Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Archive Index


Moore leads Jones by 10 points

Moores's lead in Alabama has narrowed to 10 points compared to 22 points before the WaPo smear.[1] There is no way the liberal media would report these kind of allegations if the accused was a Democrat. Ted Kennedy was as big a pig as Weinstein, but he's still a liberal hero. Newsweek and the rest of the liberal media refused publish the allegations against Bill Clinton. We know about them only because of Drudge. When Trump brought them up in one of the debates, there were dozens of trending articles along the lines of, "What's he talking about? Has Trump gone mad?" And then there is Weinstein. His claim to fame is just that he's a Clinton donor. But NBC wouldn't publish and Farrow had to look elsewhere. PeterKa (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2017 (EST)

The race has tightened according to a Sunday poll and the Democrat is now favored by 4 percentage points, but that is within the margin of error.[2]
"Forty-six percent of likely voters polled said they would vote for Jones, while 42 percent said they would vote for Moore, according to the Louisiana-based JMC Analytics and Polling."
The poll of course could be wrong and be underestimating the people who will vote for Moore despite the accusations. The pollsters were wrong when it came to Trump vs. Hillary.Wikignome72 (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2017 (EST)
One or more of Roy Moore's accusers might be telling the truth, but perhaps it is a conspiracy and they are all lying. But Moore might be elected anyways due to: Right-wing media and other media bashing down the credibility of the 4 women [there are only two accusers (VM)] (his main accuser having 3 divorces, etc. etc) and/or confirmation bias/"tribalism"/political polarization.
I wouldn't trust the polls. Many people did not want to admit to pollsters they were going to vote for Trump due to press demonization of Trump, yet they did vote for Trump. The same thing could be happening with Roy Moore.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2017 (EST)
WaPo spent weeks coaching the main accuser and persuading her to go public. This is the media creating the news instead of reporting it. If you think about the allegations against Kennedy, Clinton, etc. the smear against Moore is pretty small beer. There is no law against dating underage girls, especially not with their mothers' permission. National Review and the Never Trumpers seem to be focused on what good people they themselves are. You don't see Democrats sacrificing winnable elections. The left dinged Hillary for not being left wing enough, but they were fine with her criminality and corruption. Back in the 1960s, the FBI peddled stories of Martin Luther King's sexual crudeness and misbehavior to reporters. No one was interested. Thank God for Drudge and the new media. PeterKa (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2017 (EST)
Here's an even better example: U.S. Senator Robert Menendez is currently on trial for financial corruption. The prosecutors also think he had sex with underage hookers in the Dominican Republic. What media coverage there has been has focused on whether or not he will lose his senate seat, and what effect that might have on the partisan balance in congress. No one is disappointed in him or expects anything but more sleaze from a New Jersey Democrat.[3] PeterKa (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2017 (EST)

The Drudge Report is heavily promoting stories relating to Roy Moor being a sexual predator of teen girls and the stories contain new information. See: Drudge Report.

At this point, Moore is unlikely to win.Wikignome72 (talk)

Gadsden locals say Moore's predatory behavior at mall, restaurants not a secret
Judge Jeanine is indicating that the women are telling the truth and Roy Moore is guilty (the fifth woman [there are only two accusers (VM)]'s testimony [not testimony in a court, nor certain whether sworn, nor in the course of any kind of trial (VM)] and Moore's alleged signature in her high school yearbook was the tipping point).[4]
Roy Moore is not going to back down until he absolutely has to.
The alt-right figure Vox Day and Steve Bannon/Breitbart are still sticking with their man Roy Moore.[5][6]
At some point in a battle, you have to recognize a defeat and cut your losses.
Liberals nearly always double down. Post 2011, many atheists have been living in denial that the atheist movement was imploding and was effectively dead.
Right-wingers and conservatives have had a string of successes in the USA/world, but you can't win all the battles.Wikignome72 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2017 (EST)
It's Roy Moore versus the Left/MSM/GOP establishment (everybody who's not a conservative). If he drops out, conservatives would lose and the GOP will nominate another establishment do-nothing to the position. If Roy Moore loses to the Democrat, the GOP establishment also wins. The only good option is to stay in the race and stay strong. Moore needs to be able to change the narrative, like how he successfully did yesterday when he called on McConnell to resign after vice-versa happened. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2017 (EST)
I may have been premature in my judgment about the matter. See comments below.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Thomas Wictor

...Or maybe there's hope for him yet. This is a message for User:1990'sguy, who has written material for the Roy Moore article, and others seeking more background, or primary, material on Roy Moore. Thomas Wictor is a libertarian? who put us conservatives to shame last night by investigating the latest string of demeritorious accusations against Roy Moore and carefully presenting the results way past his bedtime.

He reports Moore's activity since his service in Vietnam of fighting corruption, a record whose desert of praise—and not the least of which—is due to his care in choosing and courage in pursuing appropriate channels through which to take the reforms he felt called to carry out, and presents disputations of his accusers' evidence.

Here is one of his summaries, though his whole feed right now while he is asleep has attracted intelligent commentary and is pretty devastating for those portions of Moore's opposition to which it pertains. Part of his arguments were picked up by the Gateway Pundit. But regarding the summary and its comments: if you choose to quote it, bear in mind that the implied "forger" in that part of the story (about the yearbook), possibly, could have been the teenage girl featured there herself.

These are reformatted additional narratives by Wictor found under Wictor's name on a website originated for the purpose of presenting serial Twitter narratives. VargasMilan (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up! This is great analysis. I will post this in the article and alert others to it. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2017 (EST)
—[expecting a reply tomorrow morning] It's about time. I can't wait all day.
Really though, thanks for replying, but be careful what you promise to; there's a boatload of material that mushroomed there. VargasMilan (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (EST)
Some good points were made.
And it was odd that the 5th accuser (Beverly Young Nelson) [there were only two accusers (VM)] had that ultra-liberal attorney (Gloria Allred) by her side.[7] Nelson claimed she voted for Trump.[8]
But this matter has still not been resolved:Gadsden locals say Moore's predatory behavior at mall, restaurants not a secret.
There is no need to rush to judgment.
There was a time when the press was more competent and more trustworthy. But those days are gone.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2017 (EST)

If this story "Gadsden locals say Moore's predatory behavior at mall, restaurants not a secret" originates from the material obtained from the Washington Post, then it is really the credibility of the Washington Post that is the issue. And lately, the credibility of the Washington Post has taken some serious hits. Post 2016 presidential election and onwards, the mainstream press has a serious credibility issue.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Sean Hannity interview

Moore's detractors do make good points when it comes to Moore's Sean Hannity interview.[9]

Moore had some odd responses to Hannity's questions if he hadn't dated one or more teenagers when he was much older. Wikignome72 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2017 (EST)

That's not even a misdemeanor. People who disagree with that should try to change the law, rather than ambush someone who obeyed it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2017 (EST)
Bill Mitchell has made some more solid hits than the media:
—According to the Media, Moore’s preference for teenage girls was “common knowledge, and yet for 40 years and 5 heated elections, NOT ONE PERSON EVER MENTIONED IT?
—Amazing. The Establishment dropped $30 million trying to beat Moore and not one allegation of impropriety? I mean, their oppo people must have been crawling all over AL.
Huh.
—Think about this. If this accuser’s story is true, as [Moore being] the [asst.] DA, Moore attempted to rape her AFTER signing her yearbook, basically implicating himself at the scene of the crime? Just wow.
—Jerry Seinfeld openly dating a 17 year old when he was 39. Don’t you remember the condemnations from the Left? Neither do I. He was 7 years older than Moore who is being called a “predator” for the same thing.
—Media Lies: They claim that this “Allred Victim” is the 5th woman to accuse Judge Moore of sexual misconduct. Actual, 3 of the “accusers” did no such thing. LIES.
Bill Mitchell Nov. 13-14, 2017
Wikignome, are you refuting Bill Mitchell and his 1.2K retweeted tweet (the fifth one)? If not, you probably ought to acknowledge that it’s not generally accepted yet as a description of the evidence presented in these dubious trials-in-the-media. VargasMilan (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2017 (EST)
Roy Moore has one big thing in his favor as far as these media reports. We live in post 2016 presidential election world where Trump has helped bash down the credibility of the mainstream news.
Just 3 hours ago, the BBC reluctantly admitted that Moore will probably win by merely saying this is all "fake news".
Dan Rather and Brian Williams were fired for misconduct. The mainstream media totally botched their coverage of the 2016 presidential election. Trump has a knack for destroying his opponents with labels like "Lying Ted", "Little Marco" and "fake news". Megyn Kelly is a shadow of what she was before. Trump's put downs of Wolf Blitzer, George Stephanopoulos and CNN are classic.
If Roy Moore wins, it will be because Trump significantly diminished the stature of the mainstream media.Wikignome72 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2017 (EST)
Imagine if Moore was held to Hollywood standards. Yes, I know that sounds bizarre. But many liberal commentators have been holding up Hollywood as a model of virtue lately. Seinfeld once had 17 year old girlfriend. He was 39 at the time. Nobody gave him grief about it: "Shoshanna Lonstein was a senior at the prestigious Nightingale-Bamford School on the Upper West Side when, on a spring afternoon, she was approached by one of the most well-known comedians in the country." That was their meet-cute.[10]
Moore should use this line: She "is a person, not an age....We just get along. You can hear the click.” PeterKa (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Alabama: Sodom and Gomorrah party vs. corrupt GOP

Roy Moore is still the favored candidate.

