Those who claim that the Civil War was not fought over slavery have to also claim that neither the Missouri Compromise nor the Kansas-Nebraska Act had anything to do with slavery.
The Missouri Compromise stated that Missouri would be allowed to enter the Union as a “slave state” on the condition that all future states above the “Missouri Compromise Line” would be “free states.” (in other words, the Missouri Compromise was entirely about slavery)
The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed Kansas and Nebraska to vote on whether to enter the Union as either slave or free states, in violation of the Missouri Compromise. (in other words, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was entirely about slavery)
Republican Senator Charles Sumner made a famous anti-slavery speech, was nearly beaten to death by a pro-slavery, Democratic congressman (known as “The Caning of Charles Sumner“), and the Republican Party was founded in response to the violation of the Missouri Compromise, which also violated the “balance of power” between free and slave states. (side note: the Republican Party was founded on two key platforms: the sanctity of life [regardless of skin color – aka abolishing slavery] and the sanctity of marriage [in opposition to polygamy, which apparently was gaining steam at the time]. Today, two key planks in the Republican Party platform remain the sanctity of life [from conception to natural death] and the sanctity of marriage)
Pro-slavery, southern Democrats sought to influence the vote in Kansas, killed some abolitionists, some abolitionists killed some pro-slavery folks, a Republican abolitionist was elected president (Lincoln), several southern, Democratic states seceded from the Union, the Civil War happened, the Union Army won, slavery was abolished, and the southern states rejoined the Union.
Yes, the Civil War was fought over “states’ rights.” Namely, states’ rights to determine whether they would have slavery or not. And yes, the Civil War was fought over economic issues. Namely, the economic impact abolishing slavery would have on plantation-heavy, slave states. But saying that the Civil War was fought over states’ rights and economic issues, rather than over slavery, is foolishness, because slavery was central to both the states’ rights and economic arguments that are peddled as alternative, non-slavery explanations for the War.
Anyway, one of my favorite parts of the story is this: the aforementioned Charles Sumner, who was nearly beaten to death after his anti-slavery speech, gave another speech after the Civil War. This speech welcomed the first black United States senator – Republican Hiram Revels from Mississippi – after he was confirmed with unanimous support from Senate Republicans over and against unanimous opposition from Senate Democrats.
If my political party’s history consisted of defending slavery, seceding from the Union over slavery, unanimously opposing the confirmation of the first black U.S. senator, creating the KKK, enacting the “Jim Crow laws,” poll taxes, literacy tests, etc., etc., etc., then I’d probably invent a myth about the two parties playing some magical, fairy dust game of political “red rover,” too.
Dr. Carson is an incredibly intelligent, accomplished man who rose from humble beginnings to become the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.
Dr. Carson is obviously intelligent, he seems to be very principled, and he garnered much conservative attention and praise for his 2013 keynote address at the National Prayer Breakfast. I believe that a President Carson would be wise, humble, and confident enough to put the right people around him to both compliment his strengths and compensate for his weaknesses – which are most notably lack of military or political experience.
But I do not think that he will be President Carson, or at least not in 2016, because I do not think he can win the Republican primary. Here’s why:
The Republican Party is a coalition of people who are Republicans for different reasons, and I think Hugh Hewitt has a good paradigm for understanding this coalition with his “Six-Party System.” Hewitt identifies that the three key groups of Republicans are identified by their primary priority when it comes to politics and government: the Party of Faith, the Party of Wealth, and the Party of National Security. In 2006, Hewitt added that an Immigration and Border Security faction was growing, and I would add that there is now a growing libertarian wing in the GOP.
My two main concerns for Dr. Carson’s potential campaign are that 1) I think he will have little success winning votes outside of the Party of Faith crowd, and 2) there is an abundant supply of potential candidates vying for Party of Faith votes. Let’s look at how these five groups within the GOP – libertarians, immigration & border security, national security, wealth, and faith – may view Dr. Carson.
Assuming he runs, Senator Rand Paul will have a lock on the libertarian votes in the GOP primary, which fortunately for Sen. Paul represents a somewhat decent floor for his candidacy but unfortunately also represents most of its ceiling, in my opinion. Dr. Carson is likely to struggle with the libertarian wing of the GOP if he has to compete with Sen. Paul for their votes.
Immigration Enforcement and Border Security voters may give Dr. Carson a shot, but will likely be looking for a candidate with an applicable track record – which Dr. Carson simply does not have.
