legal protection of family structures that they see as deviant, the inclusion of trans people, of immigrants, of those who are not like them, in our society is not taken as an expansion of our Union, but as a kind of backsliding from the way America should be.

Unfortunately, for many Christian nationalists, there is a sense that democracy is not the answer, but the problem. They want power at any cost, and so if you don’t have the majority; if you are not those who hold over 51% of the vote; if your opinion is increasingly in the minority; you will turn increasingly to non-democratic approaches to getting what you want.

We see this in the way that many on the American Christian Right totemize Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban. They see these men as leaders of countries who do so in God’s name - who do so without apology and in a way that honors what they take to be the nuclear family values, traditional religious ethics, and so on and so forth. In their minds, the fact that Orban and Putin are at best illiberal leaders and at worst autocrats doesn’t matter. And in fact, that’s a benefit because they don’t have to rely on Congress, the State Department the Department of Justice or anyone else to implement their vision for society. They don’t have to go through the very slow and complex churnings of a democratic republic that relies on norms and processes to make sure things are fair.

The end result is an increasing recognition that if democracy doesn’t get what you want then perhaps you should put it aside. And that’s one of the scariest aspects of this movement.

Rebuttal: Wow, where do I start? True Christians, not those that the writer of this article has classified as White Christian Nationalists if they are following the word of God and Jesus Christ, are interpreting their faith that this is what God commands, is not privileged, it is scriptural. People of all races, and colors that are true Christians only consider their faith as privileged, because it comes from Him, not secularists or their viewpoints. Here’s what the scriptures tell us about what God and Christ think about man’s teachings. Matthew 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” Matthew 15:9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Galatians 1:11-12 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. Acts 5:38 So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown. 1 Thessalonians 4:8 So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you. Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.

Speaker Johnson is on par with the scriptures many times, not just political. Nor is it White Christian Nationalists. I view it as scripturally aligned or influenced. As a Christian, I do not agree with everything the congressional representative says, regarding Christianity, as I feel that even his remarks are sometimes in conflict with scriptural teachings. What we, as Christians, do is believe, and trust in the Word of God, and Jesus Christ, not the teachings or the creeds of men. Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.

Faithful Christians do not believe that homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, etc. are second-class citizens. No, they are, as the scriptures classify them, sinners. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  

What is the “Christian ethic” that guides the likes of Mike Johnson and the other Christofascists? What of the harm they are doing and will do even more to entire groups of people here in the United States and around the world? How do they reconcile that with their “Christian faith”?

From an outside perspective, it’s often jarring to see people like Mike Johnson advocating for policies that are hurtful to other human beings and doing so in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of Christianity.  People like Mike Johnson will say that abortion should be banned in almost every case, despite the fact that it might lead to health complications for the mother, or even death. Or simply a loss of bodily autonomy and choice. 

People like Mike Johnson might argue that if you’re a gay person, you should have no right to be married. And in fact, you should be compared to someone who engages in bestiality, you should be seen as deviant from God’s plan for your life. I could go on with many examples, but these are, of course, really hurtful to those affected by these statements by these kinds of policies. However, someone like Johnson feels as if they’re doing something good for those human beings.  By trying to correct them, by trying to reshape them in the image of God, they believe they’re doing them a favor. And in doing so they believe they’re creating a better society.  

For Johnson, America suffers, America is punished, when we disobey God. By calling for the repeal of gay marriage, by trying to ban abortion, by trying to create a situation where the church has influence on the government, even if we live in a country where there are many non-believers atheists and so on, in Johnson’s mind that’s doing good for individuals and for society.

This is of course an incredibly paternalistic view. It’s a view that says, I know better for you than you know for yourself - and what’s better for you is the vision God has given me for society and for your life. To the outsider, it appears as if he’s being cruel, hurtful, lacking empathy. To the insider, it is the hard work of somebody willing to take on the difficult task of restoring America for God’s purpose.

Rebuttal: The Christian Ethic, to use the writer of this article’s term, is really, simple. It is obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ, confessing that He is the Son of God, being baptized, (through immersion,) and then being raised and walking in the newness of life as a Christian. Free from sin. After being baptized, Christ instructs a Christian to “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.” Mark 16: 15-16. The “paternalistic view,” stated by the writer of this article, can also apply to the views of a world of secularists. Is it, not their view that not being a Christian or religious person is the only way society should operate, a case in point is “wokeism?”