A lot of Alabama voters are poor, religious people who are not politically engaged. They are complacent and don't care too much about politics. Studies show that most Protestant cultures have low levels of political corruption. Alabama is one of the exceptions. New York, Louisiana, Illinois and Alabama are among the most politically corrupt states in the nation. Sad to say, Alabama is red state that is unfortunately politically corrupt.

As long as Roy Moore checks off certain conservative positions and runs on family values, he will probably be elected. The alternative is electing a member of the Sodom and Gomorrah/baby killing/gun grabbing/Democrat Party. That probably will not happen in Alabama. I would not underestimate the power of political party loyalty in Alabama.

The press has stained its reputation in recent years and probably will not tip the election in the Democratic candidates favor. Wikignome72 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2017 (EST)

Cease and desist order

(Exclusive outside of Facebook) Roy Moore's lawyer, Trent Garmon, officially responded recently to one of the evidentiary roots concurrently up to that point securing the inaccuracy in the Chief Justice's portrayals, an article at AL.com:

Dear Mr. Thompson,

Please allow this to serve as notice that our firm has been retained to represent The Foundation for Moral Law, it's President Kayla Moore and Chief Justice Roy Moore. We also represent Roy S. Moore and Kayla Moore individually. We do, therefore, alert you to the duties and notices provided herein for your client the Alabama Media Group operating as al.com. This letter is provided in anticipating of our firm preparing and filing a lawsuit against your client and its agents.

Your client has engaged in making false reports and/or careless reporting that has adversely affected my clients, to include but not limited to reporting that a "fifth woman" has accused Roy Moore of sexual misconduct or assault which is untrue. Inaccurately reporting the income paid by The Foundation. Inaccurately reporting the travel expenses and accommodations of my clients, to include alleging that a private jet was used which is untrue.

Your client as an outlet is carelessly and perhaps maliciously reporting that my client, Judge Roy S. Moore, noted and signed a Yearbook of an accusers as "DA" and in a manner which experts, to include our own, have confirmed is not consistent with his handwriting (To wit: structure, strokes, slant, base alignment, etc.) and does not comport to his typical vernacular.

Your client as an entity has also carelessly and perhaps allowed general slander and libel to the reputation of my clients by seeking out, and/or reporting from those who did, individuals who falsely portray the reputation of Roy S. Moore in northeast Alabama, to include Etowah County. This careless and/or malicious reporting includes reports that Judge Moore was "banned" from the Gadsden Mall, was on a watch list for the Gadsden Mall, had a general reputation of "predatory behavior", that he badgered teens and had a general bad reputation. Such is untrue and is due to be recanted.

PRESERVATION and SPOLIATION

Note that your client, to include its agents, have a duty to preserve and maintain evidence. We do, thus, demand that you preserve and protect any potential evidence. Refusal or failure to do so could result in a legal presumption that the spoliated evidence was adverse to you, your company and it's [sic] interests.

Please also note that per Alabama law there is a Third Party Tort for Spoliation. Thus, even if your client is not a [sic] held to have defamed or otherwise worked civil damages upon our clients, your client may remain responsible in a Court of law for damages caused by the failure to preserve evidence. This is often times [sic] referred to as "Adverse Interference".

Note, our request includes all tangible and digital evidence such as, yet not limited to, handwritten notes, yearbook(s), journalist pads, spiral reporter pocket pads, text messages, sms messages, instant messages and any other tangible or digital evidence.

RETRACTION and/or RECANTING

Also be aware that we believe the publication(s) and report(s) made by your client's organization were made with knowledge that the matter published are false, or they were published with a reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. We are providing five [5] days for a full and fair public retraction in as prominent and public a place or manner as the matter published.

DEFAMATION, LIBEL & SLANDER, FRAUD, MALICE, SUPPRESSION, WANTONNESS, CONSPIRACY and NEGLIGENCE

As you may know "Defamation" is, among other things, an injury to reputation. In Alabama, defamation is considered to be a false statement of fact, published or spoken with some degree of fault, that tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him, her, or, for an entity, "it" in the estimation of the community. This includes damages to the reputation of them individually, as an entity, to their marriage and to a person's overall standing. These statements can include "Libel" (written) and/or "Slander" (spoken), which are both types of defamatory statements.

Your client's organization has made and/or supported defaming statements. This is due to the careless and/or intentionally refused to advance the truth regarding our clients. We also believe that your client, by and through its agents, have damaged our clients by being careless in how they handle headlines and report the contextual of the allegations.

Meaning your client has used terms in reports maliciously or carelessly which has falsely portraying [sic] our clients [Richard Jewell v. New York Post]. Specifically your client's reports have indicated there are five [5] women accusing Chief Justice Roy Moore of sexual misconduct when in fact only two [2] women have made accusations of sexual misconduct. And both of those women have made false statements which your client has yet to publish. The other ladies which were rounded up in the witch hunt merely allege they perceived him to have made advances, but do not accuse him of any sexual misconduct.

Thus, do note this clearly [sic], yet significant difference which your client's publication(s) have failed to distinguish. And the legal requirement that your client retract the stories, to include the details which clearly are false. It is also clear that your client's organization is attempting pre-election to conspire and orchestrate a "trial by media" and is playing to a "mob mentality". We demand this circus cease and desist immediately.

We believe it is clear and convincing your client consciously and deliberately engaged in oppression, fraud, wantonness, and/or malice and again as stated above we do requested [sic] a retraction. With regards to Judge Moore it is clear that your client's reports were done with malice and with regards to the Foundation for Moral Law and Kayla Moore your client failed to exercise reasonable care.

GENRE NOTICE

Please also note that we are presuming the proper genre and/or legal categorization of all your reports and/or articles is that of "news" and not satire. If we are incorrect, please note that you have five [5] days to specify otherwise.

If you or someone with your office have any questions, please feel welcome to contact us.

Respectfully,

Trenton R. Garmon, JD MA

Garmon reports he has sent a similar letter to the Washington Post.

While Chief Justice Moore may look more forgivingly towards friendly websites, that may oblige us all the more not to print things adverse to his reputation. Therefore I am going to mark out as incorrect Wikignome's accusatory over-weighting in three places— whether he is ready to or no—and light as the accusatory weight still is—against Chief Justice Moore. VargasMilan (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2017 (EST)

FWIW

Personally, I think people are putting too much into this special election for the remainder of the term. The primary for a full six-year term is July 17, 2018.

It's pretty obvious what's going on here. McConnell is getting Democrats & Moore critics to do his dirty work. Meanwhile, Trump & McConnell are on the same page to drain the swamp, using the Clinton's own tactics. It was obvious when Trump appeared at the debate with six Clinton accusers that he was willing to spend his own money to give the legal defense and personal protection needed to speak up.

The GOP has already drained 16 of its own House members and 2 Senators. The hit list of sex allegations started at the top with Democrat Hollywood mega-donor Weinstein, on down (Ben Afflek has since taken over management of the donor list to coordinated which candidates and organizations Hollywood celebrities give money to). Roger Stone gave advance notice on Franken. Axios claims many more to follow. Moore is a rogue element, that with the Allred claims against Trump giving a partisan nature to the purging.

The Moore allegations, like FusionGPS, the birther movement, or Willie Horton ad, began with opposition research within a candidates own party that was picked up and used by the opposition in a general election. McConnell, Sessions, and Strange do not want Moore on the July primary ballot, which Trump has already ascented to. Even if a Dem wins the special election, he'd have to coddle McConnell and distance himself from Schumer for any hope to survive. Meantime, the GOP candidate on the July ballot will be either Sessions or Strange.