I think Dr. Carson would appoint a stellar Secretary of Defense and lean on a strong support team of military and foreign policy advisors, so that this potential weakness would be mitigated in his presidency. Dr. Carson has also demonstrated that he understands the threat of Islamic terrorism. However, I doubt Dr. Carson will be anywhere near the top of the list for GOP primary voters whose main concern is National Security, especially in the wake of the fiasco that has been the Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy. Russia, China, Iran, Islamic terrorists, etc. have National Security Republicans begging for a strong Commander in Chief.
Party of Wealth voters will likely want a “known commodity” and support someone more along the Mitt Romney/Jeb Bush mold. Dr. Carson is simply not their guy.
All of which leaves Dr. Carson vying for votes in the Party of Faith crowd, potentially with the likes of Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee, Walker, Rubio, Santorum et al with all of the GOP candidates saying what the Party of Faith wants to hear and a chunk of Party of Faith voters looking to non-Party of Faith candidates for who will be the “most electable” option in November.
Therefore, I would put Dr. Carson’s chances in the 2016 GOP primary as “slim-to-none.” That said, I hope that he has a significant influence on the GOP primary, either as a candidate or with the field vying for his endorsement – either of which would benefit both the GOP and the country, and could also be an avenue toward a cabinet position such as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Progressives have rewritten history in an effort to remake one of the most racist presidents in American history into what they call “the best civil rights president America has ever had.”
The movie “Selma” apparently takes that notion head-on, showing a confrontation between LBJ and MLK over the Selma protests.
LBJ defenders have claimed that Selma was LBJ’s idea. Here is “Selma” director Ava DuVernay’s response:
“[The] notion that Selma was LBJ’s idea is jaw dropping and offensive to SNCC, SCLC and black citizens who made it so.” (SNCC stands for Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and SCLC stands for Southern Christian Leadership Conference)
In the movie “The Butler,” LBJ uses a “politically correct” term for blacks and Cuba Gooding, Jr.’s character says something like, “that dude says n****** more than I do,” in questioning why LBJ used a different term in a televised speech from his preferred off-camera term. LBJ also infamously said that his “Great Society” expansion of government would “have them n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
Progressives have to defend LBJ, though, because his role in the Civil Rights era is essential to their myth that Democrats became the Civil Rights party in or around the 1960’s.
The confrontation between MLK and LBJ is one of many reasons that I am eager to see “Selma.”
Have you heard how badly the Democratic Party was crushed in the November elections this year?
There are now only seven states where the governor and both houses of the state legislature are controlled by Democrats, compared to 24 states where Republicans control the state executive and legislative branches.
The Democrats have sold out to their big government, reckless spending, high taxes, and anti-business policies while focusing on a radical social agenda that goes against the values of most Americans. “We the People” came out in force last month and clearly rejected what the Democratic Party has become.
The seven states controlled by Democrats: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Oregon, Rhode Island, & Vermont.
The 24 states controlled by Republicans: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Let’s just hypothetically say you’re an elected official who is in some serious legal trouble, and you happen to be black…
What do you do to take advantage of the current situation with most of the country talking about race relations and whether or not police unfairly target black people?
You call a press conference, because you’re not in trouble because you habitually rip off your clients and health care companies. You’re in trouble for the color of your skin.
You’re not in trouble for forging checks and stealing money that was supposed to pay the medical bills for a woman and her child who were in a car accident and trusted you. You’re in trouble for the color of your skin.
You’re not in trouble because the FBI, Texas Rangers, and local law enforcement raided your law offices with a warrant and found evidence that was used to bring 10 felony indictments against you. You’re in trouble for the color of your skin.
Many of my black friends have been treated unfairly for no other reason than the color of their skin. I’ll be the first to tell you that racism is alive and well in America today. We have made progress, AND we still have progress to make…
But I’ve also known black folks who would probably say they got pulled over for “Driving While Black” even if they were really pulled over for driving drunk while passing a school bus, in a school zone, while going 90 mph with kids crossing the street and diving out of the way.
As Charles Barkley said, we need to have more serious conversations about race – and not only when something bad happens. Part of that conversation still needs to be about helping white folks realize that not all black people are criminals or on welfare or whatever other negative stereotypes are out there. But part of that conversation also needs to be about black “leaders” who manipulate and abuse the trust of the people they lead and represent.
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank President Obama for doing two things better than perhaps anybody in the history of America.
He has 1) sold guns and 2) motivated conservatives better than anybody I imagine.
Have you noticed that he hasn’t said much about gun control since his extremist plan to disarm law abiding citizens and put us at the mercy of armed criminals was crushed in Congress?
