I want to begin what I say here by honoring the memory of Justice Antonin Scalia. He was a man who understood himself, who understood the Constitution, and who understood the enemies of constitutional liberty — whose name unfortunately is Legion. Here is Scalia on the reason for this.
“God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools…and He has not been disappointed. Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society. We are fools for Christ’s sake. We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.”
Scalia was not ashamed to be out of step with the times, so long as he was in step with the truth. Here he is again: “Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character.” Scalia was a bulwark of our republic, and a very great man. He is now at peace, and because of that we are deeper into war.
So we need to take stock of where we are. We need to take a look around, and make some important decisions. (This is particularly the case for the believers in South Carolina.) But before doing that, we need to settle a few things in our minds. There are three major issues.
The first thing we need to do is dispense with the idea that Obama should be able to fill that seat if he wants, and that the Republicans should defer to his nominee in a spirit of bipartisan spinelessness. President Obama is in fact a lame duck, and all the indicators of lameduckery have set in and are well advanced. We only have nine months until the election, and so the vacancy on the Supreme Court really ought to be one of the central issues in the coming campaign. The question before the country ought to be, “Who do you want to make the nomination to fill that seat?” It is a controversial issue — so let the American people decide it. This is not awkward timing — it is perfect timing.
In the meantime, the pretense from the left will be that to refuse to confirm Obama’s nominee will somehow be an affront to the Constitution. Sen. Elizabeth Warren was talking crazy like that yesterday. After all, it will be said, the Constitution expressly says that the president has the right to nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court. Right. And that same Constitution says that the Senate has the right to say, “Not so fast. Try again.” In addition, the Senate also has the right to say, “Pound sand.” The Senate has the right to not schedule a vote. The Senate has the right to put its hands in its pockets and look the other way, whistling. Appointment to the Supremes is something that the president and the Senate need to do together. The president has no more right to tell the Senate that they must approve someone now than the Senate has the right to tell the president who to nominate.
And so the Senate should make it abundantly clear that no one will be confirmed until after the election, after the next president nominates someone. Then Obama can nominate Al Sharpton now, and do what he can to make it a campaign issue.
This leads to the second issue. As the Republicans continue through their primaries, this issue of court appointments has descended from the realm of the hypothetical and abstract to the realm of the hard and concrete. If the general election is going to be about which of the two final candidates will fill that seat, then the primaries will be about the same issue, only one step earlier.
And so here is the thing about Supreme Court nominees. Nominees from the Democrats are universally bad. Nominees from Republican presidents are bad half the time, and good half the time. Scalia was fantastic. Thomas is great, as is Alito, and they were all Republican appointees. But the Republicans have also sent quite a number of constitutional moonbeams up there.
A number of the current presidential aspirants will of course say that they would want to nominate someone “just like Scalia.” That will be the thing to say, especially with Scalia’s passing. The question therefore becomes, how likely is it that they actually would?
Here is how I understand the odds. Trump would nominate someone with the constitutional acumen of a pot of boiled asparagus. We should have the same expectations for him as we would with a Democratic president. He has already said that his sister Maryanne Trump Barry — who is a extremist pro-abortion judge — would make a great appointment. She is an ardent defender of partial birth abortion, and that tells you everything we need to know. It is not that Trump would nominate his sister, but it does tell you he would nominate someone like his sister.
Bush and Rubio would be likely to continue the grand Republican tradition of nominating some outstanding jurists, along with some nickel-plated stinkers. Let’s spot them at 50/50, and grant that on average it would be a lot better than what Hillary would do. But let us also acknowledge that we can’t afford any more of that.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that they would nominate anyone more conservative than themselves — and both of them have already pronounced themselves good with women in combat. When that case gets to the Supreme Court, as it most certainly will, what sane father of daughters would want the case decided by some legal squish from the leftward side of Rubio’s constituency? We might get a good nominee . . . hope springs eternal . . . baby needs a new pair of shoes!
There is only one Republican running — who has a realistic shot at this — who would almost certainly nominate a constitutionalist. That person is Ted Cruz. We need a president who will nominate someone who wouldn’t recognize a penumbra if it bit him on the hinder parts. But there is one more thing.