Charlie Rose today was the next to go down, and the list is quite extensive. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:46, 21 November 2017 (EST)

"Ginned up": What Obama would say

Let's say it together: The allegations against Roy Moore are "ginned up." That's the way the Dems talk about their own candidates when they are accused of improprieties. Check it out: "President Obama Calls Hillary Clinton’s Email Controversy ‘Ginned Up’ (Video)."
After the congressional baseball massacre, the Vegas country music concert massacre, and Texas church massacre, it's clear that today's left is out to kill us. It turns out that Obama actually wanted our criminals armed and dangerous: "EXCLUSIVE: Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally." As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
What kind of conduct is becoming for a Democratic senator? Al Franken wrote about how proud he was when his son watched bestiality videos and shared them with his classmates. To Franken, it was another great example of the magic of technology applied to porn: “The next millennium will be such an exciting time for pornographers and for us, the consumers of pornography,” he concludes. This is from an article he wrote for Playboy in 2000. See The American Spectator. In other words, Minnesota Democrats knew Franken was a pervert when he was first elected, and they were all in. PeterKa (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2017 (EST)

All this, along with what's happened in the months since Donald Trump's election, has me thinking that serious thought should be given to outlawing and disbanding the Democrat Party. If the Nazis could be outlawed in post-WWII Germany and the CPSU outlawed following the breakup of the USSR, why not do the same against the Democrats here? Northwest (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2017 (EST)
I'm not so sure I'd go that far. But I do want to see the boom come down on Hillary, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Al Sharpeton, the hockey stick climate fraudsters, etc, etc. PeterKa (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2017 (EST)

Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and centralization

The USA government was founded by men heavily influenced by Protestantism. Protestantism is more decentralized and less authoritarian than Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox branches of Christianity. The USA government's founders believed in checks and balances (decentralized government) and limited government.
The U.S. Constitution, given its Protestant influence, is not set up to ban political parties. Your idea of banning political parties is not practical at this point.
The USA has experienced a lot of non-Protestant immigration and it is becoming more authoritarian. That is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court's and Obama's lawlessness in relation to doing unconstitutional actions have been tolerated.
This is not to say that all Catholics are authoritarian and against big government. The are exceptions. For example, Justice Scalia and Phyllis Schlafly were defenders of the U.S. Constitution.Wikignome72 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2017 (EST)
Technically, there is an argument to be made about the US Constitution arguably being even MORE authoritarian than Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, being based on Locke and Hobbes' philosophy (and it also makes the case that Locke himself actually argued for authoritarianism just as much as Hobbes, just under a different manner). You can read all about it here: [11] [12] (I'd also suggest reading the book itself. It does raise some pretty valid points) Certainly, it does come across as odd that the US Constitution makes no direct reference/credit to God at all. The Declaration of Independence does, yes, but the US Constitution itself does not. And bear in mind, the NRA group (not related to the National Rifle Association or even the National Recovery Act) that tried to advocate getting the nation back to Christian roots isn't even Catholic, it's Protestant, meaning even Protestants were seeing that there was an inherent problem in not having any direct acknowledgement of Christianity. And personally, I get irritated when people advocate for "Decentralization," even ignoring my Catholicism (and for the record, God in his various actions and to some extent words in the Old and even New Testament showed himself to be VERY authoritarian and certainly undemocratic/an advocate for decentralization). Decentralization, to me, is the French Revolution where people killed other people left and right, even their own allies, for sheer fun, or the Days of Rage in Chicago. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Pokeria, please examine these 3 links:

1. http://elaine.ie/2009/03/31/will-10-more-protestants-lead-to-less-corruption/

2. http://www.ebenezeroldhill.org.uk/articles/Christianity%20and%20Democracy.pdf

3. Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

Thanks. Wikignome72 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2017 (EST)