 In the world they are trying to create, what will happen to those of us who believe in real democracy and a pluralistic, secular, multiracial and cosmopolitan society and set of values?

I think we already have a clear picture of what will happen to those who don’t fit into the Christian nationalist vision for America and the MAGA vision for America. Donald Trump has already laid out what his second term would look like. He has signaled that Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation. Project supported by many Christian nationalist organizations like the Family Research Council and Hillsdale College, is something that he would seek to implement. Project 2025 would demand that all State Department employees and other federal employees signal their loyalty to Trump as at-will employees, otherwise they will be removed. 

This is of course an attempt to make sure that there are no roadblocks, that there is nothing standing in the way of Trump’s vision. He has also talked about camps for migrants, widespread large camps. This is a scary idea for me as a Japanese American and all the memories in our community of the camps that were set up in the wake of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He’s also talked about the Insurrection Act and the use of the military as a way to keep control of the American social order. Mike Johnson is not going to stand in the way of any of those initiatives because they serve his understanding of how things should be in America. They represent the putting into place of the American social order as it should be. 

If we put those two together, Trump, as the authoritarian leader, and Johnson as the representative of a white Christian nationalist vision for the country, we see how the two go hand in hand dating back to 2016 and now in 2023 and into 2024. 

We are at a place in our country where there are Christian fascists. There are intellectuals, there are theologians, there are historians, there are pastors who are openly calling for a post-constitutional America; people who long for a Red Caesar that will save the country from itself. These are people who are openly saying that it would be better if we had a Christian Prince or another form of an autocratic leader, because that would mean a Christian nation operating according to their Christian values. Thus, democracy would be done away with, in the name of a godly country.

Rebuttal Footnote: This article categorically states that Christians hate homosexuals, gay marriage, divorce, etc. instead of the sin, which God has condemned those that do those acts for their sins, through the scriptures. Christians who express their belief and opposition to biblical sins are now labeled as “Christian Nationalists” or “Christofascists,” a term coined by the article’s writer. Rlm.  

Ralph L Myers

I have made no grammatical changes in the article written by the Salon writer. Only those written by me in the rebuttals I have made regarding it.

The Bader-Ginsburg's death implications

 

Thoughts by Ralph L Myers

The results of the death of Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and causation have many powerful and conflicting implications. In this white paper, I want to expound on what I view as powerful and inconsistent implications.

Implication One: (Cause and Effect) The political maelstrom: In a deeply divided America, 2020, anything that happens, especially if it has a political cause and resultant effect, seems only to act as something that further divides us. The death of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one such particularly significant event.

The correct action to take: Nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsberg.

Implication Two: (The US Constitution Applies, not political partisanship)

Since the death of Justice Ginsberg, several articles and the talking heads' waterfalls of opinions have flooded the media and internet.

On September 20, 2020, an article was written by Charles Creitz of Fox News appeared on its Web Site. Mr. Creitz, in his article, elaborated on the political free-for-all. America was confronted by this very same situation in 20016, that outgoing President Obama should replace Justice Scalia. Following his presidential right and prerogative, he nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia. However, the nomination went no further as the Senate (Republican Controlled) would not bring it to the floor for a vote of confirmation. At that time, Vice President Biden urged the Senate to move forward with the nomination by providing that House to defer to the President's constitutional duty and provide "advice and consent." Mr. Biden considered it an unprecedented act of obstruction that the Republican majority would not let it go any further than a nomination. Fast forward to 2020, Presidential Candidate Biden has made a 180-degree turn with the death of Justice Ginsberg, according to an article written by Joseph Curl of Daily Wire.com. Candidate Biden is quoted in his Twitter on Friday, September 18, 2020: "Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President and that President should elect a successor to Justice Ginsberg. Other than for strictly political partisanship, this demand is redundant. The voters have already selected a President, and he is Donald Trump. He has the right to act within the constitutional authority already granted him. He also has the power to nominate a new justice and does not or should not wait for the next President to select Justice Ginsburg's replacement. He would be neglecting his constitutional obligation. Finally, he is rightfully taking advantage of using the Senate Republican-controlled party to ratify his candidate to replace Justice Ginsberg.

The correct action to take: Nominate a candidate. Have that candidate approved by the Senate by vote and confirm that person to become the newest SCOTUS member.

Implication Three: Political expediency, today I believe this, but now I think that.

In 2016, a presidential election year before Obama's term of office expired, the Democrats believed and pushed for him to replace Justice Scalia.