And so we come to our last point. Any nominee from a Republican president who is anything like Robert Bork . . . will be borked. That means it is necessary to have a president who will brawl over this. Look at the line-up of remaining Republican contenders and ask yourself two questions — which of these men will nominate no one but crawl-over-broken-glass originalists? And which of them will play smashmouth in defense of that nominee? There is only one answer, and it rhymes with bruise.
Not to be an alarmist, but is in the highest degree likely that there will be some metaphorical dead bodies over this before all is said and done. What we are talking about is a profound power struggle at the top of an empire, and those who have a naive faith that the progressives will somehow play fair because of “American ideals” or something need to go down to the nearest library and check out a history book. I am no expert in skullduggery, but I do know what I am doing when it comes to dougskullery. And I do see what is coming. I can see where we are.
I choose my words carefully, knowing that there are those on the left who will pronounce themselves outraged that I would dare to insinuate that they would descend to murder in defense of their agenda. “Have you no decency, sir?” But I said metaphorical, and we are well past the point where we need to pretend with regard to their open agenda. Their death-wish program is murder — 50 million non-metaphorical bodies and counting. And when cameras are smuggled in, and their vile deeds are fully documented, they indict the valiant people who exposed them? When that is what they are defending, do you think they will play fair with Supreme Court appointments in the pursuit of their goal?
So if the Republicans nominate anyone other than Cruz, it will be variations on the old “bringing a knife to a gunfight” jibe. And with the remaining candidates, the variations will range from bringing a knife to bringing a wadded up tissue.
Looks like I’ll have to Switch my vote from Trump to Ted Cruz or we lose this republic and slide into a real civil war ! The reason is obvious above:
You’re absolutely right about Cruz, and the others.
I’m right there with you in admiration for Scalia as a jurist.
As to him being at peace? I hope so, but every Bible-believing (to say nothing of Reformed) Christian has cause to fear otherwise, as Scalia was a committed member of a Gospel-perverting sect, and had no trouble parting with the Bible to follow Romegod.
Strict construction did not apply to the Bible for him, sadly.
Scalia was – sigh – not a strict constructionist. Why do people continue to make this mistake? He was – fortunately – an Originalist, which like the Catholic and Orthodox traditions of Christianity understood that the way the text was understood at the time actually matters (just like Tradition in the aforementioned traditions). And we can rest assured that Scalia is likely enjoying the presence of Christ at this very moment, faithful Christian that he was. I hope the same can be said of you when you are being separated out into either the goat or sheep group.
I always find comments like this one really helpful to remember when discussions of open communion come up. Rock on, Dan.
Oh dear. Not another member of the Mother-Teresa-is-in Hell crowd.
So … you’re effectively advocating Pelagianism?
And you antinomianism?
I think Catholics are closer to Arminianism. I do not believe that a person must subscribe to every tenet of Calvinist theology in order to see salvation. I know that it is not for me, or my petty understandings, to set limits around God’s mercy. And I know that my Redeemer liveth. I put my trust in His atoning death for my sins and in His promises.
Calvinism is as false as Romanism is … and, amusingly, when it needs to be — for instance, to give a rationale for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception — the Roman denomination can out-Calvin even the most staunch Calvinist.
I seriously doubt that you understand Calvinism. Arminianism is a celebration of human arrogance.
I think I have a reasonable grasp. Tell me where I go wrong: Calvinists believe that God selects only a few souls for salvation, for reasons unrelated to their merit, but to demonstrate His sovereignty. Because man is totally depraved, he is unable to help himself. Without the grace of God, he cannot believe or repent or even understand the Gospel message. God knew from the beginning of the world whom He would save and whom He would damn. The atoning death of Jesus benefits only those souls whom God has saved. If God has determined to save you, you… Read more »
” If such a person is unhappy rather than jubilant over the prospect of people burning in hell forever, it is because they think they are nicer than God” is pure hogwash. As to the preceding, you fairly well summarized what the Bible teaches. You have read it, have you not? God’s sovereignty in salvation is one of the clearest, most unambiguous doctrines in all of Scripture. If you would like a recitation of the pertinent passages, I would be happy to supply them to you, if you indeed actually believe what the Bible teaches. The one that immediately springs… Read more »
Somewhat of a caricature JB but close. This may be helpful:
EDIT: Sorry, here’s a better link:
https://www.wscal.edu/about-wsc/welcome-to-wsc/doctrinal-standards/canons-of-dort
Most Calvinists, including yours truly would say that mass murder was evidence of not being saved.