That’s because every time he mentioned his gun control agenda, he sold guns and motivated conservatives. If they didn’t disagree with about 95% of his policies, gun store owners and gun manufacturers probably would have sent him a bunch of large commission checks for being their best salesman!
What he did tonight is more of the same.
The most radical of radical open borders Democrats are happy tonight. Those few who still trust MSNBC & their ilk will believe that he is pro-immigrant and pro-minority in spite of the damage his actions will inflict on legal immigrants and U.S. citizens of all races, particularly struggling working class families, minorities, and single mothers.
The rest of us now realize more than ever that “we the people” don’t need a “savior” in the White House who makes promises he can’t keep; who has a government solution for every problem; and whose every solution is to treat hard-working taxpayers like an unlimited ATM at the expense of our children who will pay tomorrow for the reckless spending of today.
“We the people” need “we the people” to wake up, return to the values and principles of our Founding Fathers, get informed and get involved, and restore integrity at every level of government.
More people realize that today compared to six years ago, and we have President Obama to thank for that.
Democrats learned from the 2000 presidential election, when Al “The Lorax” Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College and consequently the White House to George “Dubya” Bush.
Democrats learned the lesson they should have learned, and charted a course for crushing Electoral College victories in ’08 & ’12.
President Obama only won 52.93% of the popular vote in ’08, but cruised to victory with a very blue Electoral College map and 67.8% of EC votes!
He won re-election in 2012 with an even slimmer 51.06% of the popular vote and a still strong 61.7% of the Electoral College votes.
Democrats could have lost the popular vote by a decent chunk and still won the White House in both Obama elections due to their understanding of the map and their success in states they needed to swing.
Will Republicans learn the same lesson that 2000 taught the Democrats about the importance of the Electoral College?
2014 was a crushing GOP victory, but so was 2010. We know what happened in 2012 when many Republicans thought we would take the White House like we took the people’s House two years prior.
Shame on us if we let that happen again in 2016, but if we don’t understand the EC map it likely will.
Texas state Representative Ron Reynolds was re-elected last Tuesday, facing the voters in House District 27 the same day that he faced jurors for the first time in Montgomery County on six felony charges. Leading up to the trial, the Montgomery County District Attorney’s office was required to release all “evidence of prior convictions, extraneous offenses and other bad acts” they planned to bring up in the trial against Rep. Reynolds (Reynolds’ Prior Convictions Extraneous Offenses and Other Bad Acts). Reynolds was indicted by a Montgomery County grand jury last year on 10 felony counts and an 11th felony indictment was recently added, but the DA’s office agreed to try Reynolds on only six of the charges.
Misdemeanor Conviction and Mistrial
The jury in Montgomery County could not come to a unanimous verdict on the felony charges, and decided to convict Reynolds last Friday on the lesser misdemeanor charge of improper “solicitation of professional employment” on all six counts. Then on Monday, the judge declared a mistrial due to juror misconduct. Reynolds’ defense team is arguing that the jury found Reynolds not guilty on the felony charges before the juror misconduct took place as part of the misdemeanor convictions, and therefore double jeopardy precludes the Montgomery County DA from reintroducing the felony charges in the re-trial. Conversely, the Montgomery County DA’s office is arguing that the juror misconduct and mistrial wipe away both the misdemeanor convictions and the not guilty verdict on the felony charges.
Montgomery County Judge Lisa Michalk is expected to decide whether the DA can reintroduce the felony charges before the start of the January 5th re-trial.
Harris County Civil Lawsuits
Rep. Reynolds recently finalized three civil lawsuits in Harris County, and has five pending Harris County civil lawsuits. All of the civil lawsuits stem from alleged misconduct in his personal injury law practice.
In Memorial MRI vs Reynolds, the Harris County judge ordered Reynolds to pay $172,000 to Memorial MRI for non-payment of his personal injury clients (Memorial MRI v Reynolds_Final Judgment). More than $165,000 is still owed, and the matter has been turned over to a special receiver (Memorial MRI turnover).
In Braulio vs Reynolds, Sara Braulio sued Reynolds on behalf of herself and her minor child, who hired Reynolds to represent them after being injured in an automobile accident. Braulio accused Reynolds of settling the lawsuit without her knowledge or consent, forging her signature on over $13,000 worth of checks that were intended to pay medical bills for herself and her child, and keeping the settlement money for himself (Braulio v Reynolds Original Petition). After Reynolds repeatedly failed to provide requested financial documents (Braulio v Reynolds signed order to compel), he agreed to pay $20,000 to settle the tort (Braulio v Reynolds Agreed Judgment).