First of all, considering that Protestantism right now (or at least various sects of Protestantism if not the whole thing itself) IS promoting stuff that Jesus made clear should never be embraced such as divorce and remarrying, even abortion, I'm pretty sure that 10 more protestants won't make much of a difference towards ending corruption.
Second of all, I really wouldn't suggest you tell me to compare Christianity and Democracy to each other, or say they're comparable, considering that it was democracy under France that led to many of us Christians being slaughtered simply because of our even believing in a God, and bear in mind, Timothy Dwight, the one who shone a light at the Christian persecution in France as well as French Enlightenment philosophy playing a key role in that persecution, is himself a protestant. In fact, what I think of in regards to democracy is a mob of malcontents beating up people and slaughtering even their own friends, let alone their enemies, simply for fun, just like the French Revolution and every other leftist revolution.
And third of all, Catholics, and I presume Eastern Orthodoxy, had the whole Protestant Ethic, and by extension Capitalism, down before Protestantism itself existed. [13] [14] Pokeria1 (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2017 (EST)
Protestants (those who believe the Bible, like Luther, Calvin, Know, etc.) oppose divorce and abortion. I think you're confusing conservative evangelical Protestants with the theological liberals that sprang up relatively recently that most theological conservatives don't even believe to be Christians.
More importantly, about with the French Revolution, the French government actually centralized because of the French Revolution. The revolution was a major step toward centralization. Before the revolution, France had many independent enclaves, and the country was divided up in the way it had been since the middle ages. While the government was more centralized than it had been in the 1500s, it was still very decentralized and the government structure of the feudal Middle Ages remained. During the French Revolution, mainly in the early 1790s, all the enclaves were annexed into France, and in 1790, the new system of departments (equally-sized administrative units with much less freedom than U.S. states) was established. France centralized, not decentralized, during the French Revolution.
Also in Ancient Israel: Israel was very decentralized during the period of Joshua and the Judges (I also don't think they had to pay any taxes), and God wanted it to remain that way. However, the Israelites, in their rebellion against God, demanded a king and (essentially) a centralized state in order to be like the other nations. If you read the Bible's account of Solomon in 1 Kings, it's clear that the Israelites now faced ridiculously high taxes and other regulations.
I think that just as long as whatever government we have is one that submits to God, it doesn't really matter what form we choose. However, since we live in a sinful world, I think a mixed government (one with checks and balances and which equally/fairly represents different major social groups), like what we have and the founding fathers promoted, is the best type of government to guard against man's sinful tendencies and the destruction and tyranny that results from it. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2017 (EST)
The Catholic Church and most Catholic countries have very major problems with corruption. Latin and South America are extremely corrupt. The Philippines has a recent history of very extensive political corruption.
George Pell is the 3rd ranking official in the Catholic Church and faces multiple counts of very credible charges of child molestation (And the Catholic Church has had big issues with child molestation).
Right now, due to the length of Christianity in their country, probably the least corrupt Catholic countries are Ireland/Poland. Unfortunately, Poland faces a fertility rate of 1.32 births per woman (far below replacement level of 2.1 births per women) in 2015 which is nearly impossible to reverse for the very foreseeable future. So their culture might be effectively dead. Poland will be economically severely crippled for about 80-100 years and relatively few young people will face a huge burden of supporting many older people (who largely may have to work until they are no longer able to). Perhaps, the Poles have never fully recovered being ruled by the godless Soviets. Things have gotten so desperate that the Polish government is encouraging people to "breed like rabbits".[15][16]
It is very hard to turn around cultural decline relative to not being pro-natal (and feminism is growing in Poland which does not bode well to them turning around their fertility rate crisis). The Poles best option would be to open the floodgates of immigration to Filipinos. At least the Filipinos are pro-family and have a fertility rate of 2.94 births per woman. The Poles are clearly against Muslim immigration.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2017 (EST)
Right now, the Catholic country with the brightest future is the one in which evangelical Christianity is growing fast - namely Brazil. In 2012, Forbes ranked Brazil as possessing the 5th largest number of billionaires in the world which is much larger other Latin American countries, and even ahead of United Kingdom and Japan. If only Britain hadn't put Darwin on their currency!
What is behind the economic dynamism of Brazil and China in recent years? A fast growing evangelical population. See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Protestant cultural legacies. Wikignome72 (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2017 (EST)
First of all, the Phillippines is currently run by an atheist, so if there is corruption, it's stemming from that, not Catholicism, and in fact, there's plenty of genuinely faithful Catholics fleeing that country to head over to America.
Second of all, I'm pretty sure the fact that the French Revolutionaries slaughtering each other on the streets, with one general even openly stating, without any orders transmitted from Robespierre I should add, that they kill anyone they find regardless of whether they're allies or enemies, would in fact suggest decentralization, not centralized. Or to put it another way, look at May 1968, or the Days of Rage, or even what Foucault and Sartre advocated which was pure anarchy akin to the Wild West where people killed and committed all sorts of crimes they ever wanted. And bear in mind, they were called a Democracy, which is the ultimate form of decentralization short of anarchy, and even the Founding Fathers were so horrified against it that they specifically avoided making America a democracy in part because of that. And correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't recall Robespierre giving explicit orders to Grignon to slaughter everyone they can find (which is what centralization means: It means only the guy up top gives orders which are transmitted down the chain of command). Heck, France wasn't even centralized again until Napoleon came to power.
Third of all, you guys DO realize that God, being the absolute ruler of everything, would have been more likely to support centralization rather than decentralization, right? Last I checked, God did NOT simply say "do whatever" and relegate no authority to anything, which is what decentralization implies. Heck, morality ITSELF is centralized. If you are to accept decentralization, you ultimately have to accept post-modernism and moral relativism as good precisely BECAUSE it's decentralized. To sum it up, this is what decentralization ultimately amounts to, the wild west, with no law and no order, no morality whatsoever.
Lastly, decentralization is EXACTLY what led to that whole mess within Protestantism regarding whether we should or should not support abortion. Heck, that sort of problem even occurred with King Henry VIII, where he legalized divorce after splitting with the Roman Catholic Church because they refused an annulment, despite it being explicitly against Jesus's statements. And I suggest you read this as well, also this. Also, I gave links in my earlier posts that showed that Catholics, if anything, got the protestant ethic and capitalism down well before Protestantism was even a thing. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2017 (EST)
About the French Revolution, there was clear centralization. Mob rule is not synonymous with decentralization -- the Committee of Public Safety had significant sway on the crowds. The notion that the "people rise up" in revolutions is garbage -- the people are led by leaders, and the Committee had significant power. Also, modern socialism first began during the French Revolution, particularly as the revolutionary government dealt with the foreign invasions ("total war," etc.). Remember that most of Europe of decentralized before the French Revolution (the German city-states, the fact that nobles in France and other countries had significant power, etc.) -- but there was nothing like the French Revolution before that. And look at Nazi Germany and the USSR -- the epitomes of centralization (totalitarianism).
Second, it seems we're talking about two different types of centralization. I'm talking about earthly politics, not about the obvious fact that God is the absolute ruler of everything and that He sets absolute moral standards. Just because these facts are true doesn't mean that we need an absolute monarchal government in this world. The Israelites were bound by the Mosaic Law and were required to absolutely obey it, but they still had a decentralized political government, and God clearly wanted it to stay that way (read 1 Samuel 8, particularly verses 7 and 11-18). The effects of having a centralized monarchy were negative for the Israelites (1 Kings 4:7, 12:4). Psalm 33:12 says "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord," but as long as this is the case, the specific form of earthly government that nation prefers is not much of an issue. The main issue then is finding a sustainable government that can resist the pull to corruption/tyranny/decline.
Decentralization did not lead to people who happened to belong to Protestant denominations from rejecting biblical teachings. It is a heart issue, not a denominational issue. The Roman Catholic Church, particularly during the Middle Ages, was very centralized, but that did not stop the church from adopting practices that even it rejects today. The centralization of the Roman Catholic Church also is apparently not stopping many Catholics from adopting leftist positions on abortion and homosexuality (look at all the "Catholic" politicians, like Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin, for example -- they haven't been excommunicated). Also take a look at this, coming from the Catholic university Georgetown: [17][18] You'd think student organizations that follow the church's official teachings would get better treatment than this.
And about Henry VIII, no Protestant actually considers him one -- this is a guy who attacked people like Martin Luther, split from Roman Catholicism for purely personal reasons, left the structure of the Roman Catholic church and doctrine largely in place, and whose new denomination clashed with the Puritans and Separatists, who were real Protestants. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2017 (EST)
You're missing the point (and yes, I agree that the whole "people rise up" bit in revolutions is complete garbage.). The fact of the matter is, the various mobs started killing each other simply for FUN, had absolutely NOTHING to do with law and order (which ultimately REQUIRES centralization to even work). To put it another way, decentralization is closer to what Jerome Valeska advocated in Gotham. In true centralization, it's the one on top who dictates commands to the rank and file, and there's only ONE person up on top, like with Nazi Germany or the USSR as you pointed out. Something that WASN'T in France until Napoleon took over. And in fact, what happened in France is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers didn't want a democracy.
And as far as God, let give you a bit of common sense, if God didn't want kings other than himself, the people who dared even try to beg for a human king would quickly find themselves incinerated by God's hand, and then God would then tell them "anyone else want a king besides me?" and everyone would fall into line as he laughs. God wants absolute control over His creation (that's the only He created us, to lord over us), even WITH His giving us free will. And He gave us FAR more than just the Ten Commandments, BTW. There's also the Laws of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. In other words, ultimately, God IS a tyrant. He may be a benevolent tyrant, but he's STILL a tyrant, a dictator, and would be disgusted at even the mere CONCEPT of democracy. He's omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. That means no one can restrain him, not to mention, he most certainly can reject anyone he disagrees with and can even kill them just to show he disagrees with them, and even do it in a spectacle unnatural manner in front of a whole crowd of people to terrorize them into complete submission to His own will.
And yes, actually, decentralization DID lead to exactly what happened to the Protestants, especially when the denominations ARE the heart (why do you THINK God gave us the Ten Commandments? Because He wanted all of humanity to be bound to HIS denomination, his world view, alone). When you have centralization, you have only ONE set of laws, that people are BOUND to follow, forced to believe in, just as God forced the people who were freed from Egypt to follow. And yes, ultimately, what King Henry the VIII did IS become a protestant. And if you read those links, you'd fully realize that Protestantism ultimately DID reject quite a few stuff from Christ's teachings. When you have decentralization, you ultimately have moral relativism, nihilism, post-modernism, all the kinds of things that result in a meaningless existence and especially very bad things happening. And for the record, if you read the distributivist reviews for Liberty the God that Failed or even the book itself, you would have noticed that the US Constitution if anything actually LED directly to centralization far more than even under King George III. And for the record, there are a LOT of stuff about Protestantism, even right back to Luther, that are just bad, as you can read here. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2017 (EST)
Regarding the French Revolution, you're assuming you need a centralized superstate in order to have law and order. Look at the hundreds of German city-states, or France during the Middle Ages or even the Old Regime (1600-1700s), when local leaders had considerably more power than after the French Revolution. There was law and order. It doesn't matter how centralized a country is -- if the citizens are discontent with the government, they will riot and revolt (Bastille, march on Versailles, or for a non-French Revolution example, the USSR in 1989). If you look at the actual government structure of the French state, there was clear centralization and even socialism. The radical Jacobins supported the reign of terror, and if you're referring to the riots when Louis XVI still reigned, that was due to public discontent that I just mentioned.
About God, hopefully you read 1 Samuel 8, because God clearly disapproved the Israelites' demand for a king, which they did out of their rejection of God as their king. Just because God obviously could have destroyed the Israelites if He wanted to doesn't mean He must have supported a centralized monarchy (1 Samuel 8 clearly says otherwise, and the Israelite government, solely under God and the Law, was politically decentralized). God had a plan in giving the Israelites what they wanted, and it was not weakness. However, you continue to confuse earthly political decentralization with absolute truth and morality -- these are two different things. I strongly believe that God is in absolute control, absolutely sovereign, and absolutely true -- but He doesn't need earthly monarchies to legitimize His rule. Remember Psalm 33:12 -- it does not say "Blessed is the monarchy whose God is the Lord." If a Republic, oligarchy, mixed government, or even a democracy submits itself under God and the Bible, that government will be blessed. Either way and in any circumstance, God is the absolute and undisputed ruler of everything, and absolute truth and morality still exist.
It seems you're ignoring my points about Protestantism -- Roman Catholicism is very centralized, but that hasn't stopped it from changing its official doctrines (indulgences, etc., etc.) and seeing individual members and churches from adopting liberal theology (look at all the Roman Catholic political people today -- it's a heart issue, not a centralization or even a denominational issue.
You completely ignored my points about Henry VIII. He attacked real Protestants, split from the RCC for petty personal reasons, continued most of the doctrine/traditions of the RCC, and fought against the real Protestants (Puritans) over what doctrines to accept. No Protestant Christian (and I'm not talking about the liberal "in name only" ones) considers Henry VIII a real Protestant. Also, Roman Catholics did atrocities just as bad as the Protestants -- read about the deaths of Zwingli, Jan Hus, Tyndale, Cranmer, or the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre. And it was the RCC that operated the inquisition. And no, it is the Roman Catholic Church that is far off, doctrinally speaking. But considering who I'm talking to, I'm not going to say more than that, at least for the moment.
Lastly, about the Constitution, read the 10th Amendment. The founding fathers would be shocked to see what our government has become -- and it's not the Constitution's fault -- it's the fault of left-wing activist judges. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2017 (EST)
Yet again, you haven't noticed, say, Days of Rage, where the people rioting actually WERE doing it for fun and games, and not due to mere discontent. And where ELSE could laws come from? Even GOD, who BTW, IS pretty much a totalitarian ruler in all but name, demanded that people follow his laws or else. And as far as the French Revolution, it was a precursor to Socialism, yes, but ultimately, it came from the exact same works as Hobbes and Locke, which also were the same as ours.
And yes, I'm familiar with Samuel and that passage. However, in case you haven't noticed, God IS that centralized government, and if he didn't want a human king, he would have slaughtered ANYONE who insisted on Israel having it, and probably even slaughter any other countries that had them simply to spite anyone who tried to insist on it. That's what I would have done if I were in his position, and I've seen plenty of instances in stories of nigh-omnipotent individuals constantly muscling people into submission and reveling in their power, going so far as to slaughter anyone who dared disagree with them on even a minor issue.
As far as your last point, I suggest you read the distributivist review, specifically the following passages:
"How the ideas of a philosopher inspires culture and movements is a difficult question for an author to answer since it is hard to prove that philosopher “x” had so much sway that he actually caused “y”. Yet Ferrara indeed delivers.
"The American Revolution fought to achieve objectives most people particularly didn’t care about. In response, the revolutionaries threatened despotic power that would rival their own invective against King George III, who couldn’t even raise an army or tax without Parliament. Merely thinking anti-revolutionary opinions was considered treasonous. Propaganda was used wholesale, and threats of force or force itself, confiscation of property, and imprisonment rather than a yearning for “liberty” stimulated revolutionary support. Once the American Republic had been set up, the old radicals became the new monarchs persecuting those who would do as they had done previously. Ferrara presents the stark reality of the Whiskey Rebellion, Shays’ Rebellion, and others where colonists resisted taxation imposed by the new government, exceeding the previous burden placed on colonists by King George.
"The Founding Fathers also threatened the private opinions of their adversaries. In the section “The Tyrannical Apostle of Liberty”, Ferrara notes the following about Thomas Jefferson:


"The Loyalty oath statute Jefferson drafted for the Virginia legislature is typical of these totalitarian measures. The purpose of the loyalty or test oath was, of course, to flush out suspected Tories whose hidden thoughts were threats to the revolutionary cause. Jefferson’s definition of a Tory, written in defense of the loyalty oath, is supremely illustrative of the manner in which he and his fellow radicals imposed what they called Liberty on those who would dissent even inwardly from their program: A Tory has been properly defined to be a traitor in thought, but not in deed. The only description, by which the laws have endeavored to come at them, was that of non-jurors, or persons refusing to take the oath of fidelity to the state.3
"He goes on to document the oath of allegiance compelling every man over the age of 16.


"[S]wear or affirm that I renounce and refuse all allegiance to George the third, king of Great Britain, his heirs and successors,, to profess absolute allegiance to Virginia as a free and independent state, and to turn over to the authorities anyone known to be involved in treasons or traitorous conspiracies which I now or hereafter shall know to be formed against this or any of the United States of America.
"Ferrara continues,


"Whoever refused to take the oath was disarmed, stripped of his voting rights and barred from holding public office, serving on juries, suing for money or acquiring property. Jefferson also participated in drafting a statute that subjected non-jurors to triple taxation.4
"One of the shining examples is that people voted for Jefferson to avoid the oppressive regime of Adams’ government, however, in his second term Jefferson declared “We’re all federalists now” and pursued the same policies as Adams.5
"Meet Thomas Jefferson
"One of the more interesting elements of this book is the level to which Ferrara deconstructs Jefferson from primary sources. Far from the libertarian “limited government” hero, in his second term Jefferson is a big government ogre. Ferrara provides countless examples of Jefferson’s overreach which, in contrast, makes the caricature of King George look positively saintly:
"1. His call for the shooting of Tory counter-revolutionaries who should have been treated as prisoners of war, pursuant to a bill of attainder he himself drafted and pushed through the Virginia legislature.
"2. Jefferson’s support for the early Jacobin massacres as expressed in the “Adam and Eve” letter.
"3. His lifelong ownership of slaves, some of whom he had flogged for attempting to escape, and his continued slave trading while President.
"4. Endorsement of state law prosecutions for “seditious libel” against the President and Congress.
"5. His approval of an expedient and quite illegal “amendment” of the Constitution by the Republican-controlled House to expand the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in order to facilitate the impeachment of his Federalist opponent, Judge Pickering, for drunkenness.
"6. Jefferson’s declaration that “where the laws become inadequate even to their own preservation… the universal resource is a dictator, or martial law.”
"7. His embargo of American shipping, including the federal seizure of ships and cargoes, without due process.
"8. His instigation of “treason” trials and his demand for the death penalty for American citizens who had merely attempted to recover their own property from federal agents.6
"In popular culture, Jefferson is presented to us as the quintessential Founding Father whose model we ought to follow. He has become the archetype of “liberty”. Yet when Jefferson came to power, he brought into being the truth of the words uttered by David Starkey in his monumental documentary on the English Monarchy, “What is a president, but a king?” Jefferson’s power was greater than that of medieval kings, unchecked by tradition, custom or the Church, and Jefferson far from following any concept of limited government ruled like a tyrant. Likewise Robespierre, whose terror Jefferson approved of in the “Adam and Eve” letters, committed greater crimes and exhibited a vastly greater tyranny than even the lies about Louis XVI!
"Constitutional hegemony
"Ferrara’s legal analysis is especially prescient when we consider most of the Founding Fathers were lawyers, and that they constructed a legal framework that cannot be easily navigated by the rest of us. Ferrara does a superb job of discussing the supremacy clause, states rights and nullification.
"Today, those who oppose traditional Catholic social order in favor of Americanism argue that the system itself is not at fault. Our failures are a consequence of bad maneuvers by those who have not truly applied the constitution, and healthy remedies to nullify bad federal laws is the right of the states. This is the argument of “tenthers”, that is, those who see the Tenth Amendment as granting the rights of the states to nullify federal laws, based on the opinion of Jefferson and Madison.
"Ferrara demolishes this myth. As unfortunate as it is, because it would in fact be a potent defense against the system, Ferrara shows how the Hobbe-Lockean principles of absolute supremacy of the state guarantee obedience to legal positivism.
"In the Kentucky Resolutions, where that state complained about the Alien and Sedition Acts, contemporary libertarians tell us that Kentucky, with Jefferson contributing to the resolution, threatened to nullify the law based on the Tenth amendment. As Ferrara points out in his book, Jefferson did not oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts, believing that the states should carry them out. The Kentucky resolution as a whole, did not say each state can nullify laws they do not like, but that all the states together could.7 Kentucky implicitly acknowledged that it would follow all the laws of the Union. This makes sense, because it would be a recipe for anarchy if some states followed laws and other states did not. Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, argues likewise:


"In some of the States, the carriage-tax would have been collected, in others unpaid. In some, the tariff on imports would be collected; in others, openly resisted. In some, lighthouses would be established; in others denounced. In some states there might be war with a foreign power; in others peace and commerce. Finally, the appellate authority of the Supreme Court of the U.S. would give effect to the Federal laws in some States, whilst in others they would be rendered nullities by the State Judiciaries. In a word, the nullifying claims if reduced to practice, instead of being the conservative principle of the Constitution, would necessarily, and it may be said obviously, be a deadly poison.8
"Moreover, the remedy Madison argues for is more or less a protest to Congress, not the idea that each state should nullify laws it doesn’t like.
"Thus, the American founders built their Leviathan well, with no possibility of resistance, unless of course if you should successfully revolt, which we will pick up in the second part of this review.