And Calvinism is the proposition that God doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
That’s just complete nonsense. Calvinism simply parrots the Scriptures. Take some time to read them. Or, perhaps, you don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
You have a strange parrot
.
God: Come, let us reason together …
Calvinism: bzzt!
God: Choose this day whom you will serve …
Calvinism: bzzt!
God: Repent and be saved …
Calvinism: bzzt!
God: IF my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways …
Calvinism: bzzt!
Booooooo!
God: Before the foundations of the world, I chose you. Arminian: No, you did not! God: You have been predestined for salvation. Arminian: No, I was not! Jesus: You did not choose me, I chose you. Arminian: No, you did not! Jesus: No one comes to me but that the Father draws him. Arminian: Where did you get that idea? Jesus: All that the Father has given me shall come to me. Arminian: No, they will not! God: You are born of incorruptible seed. Arminian: No, I was not! God: You are a chosen generation. Arminian: No, we are not!… Read more »
And Calvin and Hobes is more amusing than both!
Nevertheless, your response seems to indicate a belief that a person can be saved by being “good enough” or by doing good works … as though a human person can save himself, or contribute to his salvation.
As a Catholic, I don’t believe I can save myself through my own efforts. I rely on grace. I believe I must cooperate with grace. I believe Mother Teresa did good works because she loved God, not because she wanted to earn merit. Having experienced the love of Christ, she wanted to shine that love into the darkest corners of the world.
Jilly, FYI, God knows all hearts. Jesus also tells us that:
ERV “Good people have good things saved in their hearts. That’s why they say good things. But those who are evil have hearts full of evil, and that’s why they say things that are evil. What people say with their mouths comes from what fills their hearts.”
God knows who belongs to Him. To me your words seem in line with His. Your words don’t have to be the same as mine to be good!
I’m not a Roman Catholic, but I agree with jillybean that we don’t save ourselves with our own efforts. There are no branches of Christendom (other than probably some Protestant ones – but they cover almost every heretical possibility under the sun) that are Pelagian at this point. Semi Pelagian is simply a Calvinist ad hominem against everyone who is not a semi Muslim (i.e. Calvinist) determinist ;-)
Oh, the horror of attributing sovereignty to God, or to take Him at His word.
I would have said, Oh the horror of thinking so little of the mercy of God that you think He will torment for eternity every loving, believing Christian soul who does not share your precise theological formulations.
Is lying habitual with you?
I certainly hope not. And I do not accuse anyone of lying when they may simply be mistaken. What lie are you accusing me of?
Your entire characterization of me. A slur and an outright lie — “Oh the horror of thinking so little of the mercy of God that you think
He will torment for eternity every loving, believing Christian soul who
does not share your precise theological formulations.” Despicable.
I meant no slur against your character. It would have been more charitable for me to say, Oh the horror of anyone’s thinking so little of the mercy of God…” What I was a responding to was a thread in which people suggested that Scalia could not be in heaven because he was a Roman Catholic who, despite his faithful Christian life, did not interpret the Bible as some Protestants do. If you are not one of those people who believe Catholics are damned solely because they are Catholic, then I do most sincerely beg your pardon.
Accepted. I perceived “you” as a personal characterization of my beliefs. I have one criterion for those whom I believe will reach heaven, from the Bible: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Our sole trust must be in Jesus Christ apart from our works, which are not a cause of salvation but a consequence.