Today, I believe this premise is correct. In February 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland a few weeks later to replace Justice Scalia. He is quoted in an article appearing in "Daily Torch," saying, "I have fulfilled my constitutional duty. Now it is time for the Senate to do theirs." At that time, Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning was quoted in the same article noted. "Just as it was Obama's constitutional role to nominate for Scalia. Similarly, the Senate should exercise its part as well by waiting until after the election, stating, President Obama has exercised his constitutional prerogative to nominate someone to the late Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court." Political partisanship, rather than the constitutional rule of law, is back in play due to the passing of Justice Ginsburg, as is the hypocrisy of the political players.

In a speech given in 2016 after the passing of Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, when asked by an attendee if the Constitution prevented the President from filling the seat? Justice Ginsburg's response was: "As you know, the President has the authority to name appointees to the Supreme Court, but he has to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President is elected for four years, not three years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four, and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be." The fact that she reportedly told her granddaughter Clara Spera, "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed."

Justice Ginsburg, an overseer of the US Constitution, knew the correct constitutional process in replacing the Supreme Court's Justice. Sadly, near her time of death now wished the Constitution could be changed to allow a delay in replacing her seat on the court. Even if Justice Ginsburg had a codicil in her will stating her wish that her seat is not filled until a new President is installed, it is just that, a wish that has no legal standing in the US Constitution.

Now, let us look at current Presidential Candidate Joe Biden's thoughts in 2016 and now 2020, hypocrisy and political expediency epitomized. In a New York Times op-ed mentioned in the article written by Daily Wire correspondent Joseph Curl cites Mr. Biden’s argument against Senate Majority Leader McConnel that a replacement for Justice Scalia's should not be seated until after the presidential election. At the time, a Democrat was occupying the Whitehouse. President (Obama) declared that the President had a "constitutional duty to seat a justice on the high court when a vacancy arises. "The President has the Constitutional responsibility to nominate; the Senate has the Constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent.

At a speech given by Mr. Biden at Georgetown University, he said, "I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires. Now that Joe Biden is the Democratic Candidate for President, he no longer feels the way he did in 2016. In fact, he has made a 180-degree turn with the death of Justice Ginsburg, writing on Twitter recently: "Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg." The Constitution no longer fits his need. It hampers them.

The correct action to take: Follow the Constitution, nominate and confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement.

Implication Four: Threats of violence from the politically extreme left.

I think a vast majority of Americans, regardless of their political party leanings, are alarmed, angered, confused at the inaction their elected officials have taken, and tired of the tirades from extreme leftist activists. President Trump has been confronted with their outbursts even before he was elected in 2016. It would be redundant to list all the false accusations that were concocted, unproven, and finally leading to a failed impeachment. Of course, President Trump was impeached in the House of Representatives, strictly upon a party-line vote. However, he was acquitted in the Senate trial, and again the vote to impeach was nearly along party lines.

Let us examine calls for violence as being acceptable in combatting President Trump and his followers. In an article published on Blabber Buzz, here is are some notable quotes. Twitter users threatened arson and apparent violence to Republicans if Justice Ginsberg is replaced before the elections. "If they even try to replace RBG, we burn the entire f*****g thing down," author Reza Aslan, a far-left activist tweeted. Azlan later responded to Senator Mitch McConnell's vow to hold a vote on President Trump's nominee, "Over our dead bodies, literally," he threatened.

The darling of the leftist Democrats, Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, said RBG's death should inspire the left to radicalize.

A Canadian political science professor called for arson, prompting accusations he made a terroristic threat. "Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS, " Waterloo professor Emmett MacFarlane wrote on Twitter.

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld responded to the controversy by criticizing anyone who might make fun of people for worrying about political terrorism. Mr. Gutfeld said, "Leftists promise violence and "burn it all down" if they don't get what they want. Then their enablers in the media mock you worrying that there might be violence and "burning it all down" when the leftists don't get what they want."

I think Gutfeld's statement is sadly true when one looks back on what has been transpiring since June 2020. Enough is enough; dedicated Americans who value their freedom and liberty will not be intimidated and will fight back at the ballot box and in the streets if necessary.

The correct action: Follow the Constitution and replace Justice Ginsburg now.