"3.Christopher A. Ferra, Liberty, the God That Failed (Angelico Press, 2012), 160.
"4.Ibid., 160.
"5.Ibid., 213.
"6.Ibid., 237-239.
"7.Ibid., 207.
"8.Ibid., 206."
And for more on who their inspirations were, read these:
"Tradition and its destruction
"It is important to make the distinction that when Ferrara describes “monarchy” in the Catholic tradition he is describing what is a limited monarchy, restricted principally by the Pope and the Church, but secondarily by nobles and the people themselves, since kings receive their authority from God to do good, not to resort to despotism. By removing the Church from that equation, the Reformation made Her subservient and removed one of the balancing forces against abuse of power.
"This is no more evident than in England where Henry VIII created the act of Royal Supremacy (which violated Magna Charta and his coronation oath which promised not to interfere in the rights of the Church), making him the head of the English church. This conflict produced two English Civil Wars over monarchical limits of power, the question of “popery” and the red-red hand of Rome—a non-issue turned into a major issue by Puritans believing Charles I was secretly Catholic.
"As the country divided itself between King and Tradition, a new edifice was created for the temple of liberty with the eventual overthrow and execution of the king, the establishment of an even more dictatorial “liberator”, and a short-lived restoration before Enlightenment principles were put into place to make the monarchy subservient to “liberty”.
"The major philosophers to influence the thought of liberty, Hobbes and Locke, likewise were divided, but not on the core issue of their philosophy: complete political power to guarantee security, namely, Leviathan. They simply disagreed on where that Leviathan resided. Hobbes believed that the absolutist King, judged by none save God, could protect our security, while for Locke it was the sovereign will of the “people” provided in some representative assembly.
"This is not, of course, how it is normally presented. It is usually depicted as though Hobbes supported tyranny as a safeguard for society while Locke supported “freedom”. Ferrara takes the issue head on with a careful examination of Hobbes and Locke, their religious views, their political ideas and concept of the popular will. From there he shows us the influence of the principles of Hobbes and Locke on the French philosophes and the American founding fathers, principally the ideas in Essay on Toleration and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, both which deconstruct and reject the Ancient Greek and Catholic metaphysical and epistemological tradition in favor of the Enlightenment’s radical doubt.
"The social theory of Locke provided the framework for Rousseau’s The Social Contract, which in turn, also influenced Thomas Jefferson. Locke’s social theories flowed from their denial of substance and with his Unitarian “clockmaker god”, rubs out natural law just as it does metaphysics and the soul. As Ferrara notes,


"For Hobbes, natural law in the state of nature is not God’s law written on man’s heart, but merely “a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and omit that by which he thinketh it may be best reserved.
"According to Hobbes, while God has decreed the laws of nature, man has no innate understanding of them, as is shown by varying human opinions over what the natural law requires. Hence, man must be guided solely by the decisions of the civil authorities… Hobbes then, is a legal positivist and a voluntarist: right and wrong are determined solely by the will of the legislator upon emergence from the state of nature, for ‘Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.’ The doctrine seems shocking until we realize that it represents the juridical status quo of political modernity: the will of the majority trumps the objective moral order.1
"This would find its way into Locke’s thought, but slightly changed.


"A few decades later, the “cautious Locke, standing in Hobbe’s shadow, announces the same new doctrine but with far more prudent language, adding a fundamental development regarding private property…Locke’s doctrine is essentially the Hobbesian state of nature with an emphasis on private property as the primary means of defending the right to self-preservation. His description of the state of nature pleasingly presents it as one of “Peace, Good Will, Mutual Assistance, and Preservation”, with ‘Men living together according to reason, without a common Superior on Earth, with authority to judge between them’ only to concede – literally one page and one section later – that it inevitably devolves into Hobbe’s “State of War” on account of the “want of positive Laws and judge with Authority to appeal to…’ Man is born, says Lock with “a title to perfect Freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the Rights and Privileges of uncertain and constantly exposed to the Invasion of others.’ The inevitable State of War ‘once begun, continues, with a right to the innocent party to destroy the other whenever he can, until the aggressor offers peace’. No matter what Locke’s apologists in academia labor to find by way of distinctions, Hobbes and Locke are essentially at one in their teaching on a state of nature that is really a state of war, giving rise to a “natural law” that is really a natural right to self-preservation by any means necessary. Like Hobbes, Locke declares in the state of nature ‘every man hath a right to punish the Offender, and be Executioner of the Law of nature’ which is none other than the right to self-preservation.2
"The false concept that the individual precedes society should sound familiar to followers of Lew Rockwell or Glenn Beck. For Hobbes and Locke, whose philosophy Ferrara dubs “Hobbe-Lockean”, man is essentially a brute, free from natural law in the Aristotelian tradition, and does what he wants, with his rights and morality originating from the state (which presupposes they can be taken away). Why is this important? Because this underpins the legal positivism that guided the formation, body and interpretation of the American Constitution.
"1. Christopher A. Ferra, Liberty, the God That Failed (Angelico Press, 2012), 57.
"2.Ibid., 58-59."
Even if we are to argue that centralization is bad (which it isn't, as otherwise, God would HIMSELF reject even being king over everyone and pretty much pull the same stunt King Piccolo pulled), there's no denying, ESPECIALLY from these passages, that the Founding Fathers DID aim for centralization to begin with, as did Locke, being more centralized than the monarchies in Europe. And I don't even want a monarchy, what I is for a world ruled by God as emperor with an iron fist, and ultimately think that God will end up acting like this guy. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2017 (EST)
With a ridiculously long comment like this one, I was tempted to just walk away. However, I will say this, since you still seem to misunderstand what I'm saying in several parts:
  • About Samuel, when I talk about the decentralized government, I'm talking about their politics -- the Israelites didn't have an earthly king ruling over them, and political matters were devolved to the 12 tribes. I mentioned above very clearly that God still ruled over all of them and that the Israelites were all commanded to obey the Mosaic Law even with this decentralized government. You continue to ignore this and (falsely) imply that I'm forgetting about God. I'm not, and God remains the absolute ruler over everything no matter what. He is completely sovereign in world affairs. This does not conflict with having earthly governments that are decentralized. Just because God rules over all doesn't mean we need to create absolute monarchies on Earth with human rulers -- these earthly governments are extremely susceptible to the corrupting sin nature, and having a more decentralized and mixed/republican government is better able to protect against this corruption. God is the absolute ruler of everything either way. I see now that you don't support an earthly monarchy, but you speak of God as if He does not already rule with total power -- He already has for eternity past.
  • About with Jefferson and Virginia -- this example shows that in some ways, we're talking about two different forms of centralization. You bring up Virginia as an example -- but why only Virginia and not the United States as a whole? Because the United States was decentralized -- the states could do what they wanted. The situation was similar in France before the French Revolution. The nobles controlled their fiefs and provinces, and some people had independent enclaves in France. They could do whatever they wanted (or significantly more than during and after the French Revolution), rather than listening to the national French government. Same with Virginia -- these "totalitarian" measures were not created or enforced from the national U.S. level -- it was all from the state level. With Nazi Germany and the USSR, as well as France during the Revolution, however, it was the national level.
  • The founding fathers eventually settled for more centralization than they originally wanted, but they still cared deeply about states' rights. They would be appalled if they saw how much power our federal government now has.
--1990'sguy (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2017 (EST)
Two things:
One, I'm not even talking about an absolute monarchy run by humans. In fact, if anything, what I'm suggesting is something akin to what Ferrara stated about monarchies, where they are subservient to the Pope and ESPECIALLY to God, and that God essentially act like Kefka in that video there, since that's what absolute rulers who are omnipotent tend to act like, and God is absolute ruler and omnipotent.
Two, it's NOT JUST how Jefferson ran Virginia. If you actually READ the examples, you'd note that it covered stuff from when he was running the United States itself as its president, ie, when he was running things at the national level. Even there, he did a lot of big government, centralization in other words, that was about on par with the mess we've got right now. For example, the whole illegal amendment thing as well as trying to have POWs executed for Tory sympathies despite it going against a bill that he drafted, or advocating for state prosecutions against seditious libel that were geared towards the president and congress, among others. And don't get me started on how Jefferson actually sang praises for the Jacobins even though he should know better due to actually being present at the time they were doing their antics and thus witnessing them first hand and even endorsing the September Massacres. Or hey, how about his claim of "we're all federalists now" and doubling down on enacting federalist policies despite being elected president under the promise of undoing John Adams' federalist policies. And you STILL haven't addressed Locke and Hobbes' statements, either, which make it VERY clear that they advocated for centralization ultimately. And BTW, there were plenty of other examples in the actual book regarding the founding fathers. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2017 (EST)