Looks like you got in the wrong crowd JB. Not all Calvinists are that obtuse. Some of us are more along the lines of what Katecho wrote to you in an earlier coment thread: “Speaking for myself, I recognize the baptism of Roman Catholics as fellow Christians, and I believe we confess the same Triune God. In addition, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that some of us Protestants (and even some early Reformers) are not so generous, and are guilty of a number of the generalizations that jillybean mentions. I’m no defender of grudges. However, I do wonder if jillybean… Read more »
Well jilly, chacolatte’s use of the word “dispicable” below, was the give away. Chacolatte is Daffy Duck’s new, waaaaaay over-caffeinated character!????
Ilion, how do you construe “I put my trust in His atoning death for my sins and in His promises” as meaning “a person can be saved by being good enough”?
“Ilion, how do you construe “I put my trust in His atoning death for my sins and in His promises” as meaning “a person can be saved by being good enough”?” Katie, you’re not really following the conversation, such as it is, are you? Firstly, Dan Phillips said that “Scalia was a committed member of a Gospel-perverting sect, and had no trouble parting with the Bible to follow Romegod” by way of speculating or insinuation that Scalia is not among the Redeemed. Now, it is true that Ramanism is “a Gospel-perverting sect”, and it *is* true that many (or even… Read more »
No, I’m not following the conversation, such as it is. Hence my question to you. Thank you for engaging me so that I might understand. What is jillybean’s “tin foil hat” you refer to? Can you explain to me how her statement of belief in Christ’s atonement makes no sense in the context of her response to Dan Phillips? I appreciate this may be tedious for you but I would be grateful.
So, my point is underscored. With a non-Christian readership, clarity is a must. As every Bible-believer knows, if Scalia believed his sect’s official positions, he’s not at peace. He insisted he did. I hope for his sake he didn’t.
I’m so thankful that Christ founded Christianity in the 1500s to save us all.
Straw-man alert…
Yes, the position that all Christian beliefs before the Reformation are heretical is indeed a straw man position.
And to get back to the original reason I commented: Dan Phillips, with colossal judgmental arrogance, dared to impugn one of the greatest and most stalwart figures in the history of the USA, who lived (as far as any human can judge) a faithful Christian life, by implying that he very well may be in hell. This is a high crime and disgusting. Catholicity be damned apparently, at the expense of favoring only your tiny sect. Paul, Apollos and all that.
Not to mention Dan’s intellectual slobbering all over the finer points of constitutional interpretation.
Bernard, are you saying that being one of the greatest and most stalwart figures in the history of the USA has any implications for salvation? If you’re trusting on such things for your salvation (as you apparently are for Scalia), then your faith is not of the saving sort. The only sort of faith that truly saves is scandalous.
Beliefs that contradict Scripture indeed are heretical.
Even your response to my straw-man alert was itself a straw-man–amazing…
The notion that protestants believe that is a straw man.
The following quote from Scalia may be helpful in this discussion, particularly in light of Dan Phillips’ statement that he hopes Scalia held to something better than Rome’s official soteriology. This is from a letter Scalia wrote to a Presbyterian minister after a funeral in which that minister, much to Scalia’s surprise, preached on the Resurrection rather than delivering a simple eulogy: “…even when the deceased was an admirable person—indeed, especially when the deceased was an admirable person—praise for his virtues can cause us to forget that we are praying for, and giving thanks for, God’s inexplicable mercy to a… Read more »
I just saw that and yes, I’m glad of it. I really hope Scalia did see past Rome’s damning heresies and lay hold of Christ. My only point is my original: saying a deceased Mormon, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Roman Catholic is at peace is not Gospelly helpful or appropriate, absent other evidence.
Thank you, Dan. It’s possible to admire a man’s colossal judicial legacy without conflating it with his salvation. Regardless of the resulting spittle in the comment section, the position of Rome remains unchanged.
Which Roman position do you believe dooms all its followers to perdition? And is the “spittle” the fact that some Catholics don’t like being told as fact that they do not love our Lord Jesus and trust Him for their salvation?