Implication Five: The threat of Impeachment, 2.0

Speaker of the House, Pelosi has once again threatened President Trump's Impeachment if he does his constitutional duty of appointing a replacement for deceased Justice Ginsburg. While President Trump was impeached in January of 2020 by the House of Representatives. That Impeachment was based upon concocted and fraudulent charges that were strictly predicated upon the Democratic House leadership and were proven to be without merit. What confronts us now is that Impeach the President is a new attempt is nothing more than political gamesmanship and again decidedly without merit.

In an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner on September 19, 2020, Justice Department Reporter Jerry Dunleavy cited a recent poll. The poll was conducted by Marquette University that showed 67% of all adults believed the Senate should hold a hearing if a vacancy occurred during the current Presidential election, with only 32% in opposition. Similar substantial numbers across Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, who supported holding confirmation hearings was included in this poll. Those numbers were 68-31%, 63-37%, and 71-28% respectively. The Marquette University Poll was taken three days before Justice Ginsburg's death.

President Trump is not violating his oath of office by exercising his power to appoint a replacement for the seat made vacant by the death of Justice Ginsburg. Countless implications can, more than likely, be discussed and argued over the next few days. But to borrow a quote from former President Obama, "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day I won."

How true, Mr. Obama, and that is the case for President Trump now, the 2016 election indeed did have consequences, and he is within his constitutional right to exercise them.

This ladies and gentlemen are both implication and consequence!

The correct action: Nominate and confirm a replacement for Justice Ginsberg.

Governor Inslee's Death Penalty Moratorium

 Since 1993, when my son Tom was murdered, I have been a staunch advocate for Crime Victim's Rights. I have prepared this video to (hopefully) help those that thankfully have never lost a child or other loved one to murder, understand the grief, pain and trauma one experiences when they are notified that their son, daughter or loved one has been murdered.

Additionally, this article is directed to Washington State Governor Jay Inslee in opposition to his declaring or placing a moratorium on the implementation  of the death penalty. Governor Inslee has done this on the pretext (whether real or political expediency) that the only way Washington State could assure that an innocent person was not erroneously executed.

While that may be a possibility, the chances of this happening are very rare. And while I or any reasonable person would want someone to be wrongly executed, as a survivor of a murdered son and crime victim, when researching this, I feel that Governor Inslee has put his personal beliefs and convictions above all the courts and jurors, thereby nullifying their decisions that a particular criminal whom they have convicted and sentenced beyond a reasonable should receive the ultimate penalty- - death.    

I have not published any articles in this blog since 2016. However, I intend to start publishing articles again, or write my thoughts and opinions down. Hence the name of this blog, "Write Thoughts."

Tom's Dad- - Ralph

As you requested--areply to an Article on Trace.org

While on line today I came across an article posted by Business Insider about the NRA members and wanted to respond. First, I feel I am responding to an organization that is anti-gun and gun ownership. Much of the article places a stigma on those that believe in and are dedicated to what the NRA does, not only for its membership, but also for all gun owners in America, This being said, I doubt if my reply will ever be read and a reply sent. Why do I think this? Well just look at some of the other articles they published;

More from The Trace:

• A Missouri Student Imagines Life on an Armed Campus
• We’re Just Starting to Comprehend How Social Media Breeds Shootings
• I’m a Police Chaplain Who Had to Tell Virginia Tech Families Their Children Were Dead
• My Son Was Murdered in the Line of Duty by Right-Wing Extremists. Trump Should Focus on the Threat Posed by ‘Sovereign Citizens.’
• The False Promise That ‘Armed Citizenship’ Will Keep Women Safe
• Their minds have been made up, guns are bad, people that own them are nut-cases for wanting to be able to defend themselves in their homes or on their persons. Or they pose an intrinsic danger and threat to society. In the July 31, 2017 edition "The Trace" featured an article entitled "the NRA Annoyed Me into Quitting-But I Get Why Some Gun owners see It As a "Necessary Evil." The article was by Anshel Sag, as told to Kerry Shaw. The article was written July 21, 2017, and asked a rhetorical question, "One of the Most Consequential Questions in the Gun Debate boils down to this: do the policies promoted by the National Rifle Association-and the groups heated, divisive rhetoric-represent the real beliefs of its members?" Like any article, it cited a survey, or surveys, to support its opinion.I have been a member of the National Rifle Association 24 years, joining in 1993, shortly after the murder of my son by a violent felon who obtained his hand gun illegally. I want to respond to Mr.Sag's opinion piece, expressing my thoughts and experiences, based upon facts, not statistical anomalies used which are common-place in most surveys. Anyone can find a survey that will seemingly support their viewpoint or opinion they want to express.
  