The Philippines has a history of political violence/corruption throughout the political system (In one region of the Philippines, there were recently bout 1,000 plus political killings).[19][20] Like many poor countries, political corruption/violence is a major reason behind the countries poverty.Wikignome72 (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2017 (EST)

When I was in the Philippines, Duterte sent in the national police to kill the mayor of a small town. It made headlines in the national newspapers and all, but somehow the level of media coverage didn't seem adequate for such an extreme act. Why wasn't there more excitement? Later, I found out that this was Duterte's third mayor. He's got a list 150 "narcopoliticians" and he's going through the names one by one, like the proscription lists in ancient Rome issued by Anthony and other leaders. Rule of law just doesn't seem to be a thing in the Philippines. PeterKa (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2017 (EST)
It takes hundreds and hundreds of years for Christianization to take place in a country. The Philippines was a Spanish colony for about 400 years and Spain is a Catholic country. Not too long ago, the authoritarian Francisco Franco was a leader of Spain.
On the other hand, the United States ruled in the Philippines for awhile in the Philippines until the Filipinos gained independence via a revolutionary war. The U.S. is still very influential in the Philippines. Given the large number of Protestants in the U.S. and the growing public dissatisfaction within Catholic countries as far as Catholicism, it is not surprising that Protestantism is growing as a percentage of the Philippine population. See: Protestantism: The fastest growing religion in the developing world, Manilla Times. If it wasn't for Latin American immigration in the USA (both past and present), the Catholic population would be shrinking in the United States. I hope the growth of biblical Protestantism accelerates in the Philippines. Since research indicates that countries with cultural legacy of biblical Protestantism have less corruption than Catholic countries[21], maybe the situation as far as political corruption will change over time for the better as biblical Protestantism grows in the Philippines.
I believe that the Bible's teachings are what causes biblical Protestantism to have a corruption fighting effect (see also: Religion and crime reduction). The National Catholic Register just published an article entitled Why Are Catholics So Deficient in Bible-Reading? which declared "Catholics don't read the Bible anywhere near as much as evangelical Protestants do, and that is to our shame."Wikignome72 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2017 (EST)
Europe's economic takeoff is sometimes attributed to Protestentism. Max Weber wrote about the "Protestant work ethic." I suspect it has more to do with literacy than work ethnic. Luther wanted all Germans taught literacy so they could read his translation of the Bible. PeterKa (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2017 (EST)
Biblical Protestantism/Old Testament/New Testament all promote reading the Scripture and hard work so I think it is both hard work and literacy. Biblical Protestants and the Jewish people both have a history being literate, hardworking and generally successful. In addition, the Bible was beautifully written and even the new atheist Richard Dawkins admits, "A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."Conservative (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2017 (EST)

And they said pigs would never fly...

The liberal media is so desperate to defeat Roy Moore that they are throwing Bill Clinton over the side. Yes, The New York Times has pulled out the hammer, broken the emergency glass, and published "Believe Juanita." That is to say, they are accusing Bill of being a rapist. PeterKa (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2017 (EST)

After further thought, I have reconsidered my position in this matter. The reason the media turned on Bill Clinton is presumably the same as the reason they they turned on Weinstein earlier. In other words, 2020. The Sanders/Obama wing of the party is purging the Clintonistas. The Clintons are backing Kamala Harris for 2020 while Obama prefers Warren. PeterKa (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2017 (EST)

Dems rush to defend Franken

The Weinstein era of hypersensitivity to sexual harassment claims is already history. How can the Dems justify taking down Moore while giving Franken a pass? Here's Hillary: “Look at the contrast between Al Franken, accepting responsibility, apologizing, and Roy Moore and Donald Trump who have done neither. [That] is the kind of accountability I’m talking about.” Isn't that rich coming from a woman who blamed allegations of sexual impropriety against her husband on a "vast right wing conspiracy"? The Dems loved Hillary's blame-shifting so much that it launched her political career. This is a party that has no concept of what accepting responsibility even means. What has Franken confessed to, anyway? Only to what the notorious photo establishes.[22] PeterKa (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Alveda King is against radical pro-abortionist Doug Jones

Dr. Alveda King is against radical pro-abortionist Doug Jones (Roy Moore's opponent).[23]

Doug Jones refuses to condemn partial-birth abortions.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2017 (EST)

FiveThirtyEight declares Alabama a dead heat

Despite what the latest MPR item says, FiveThirtyEight is not making any specific prediction with regard to Alabama. In fact, the site notes prominently that the race is currently a dead heat: "Politics Podcast: Alabama Is Tied." The article linked at MPR suggests that as more voters absorb the news of the allegations against Moore, the tide will turn against him. At the same time, the news about Franken makes the Dems look hypocritical.
The senate is currently confirming Trump's judiciary nominees at a rapid clip. We need Moore in the senate to keep the window of opportunity open. If a Dem is elected in Alabama, McCain becomes the swing vote on judicial nominees. That's a role he relished way too much when he had it before. As long as gridlock prevails in Congress, the federal judiciary will retain an outsized role. PeterKa (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2017 (EST)

Guns and Vegas

I have to ask - what difference would it have made if guns were allowed at the festival given it was not appearent where the shots were coming from and the shooter was on the 31st (from memory) floor? It wouldn't have been very good to have 10s of people firing wildly into the buildings above them. JohnSelway (talk)

The shooter was a gun control nut who must have put a lot of thought into setting up a situation that could be used an argument for gun control. It's a shame that there are so many people eager to do his dirty work for him. PeterKa (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (EST)

It was on the 32nd floor. You're thinking of the Flying Burrito Bros. song:

This old town, filled with sin,
It'll swallow you in,
If you've got, money to burn

Take it home, right away
You've got three years to pay,
But Satan, is waiting his turn

This old earthquake is gonnna leave,
Me in the poor house.
It seems like, this whole town's insane
On the 31st floor, your gold plated door,
won't keep out, the Lord's burning rain. VargasMilan (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2017 (EST)

Moment of truth in Korea

Pyongyang has just launched another ICBM.[24] This is with an unprecedented three U.S. aircraft carriers off Korea[25] and right after China closed the only road leading into North Korea. Clearly nothing intimidates Kim Jong-un. He is apparently on the brink of weaponizing his nukes. We can't count on him to behave rationally when he does. I doubt the North Koreans can make their own ICBM engines. An odd ferry service opened up between Rajin and Vladivostok in May of this year.[26] So Russian aid may explain NK's recent leap forward in missile technology. Putin needs to be told that if he doesn't close down the ferry, we'll send weapons to Ukraine.
It may be time to pull out the playbook Reagan used with Libya in 1986. Make a show of sending the U.S. Navy into disputed waters. If the North Koreans attack, retaliate bigly. In the past, worries about the Chinese reaction has prevented the military option from being considered. This time around, the Chinese seem to be intimidated by the banking sanctions that the U.S. Treasury Department has prepared. PeterKa (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2017 (EST)

Here is a useful graphic of North Korea's non-nuclear military firepower. It's No. 23 in the world. South Korea is No. 12. PeterKa (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2017 (EST)
The doctrine of mutually assured destruction kept the USA safe from the aggressive, atheistic Soviet Union during the Cold War. There is no reason why it can't be employed now. All the handwringing and sabre rattling is a waste of time.
However, the USA has to keep tabs on the North Koreans as far as them potentially sharing their technology with Muslim extremists.
So far Kim Jong-un has behaved as if the USA has its hands fairly tied due to China/Russia. He also sees what the USA did as far as Muammar Gaddafi and Sadam Hussein who did not have nukes (G.W. Bush/Obama/Hillary Clinton had poor foreign policy). Putting pressure on China might be pointless as Russia might choose to step in as an ally to North Korea given the current, toxic Russia/USA relations.Conservative (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2017 (EST)
China was North Korea's principle source of aid for almost thirty years. But they backed off the moment Trump threatened bank sanctions.[27] China hasn't gone to war since 1979. They don't even participate in peacekeeping forces. The Chinese press is currently filled with the most boring news you can imagine. This is today's top story. The crisis in Korea is a secret to the Chinese people. In short, the party is focused on keeping the Chinese people politically asleep. It isn't getting the country ready for war.
If I was calling the shots, I'd seize an NK naval vessel at this point. If the Norks complain, I'd tell them that they can return the USS Pueblo anytime they like. PeterKa (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2017 (EST)