Rome is fine. Except for the fact that it teaches about an infallible Magisterium, and the bishop of Rome; it teaches about an oral tradition no one can identify but which existed outside of the Bible (and, in the case of the Marian dogmas, outside of—everything); it teaches about transubstantiation in all its Aristotelian glory, a never-perfecting sacrifice of Christ, propitiatory sacrifices overseen by men called alter Christus (“another Christ”), purgatory, satis passio, (the suffering of atonement in purgatory), indulgences, and the whole range of Marian dogmas and corollaries including de fide definitions of beliefs utterly unknown to the Apostles… Read more »
Jillybean, I was raised Catholic. I was taught that my good works would be weighed before God, and if I had enough, I’d get into purgatory where I would expiate the rest of my sins, until finally I was good enough for heaven. This is NOT scriptural teaching! Do some Catholics believe that they are saved by grace alone? Perhaps; and if so, that is well. The denomination doesn’t matter; it’s the submission to the Word that matters. If we add works, or baptism, or church membership, we do despite to grace.
“Here is how I understand the odds. Trump would nominate someone with the constitutional acumen of a pot of boiled asparagus.”
Surely you did not mean to denigrate asparagus? Yea even bolied asparagus? Isn’t boiled asparagus right up there along side green beans w/ pistachios?
Considering what we got on some Court seats, I’d be good with a pot of boiled asparagus on some of them!
Boiled asparagus is a poor way to to make it, (far better roasted or steamed) but I would never denigrate asparagus. It is one of the most wonderful of vegetables. However its goodness lies nowhere in the area of constitutional acumen, so I have no problem with Mr. Wilson’s excellent metaphor.
Grilled with olive oil and Montreal Steak Salt till they’re a little black and crispy on the outside. Maybe blanch and shock them ahead of time to speed things up. http://imgur.com/a/Xh0Cm. That’s what I’m talking about.
Once you learn to roast vegetables, you don’t look back.
Lady Dunsworth.
The other Emily Post! ; – )
My favorite vegetable when steamed. I have no idea how to do it though.
It’s very, very easy. Just snap the spears where they break naturally, boil a half-inch of water in a skillet, put the spears in, and cover for a couple of minutes. Check for tenderness at the thickest points and add a minute or two more if necessary. Ideally, you use a steamer so that the spears don’t touch the water, but not everyone has a steamer large enough for the spears.
Thanks. A steamer sounds like a good idea. If it isn’t fried, grilled, or in the stew category I’ve never done it.
Oh, you’re a man-cook. I’m married to one of those. :)
Thankfully I’m married to a woman-cook who pampers me. :)
I agree that Doug should not insult asparagus, even boiled.
The proper vegetable for this insult is Brussels Sprouts. Not because they are bad, but because, well, Brussels…
Can’t we all just agree that Kale smoothies are the proper vehicle for vegitative contempt? ; – )
YES!
Unfortunately that’s the only thing that I can get to grow in my garden.
Please, please, for your own sake! Try and switch to spinach! Look what it did for Popeye!????
“Look what it did for Popeye!????”
You cant argue with that.
Kale is delicious in soups, but this rage for drinking nasty looking green stuff eludes me entirely.
Don’t know about kale, but you can put some *frozen* spinach in a smoothie. Though it does look a bit nasty-green, you don’t taste it (win!). Couldn’t believe it until I tried it myself.
I know this is about the abortion issue. We think that getting a president who will appoint a pro-life judge is somehow going to bring about the repeal of Roe v. Wade. It won’t. The only way for there to be any real change is for individual states to nullify that federal law. But the problem with that is that people might actually have to make some real sacrifices and face real consequences from the power-mad federal government. We might have to face some tangible discomfort by standing up for what we believe. And that’s a lot harder than simply… Read more »
Our future seems to involve either boiled asparagus, skullduggery, or metaphorical bloodshed. Do you have any scenario to offer where we might just get to hit zombies upside the head with a shovel?
Unfortunately it probably involves (more) actual bloodshed as well.
The probability of actual bloodshed is directly proportional to the diversity of people identified as “nonpersons” and thus vulnerable to choice.
Doug, I could not agree more.