In Johnson vs Reynolds, Tiffany Gooden Johnson sued Reynolds on behalf of herself and five family members, who hired Reynolds to represent them after being seriously injured in an automobile accident. Johnson accused Reynolds of settling the lawsuit without her knowledge or consent. This tort was settled earlier this year, and the settlement agreement is not disclosed (Johnson v Reynolds Original Petition).
Four of Reynolds pending civil lawsuits are similar to the Memorial MRI lawsuit. Fifteen Houston area health care companies are suing Reynolds for non-payment after they treated his personal injury clients, and Reynolds used their treatments and test results to win favorable settlements (Fomine v Reynolds Original Petition, US Imaging v Brown Brown and Reynolds Original Petition, H Ameri Health v Reynolds Original Petition, & Pacific Health v Reynolds Original Petition).
The other pending civil lawsuit against Reynolds is the Texas Bar Assocation’s tort that is related to the felony charges in Montgomery County. This lawsuit is set to go to trial in December, but will likely be pushed back since it is dependent upon the outcome of the Montgomery County trial (Commission for Lawyer Discipline v Reynolds Original Petition).
Is a Texas Lawmaker a Criminal Lawbreaker?
The State of Texas (via the Montgomery County DA’s Office), 15 Houston health care companies, and the Texas Bar Associaion believe that state Rep. Ron Reynolds is a criminal lawbreaker, but the voters of House District 27 just re-elected him as a Texas lawmaker. The major Houston media waited until after the election was over to cover the felony trial, in spite of the fact that juror selection began the day before the November 4th general election.
Disclosure: I was the Republican Nominee for Texas House District 27 state Rep, and challenged Rep. Reynolds (unsuccessfully) in last Tuesday’s general election.
An Open Letter from David Hamilton to Local Pastors
My name is David Hamilton, and I am the Republican nominee for Texas House District 27 State Representative in east Fort Bend County.
I am writing to you today because I believe that Christians now more than ever must be united against those who oppose our religious liberties, attack the Biblical worldview, and are intolerant of Christian values.
You are likely aware that the mayor of Houston recently tried to subpoena all of the speeches, writings, and sermons of five Houston area pastors that mention the mayor, her transgender bathroom ordinance, or homosexuality. In the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, pastors have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and their congregations have freedom of assembly. The subpoena is in response to a petition of grievances with the City of Houston government, which is another right protected in the 1st Amendment. In recent months, the mayor of Houston has violated 4/5ths of the 1st Amendment rights of Houston Christians and pastors.
We have seen similar stifling of our religious and Constitutional rights from schools, from the government, from the media, etc., etc., etc.
As you know, God made the universe (Gen. 1:1), He sustains the universe through His Son (Hebrews 1:3), and one day He will judge all mankind (Matthew 25:31-46). God is our Creator, our Sustainer, and our Judge.
That is bigger than any political party. As Christians, we must stand united.
I want you to know that if God grants us victory in my election on November 4th, I will fight for your religious liberty, and genuine tolerance of our Biblical worldview and our Christian values as a state representative in Austin.
Please encourage your congregations this Sunday to support candidates who are vocal about their support for religious liberty, for our Biblical worldview, for our Christian values, and for the sanctity of life and marriage.
Please also remind them that early voting in Texas runs from Monday October 20th through Friday October 31st, and Election Day is November 4th.
The mayor of Houston was elected by the people, because some Christians voted for her, some stayed home and others were not unified in voting for a candidate who would defend our religious liberty. Elections matter.
Thank you for your leadership as we stand together for religious liberty, and God bless you!
- "The Dawkins Letters"
- "The God Delusion"
- 2 Samuel 20
- 2008 Presidential election
- Acts 17:24-31
- Anglican Church
- Anthony Flew
- Australian Christian music
- Ayn Rand
- Charles Darwin
- child of God
- Christ crucified
- Chuck Norris
- Church History
- David Robertson
- Desiring God
- Doers of the Word
- Dr. Jim Hamilton
- expository preaching
- Gene Robinson
- glory of God
- I Was There
- Intelligent Design
- James Hamilton
- Jesus Christ
- Joel Osteen
- John Piper
- justification by faith
- King David
- Lee Strobel
- Mark Driscoll
- Mars Hill Church
- Mike Huckabee
- Nathan Tasker
- preach the Word
- Psalm 1
- Richard Dawkins
- roe v. wade
- seminary professor
- Sermon on Mars Hill
- Sex and the Supremacy of Christ
- the apostle Paul
- the Bible
- The Case for Faith
- The Law of the Lord
- the rebellion of Sheba
- The Resurrection
- the Word of God
- William Tyndale