Trump scores a home run against Warren

In this age where "cultural appropriation" is treated almost as if it was a crime, how can it be OK to claim you are an American Indian when you are obviously not? According to U.S. law, you are an Indian if the Bureau of Indian Affairs issues you an ID card and not otherwise. As a Harvard law professor, you would think Elizabeth Warren would know this. Various genealogists have looked into Warren's ancestry and as near as anyone can tell she is one hundred percent white European. See here, here, and here.
Undocumented stories of Cherokee ancestry are apparently quite common. My family has stories eerily similar to those of Warren's family, including the relative-with-a-high-cheekbone story. I assumed these stories were true for many years until I researched the issue. But I'm not a liberal politician. What is the meaning of identity politics, affirmative action, and white guilt if you can make yourself American Indian just by saying so? PeterKa (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2017 (EST)

Trump calls Warren "Pocahontas," a variation on "Fauxcahontas" used by Rush Limbaugh and others earlier. It's a pity he doesn't follow Limbaugh's usage exactly since Fauxcahontas is more difficult to represent as a racial slur. PeterKa (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2017 (EST)
Democrats may strongly feel that it is a woman's turn to be president given their base and given the post Weinstein era we live in.
Trump may feel that Warren has a strong likelihood of being their next presidential nominee.Conservative (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2017 (EST)
Hillary claims that she was defeated by sexism. But if the Dems actually thought being a woman was a disadvantage, they wouldn't want to run one again. Bernie Sanders has been getting a lot of buzz recently. He will be 79 in 2020. That's six years older than Bob Dole was in 1996. The Dole campaign was sunk by a flood of oldster jokes. Bernie will be seven years older than McCain was in 2008, and seven years older than Reagan was when he ran for reelection in 1984. If the Dems decide that's is too old, Warren is next in line. PeterKa (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2017 (EST)

Obama in Montreal

In case anyone has forgotten what an obnoxious president Obama was, I offer the awesome Mark Steyn to remind you. After months of vacationing on the ill-gotten loot he gathered while in the White House, the former president surfaced in the Montreal in June. There he complained about how Americans have fallen under the spell of the "politics of fear" and "tribalism." No doubt it's all true. It certainly sounds very noble. But he talks as if he was a visitor from another planet who had nothing to do with the problem. Was it somebody else who was president for eight years, stirred up race riots in Ferguson, and repeatedly invited anti-Semite and race-baiter Al Sharpeton to the White House? While Bush built relationships with other world leaders, Obama had no peers. He stood atop his Mt. Sinai of arrogance, pointed his fingers at Republicans, and looked down on everyone and everything. PeterKa (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2017 (EST)

Trump and the GOP chipping away at ObamaCare so it will implode faster. They are now working to repeal one of its most unconstitutional provisions (forcing people to buy health insurance or face a penalty).
Reuters: "The sweeping tax overhaul that passed the U.S. Senate on Saturday contains the Republicans’ biggest blow yet to former President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, repealing the requirement that all Americans obtain health insurance."[28]
Once the HMS ObamaCare is sunk, Obama will have virtually no legacy except for: the judges he put in place, the bureaucrats he put in place and the legalization of "gay marriage" (which relates to the judges he put in place). If Trump's economy keeps racing forward in terms of it being an improving and favorable economy, he could win a second term and stack the legal system with conservative judges. That could very much erase Obama's remaining legacy.
If you follow important political and social trends, you cannot miss the fact that leftism/liberalism and various things supporting leftism/liberalism are falling like dominos. See: Decline of leftism. Conservative (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2017 (EST)

Flynn pleads guilty

Hillary aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin both lied to the FBI. They both got a pass.[29] Michael Flynn's conviction for doing the same is nothing but partisan politics. What was Flynn thinking when he agreed to an FBI interview? Any lawyer will tell you never to submit to questioning by the police without a lawyer present. There are so many laws you can run afoul of, and the police are trained to trip you up. Comey played this same gag on Martha Stewart earlier. So it seems to be his specialty.
Flynn's offense occurred during the transition, i.e. after the election. In his plea statement, Flynn denied that he knew of any colluding with Russia.[30] This suggests that investigating Russian interference in the election, Mueller's original mandate, is a dry well. But don't worry. The sprawling special counsel bureaucracy will no doubt come up with a way to justify its continued existence, if only as a make work program for Hillary donors. They can always investigate the administration for obstruction of justice, as well as for violation of the Logan Act.
Back in the Clinton era, Starr needed approval from the appeals court to shift his focus from Whitewater to Lewinsky. Mueller answers only to Rosenstein, who answers to no one as long as Sessions remains recused. It's Rosenstein's job to make sure the Mueller investigation stays within confines of some kind. In short, this is a good time for Trump to summon Rosenstein to the White House and tell him, "You're fired." PeterKa (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2017 (EST)

In a bizarre twist, Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who interviewed Flynn, turns out to be the same agent who interviewed Mills and Abedin. He was hired by Mueller and has now been ousted for sending anti-Trump text messages. See National Review. Ninety seven percent of political donations by Justice Department employees when to Clinton in 2016, according the eye-opening chart that accompanies this article. No wonder Trump is having such a difficult time applying the rule of law to Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Things Americans do that totally confuse people in other countries

From using ice in all our drinks to frequently carrying out restaurant food with doggie bags, Kathy Benjamin of Grunge website has got the U.S.A. covered.

She also notes:

We have the longest, most expensive elections ever

"Did you know Donald Trump is already campaigning for the 2020 election? The rallies he attends are paid for by his reelection campaign, meaning the race for the White House began a month after he took office. Even for America that's pretty crazy, but we're used to our elections lasting years at a time and costing more than the GDP of some nations.

"The cost and length of American elections are absolutely obscene when you look at other countries. In 2012, the cost of all federal U.S. elections (the presidency and Congress) was $5.8 billion. Meanwhile, the 2010 British elections cost a mere $49 million, which, according to the BBC, means we spent 120 times as much total and 23 times as much per person. In the U.S., candidates campaign for years, while the Washington Diplomat reports that the country with the next-longest campaigns is Germany, at a measly 114 days. According to the CBC, the longest campaign in Canadian history lasted less than 11 weeks and that was way back in 1926. No wonder Canadians are so polite: they have so many fewer family dinners to yell about politics."VargasMilan (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2017 (EST)

Franken: A joke that wasn't funny

Al Franken was always quite open about being a pervert. Grabbing the asses of female audience members was part his "comedy" act. I guess we can't laugh at that anymore. Why vote for such a painfully unfunny comedian? Minnesota Democrats wanted a senator who could stick it to the religious right. Now he's been sacrificed so they can use him as an argument against Roy Moore and Donald Trump. Up or down, he was simply a mass of unrestrained proclivities. PeterKa (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2017 (EST)

Planned Parenthood finally in trouble?

After years of work from CMP, the DOJ is reportedly finally investigating Planned Parenthood. [31] --David B (TALK) 01:13, 8 December 2017 (EST)

Of course they are. Pence-Devos-conservative judges-no transexuals in the military-Johnson Act-Jerusalem-Planned Parenthood. Trump is courting evangelicals for the 2020 vote.Conservative (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2017 (EST)

The pope and the Lord's prayer

The pope wants "Lead us not into temptation" (Luke 11:4, ESV) retranslated to clarify that it is the Devil, not God, who leads us into temptation.[32] NRSV, the translation favored by academic scholars, is already on the case: "And do not bring us to the time of trial.” That's not nearly as literary or memorable as the traditional version. NET says, "The request do not lead us into temptation is not to suggest God causes temptation, but is a rhetorical way to ask for his protection from sin." PeterKa (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2017 (EST)

Constitutional crisis: Hillary & Obama hoaxed the FISA Court

The FISA court was created so that Richard Nixon & J. Edgar Hoover did not have sole discretion who to unleash America's law enforcement & counterintelligence services against. The Court itself, requiring presentation of probable cause, was intended as a check on Executive branch abuse of power. Hillary Clinton, who has participated in the process how these protections evolved since her days on the Watergate Committee, and Barack Obama, who was next door neighbor to two individuals who were on Nixon & Hoovers hit list (and won actions for violations of their civil rights), have figured out a way to circumvent the Court (the judicial check on Executive power) to harass, intimidate, and violate the civil rights of domestic political opponents with the nation's law enforcement & intelligence gathering agencies.