“There is only one Republican running — who has a realistic shot at this”
Can someone here make a case that Cruz could actually win the general election? It seems impossible to me given the state of the electorate and Cruz’s undeniably off-putting personality.
RealClearPolitics aggregates numbers from all major polls. Their average shows Cruz leading Sanders in a general election matchup and barely trailing Clinton. All within the MoE, but that’s still fantastic considering the base hasn’t totally coalesced around Cruz yet. Also, you can bet that he’ll eviscerate Bernie (fool) or Hillary (felon) on a debate stage during the general election, which will help his numbers. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Not sure how much stock to put in polls. My sense is that Cruz would fit the archetype of the “evil conservative” and the youth of the nation would come out in mass to vote against him.
I know a lot of very liberal young people (and, here in Southern California, I don’t know any young people who aren’t liberal). My impression is that Cruz is seen as a charmless theocrat while Trump is seen as a potentially liberal buffoon. They don’t much like Hillary, but they would rally behind her to prevent a Cruz presidency.
I think that Mr. Dabney was a naive optimist by granting the final position:
“conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, it, final position.”
If a Roman emperor could put a horse in the Senate then surely in the current year we can put one on the Supreme Court.
A chimp in legal robes would be much more adorable in the group photos.
It is often a depressing thought. Dear and idealistic as many of these young people may be, I don’t think that the idea of putting their nation’s interests ahead of their own has ever crossed their minds.
Believing that one can have national interests is racist.
Which tells you all you need to know about their idealism.
Has he swept the stage with his fellow Republicans?
“undeniably off-putting personality”
I have not witnessed this “off-putting” of which you speak. I have witnessed calm, clear, logical explanations of his positions. That has not been off-putting to me.
Everyone supposedly hated Reagan too.
But when speaking unfiltered, he was quite wining.
(to use the correct descriptive!)
You think Ted Cruz has the charm of Ronald Reagan!?! This is what’s frustrating about this message board. It’s a bizzaro world!
“It’s a bizzaro world!”
Welcome to the internet.
Reagan “had no charm”, depending on who one asked. Nothing “bizarre ” about the fact of Reagan hate at the time.????
I guess I’ll take your word for it, as I wasn’t around, but it has always been my impression that even Reagan’s greatest detractors admitted that he could charm the pants off of a room.
From someone who was around, his protective detail had high order tasking with a very active op tempo.
J-kill, RFB might co-confirm that libs were rip-bleep with Reagan 24/7 at the time. Stick around sonny boy! Glad to hear how you perceive things!????
I’ve often seen pants without a room, but a room without pants…
That’s not even close to being true. Many left-wingers despised Reagan’s politics, but admitted he was personally charming and likable.
“Many left-wingers despised Reagan’s politics, but admitted he was personally charming and likable.”
And who ever was left over from “many” hated Reagan 24/7. Hence the term:
“Reagan Ranch”, aka a make shift homeless hovell. : – (
Sounds like Trump…
“I like the guy, I really do, but he’s completely (insert insult)”
Sorry to tell you, but to the average american he comes off like an over-ambitious used-car salesman. Just look at how he is portrayed by comedians. All humor has some kernel of truth.
J Killmaster said:
Thanks for saying this. That’s all I need to know.
Unfortunately, much of the electorate make their decisions based on popular media (Saturday Night Live, the Daily Show, etc.). Plugging your ears and stamping your feet doesn’t change this.
Much, many and average would seem to be descriptors of data that are not easily attainable.
J Killmaster said:
Same goes for Trump, right? Or are you plugging your ears and stamping your feet?
Indeed. I think the only hope for Trump is that he could steal the blue-collar white vote and some of the black vote from the Democrats. The former because Trump pushes for import tariffs and the latter because blacks respect in-your-face ostentation (bling and B#%ches).
“…to the average american…”
And how is it sir, that you have sufficient data to speak for the “average american”?
Some people might define your statement as projection.
I have no issue with Cruz personally. I base my description of him off of how he is portrayed in Popular Media. My guess is that you are over 35, and are unaware of how those under 35 in this country are a hive-mind, plugged into and influenced by a social media apparatus that yields incredible power.