  Mr. Sag has cited, ("a recent Pew Survey, and other sources,") but has not identified the particular survey, or other sources and/or polls he has relied upon to reinforce his opinions, and as I have already mentioned, I or anyone can find a poll, study or statistics that will support a particular argument they are trying to advance.
  In response to Mr. Sag, as an NRA member, I can Say unequivocally that their policies they promote, and what you have described as heated, divisive rhetoric, do in fact represent the belief of this member. Further, I find the NRA's, so-called divisive rhetoric not nearly as caustic as the opinions expressed by their antagonists. Just like having a Second Amendment Right to keep and  own a firearm for the purpose of self-defense, by many is considered dangerous and divisive, it is absolutely necessary and correct to take this perceived aggressive stance to protect those rights.
  
  
  This past April, I had the privilege and honor to be able to attend the NRA's Annual Meeting held in Atlanta, Georgia. More than 80,000 people, (NRA Members) were also in attendance, most if not all were gun owners and perhaps as Mr. Sag's Pew Research statistics, that he has relied upon, that shows support among gun owners (including Republicans) for universal background checks. For the four days I was in attendance at this annual meeting I neither found, or did not hear of any comments or support of or for what the Pew Research survey indicated. Quite the contrary, I heard and experienced the exact opposite, and just like the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump proved, the Pew Research, and most if not all other polls were wrong as well.
  Now, I want to express my thoughts as to why I disagree, and what this article has called the NRA's heated, divisive rhetoric (their belief or perception) which is in fact representative of my beliefs and the realities of life if anti-gun ownership, anti-Second Amendment Rights opponents prevail.
  As I mentioned earlier, my son was a victim of gun violence perpetrated on him by a criminal that did not care about or adhere to any gun control laws or restrictions on ownership of a firearm. In fact, this murder took place in California, a state that had, even in 1993, some of the most restrictive and severe gun-control laws already in place. While my son was not a member of any gang, he was, however, shot and killed by a gang member while attending a private party near our home. The person who shot him, and his gang banging buddies by chance found the party and crashed it.
  There were two handguns present and used, both obtained illegally, irrespective of the gun laws already on the books, when my son was killed.
  
  Some of those who were in attendance at the party and also friends of my son would later be called as witnesses in the trial of his murderer. Attempts at intimidating potential witnesses were conducted by gang member friends before the murder trial, as they followed them, and in some cases shot at them.
  
  
  
  Up until that time, my wife and I made the choice of not having firearms in our home when our kids were growing up. That was our choice, not one that was mandated by anti-gun advocates. Naturally, my wife and I became fearful that the gang members might try to intimidate us as well. We were advised by the rank-and-file members of the Los Angeles police department that they would be unable to give us round-the-clock protection, and suggested to us that our best means of self-defense would be to arm ourselves in our home.
  
  Following their advice, I purchased a handgun, (following all the then existing handgun laws, e.g. , waiting the required 15-day waiting period) before taking possession of it.) Also, I applied for a concealed carry permit through the necessary channels, giving as a reason for being allowed to legally carry a firearm my fear for the safety of my wife and I, based upon the advice given to us by members of the LAPD. My request for a concealed carry permit was denied, and the reason (s) given were very vague and strictly bureaucratic boilerplate gobbledygook.
  
  
  Being a U.S. Army veteran, and trained on the safe, and proper use of a firearm, I trained my wife and daughter how to properly and safely use the handgun we now owned.
  It is for these reasons, and many more experiences we had over the next few years in the criminal justice system of the United States who sole intent and purpose is to protect the rights of the criminal rather than their victims that I joined and have become a vocal advocate of the NRA, and it's legislative arm the NRA-ILA. I support 100% its effort to represent all gun owners, not just NRA members, aggressively the rights given us by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And as Mr. Sag's article describes "the heated, and perceived divisive rhetoric of the NRA, is just that, a perception, rather than a fact or acknowledgment that the organization is rightfully correct that we must use the "clenched fist of truth," method or approach in defending and preserving our right to bear arms.
  
  
  As the father of a murdered son, a veteran and a strong advocate of the Second Amendment. I will never voluntarily give up my rights to own and bear arms, and at age 75. I am ready to die, protecting those rights.
  
  
  There you have it Trace.org, the view of one loyal, dedicated and adamant member and supporter of the NRA.
  
  
  
  Ralph L Myers, Proud member of the National Rifle Association