You might be speaking from your perspective, but none of those “under 35” that I know personally (both familial and non-familial) fit your description. Maybe your perspective of said “hive” is limited by your cell.
Alas, it is the only perspective I have.
If that’s true shouldn’t you have specified “the average American under 35”? I don’t know as that dooms Cruz’s chances; generally the younger the eligible voter the less likely they are to vote in the first place.
It seems interesting that as the culture declines, an odd juxtaposition occurs between the assumed maturity (by the authors of the U.S. Constitution ) of Representatives, Senators, or a President relative to their required age, and what one sees now in some of those age groupings.
To the extent that’s true, they’re voting for Bernie anyway, and it has nothing to do with not liking Cruz because he talks like an adult.
Whether or not he’s right, your response proves that you *will not* see what’s right in front of your face. I mean, really … when a person acts like a “liberal” when doing so is a convenient way to attempt to silence another, why shouldn’t others conclude that he really is a “liberal”, even if he doesn’t yet realize it himself?
His personality is very off-putting. He is not a likable person by any stretch of the imagination.
You are welcome to your opinion of whether you like him or not; you can only speak for yourself regarding that issue.
Nonetheless, whether a person is “likable” is a shallow and banal measure of a person’s ability to perform in a specific position. When I perform research for something important, (elective surgery, mechanical system infrastructure repair or installation, legal representation, etc), whether the person retained is likable is immaterial. I am not picking the guy I want to sit with and sip bourbon. I am hiring expertise.
Did I ever mention that my performance and expertise in sitting and sipping bourbon is quite significant?
Beyond that, some people even like me! ; – )
If you run for president, I will vote for you.
Thanks Jilly! I had often speculated, while sipping boubon, that my modest bourbon sipping skills would pay of handsomely one day!
I suppose that now is as good a time as any, to mention that I am also blessed with a remarkably Judicial temperment! ; – )
Haha…Of course likability is a shallow measure – But I guess that’s where you need to speak for yourself, because it has proven to be a factor in these elections, whether you like it or not, so the comparison to elective surgery etc is irrelevant. That case is best made to the people who actually vote based on likability.
Obama’s likability is off the charts, regardless of what anyone thinks of his policies – That’s why he was able to do the impossible and get elected President. Reagan was a charming, likable character as well.
Again, since you seem to not understand the point I am making, let me try once more: “That case is best made to the people who actually vote based on likability.” Well, since that is not me, and apparently you are not including yourself in said classification, then exactly what group of people do you presume to be representing? Because, excluding me and yourself (which it seems you have also excluded), you are projecting a subjective attribute that you cannot substantiate. For example, you mention “Obama’s likability”. According to what subset. How “likable” would you presume him to be if… Read more »
Oh I get what you’re trying to say – And I guess you’re more than free to disregard the various polls and commentary, many in and outside of Washington, and honestly, the eye test, for anyone who follows politics closely. Go ahead and disregard that. My point is that my personal perception is that Mr Cruz is unlikable, opinion from pundits and polls alike have confirmed this (again, feel free to disregard), and I think it hurts him. It’s simple. It’s like saying Mr Trump is brash, or that Mr Bush seems timid – There’s no “factual” basis of it,… Read more »
“…probably be a horrible campaign strategist…”
You are correct on that one. I have never been sympathetic to the premise of voting.
If personality is the measure to which we vote, rather than the principles of Liberty, we will surely continue to lose those liberties. It won’t be the personality of the man that defeats a socialist candidate; it will be the contrasting ideals of Liberty espoused by a candidate that has these principles deeply planted in their soul and articulated without apology. Ted Cruz is that man.
So you are saying truth will prevail, and that is why Ted will win in a head-to-head against Bernie or Hillary. Why then do the lies gain such muster with the 45% of the electorate who call themselves Democrats?
We must always stand on truth and the principles of God. Pray for eyes to be opened and for the nation to return to Him. I have faith in The Lord and His Word. We are being tested by God. I choose righteousness. He is our only hope.
2 Chronicles 7:14
“if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”
It seems to me a tremendous stretch to say that Cruz articulates his ideals without apology. How quickly did he accept homosexual marriage, falling back to a “religious liberty” argument? In the last debate, was his would-be dependence on Kurdish ground forces to be taken seriously? What about his abolish the IRS and taxes on a postcard? How do you suppose that would work for me as a self-employed person (farmer), for instance? Will I not have to depreciate capital expenses any more? Will I not have to keep track of and report mileage? Save receipts to prove expenses? Ted… Read more »
“Electability” is a false narrative meant to keep us from remembering Presidents Dole, McCain, and Romney, and the second term of H.W. Bush (who was only elected on Reagan’s coattails). Put a conservative on the ballot in November, and the progressives/socialists will be demolished.
You propose that there is a large group of conservatives who did not vote for Romney in the last election because he wasn’t ideologically pure enough, to the extent that they were willing to accept another Obama term for the sake of principal. I hope you are right, but I think another scenario, that the country simply isn’t conservative anymore, is more likely true.
You know, I don’t think I disagree with you on that. But I’m not sure the country is ideologically liberal either. Mostly, I think it’s just self-centered. I’m not a huge Limbaugh fan, but I think he’s onto something with his “low-information voter” motif. And low-information voters, by definition, can go either way, theoretically. They’re emotional more than they are rational. What really hurt Romney wasn’t that many conservatives didn’t *vote* for him; it was that they didn’t *support* him. A candidate needs supporters, who will persuade others to vote for him. Romney didn’t have that, because many conservatives rightly… Read more »
There were a lot of conservatives, myself included, who refused to vote for Romney on account of his hand in Romneycare, gay marriage in MA, and refusal to speak courageously and plainly about the evil of abortion. Some voted third party, some stayed home.
Realism vs Idealism – that is the question. We as Christians are not supposed to value worldly power, yet on the other hand we are supposed to be “wise as serpents.” Losing every election for the sake of ideological purity doesn’t seem very wise in hindsight. Holding our noses and voting for Romney, then pressuring him to do our will would have been more “serpentine” in my opinion.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Pragmatism can be taken too far. Will you be voting for Donald Trump if he gets the nomination?
As a Cruz supporter, I agree that Cruz is lacking in warmth and charm and would have an uphill climb against an opponent who has these qualities. But he would not be going up against a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. He will be going up against Hillary Clinton. Someone who is distrusted by the majority of Democratic voters, who lacks any warmth or charm (is actually much worse in this area than Cruz), and is anathema to the young vote. Bernie Sanders got something like 80% of the youth vote in Iowa and NH. Now the youth vote may… Read more »
Thank you for being honest about Cruz’s personality. I think your point is valid; personality probably would be a non factor if it were Cruz vs. Clinton. At this point though I think that if Trump doesn’t get the nomination he will go 3rd party, virtually guaranteeing a Clinton win in the general.
Yes. Imagine Cruz vs. Hillary in a debate. Hillary would be toast
Unfortunately, the voters might prefer her, even with an indictment, because she will promise free stuff.
But then we get what we deserve, good and hard.
Perhaps God will have a say in it.
On the other hand, “Bruise” is not a natural born US citizen — when is to say, when the Constitution stands between him and his ambition, then to Hell with the Constitution.
edit —
Furthermore, that nasty trick his campaign played against Carson in Iowa — and his response/rationalization about it — shows his ambition to be what controls him.
And you people *will not* see it.
8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at Birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of
parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years
Thanks, I was getting tired of pasting that in various places.
I didn’t say he isn’t a US citizen; I said he isn’t a natural born US citizen.
.
Why is it that you people who will not see the truth *always* muddy the waters on this point? Oh, silly me! It’s because you *will not* speak the truth, and wish to keep others from seeing it.
Actually he is considered a natural born citizen. So was McCain too. The argument has no traction, and no legal precedent.
1) I don’t care about “considered”; I care about truth
2) McCain wasn’t merely “considered” a natural born US citizen, he *is* one
3) What is it with you people, that you *will not* think about this?
4) No “legal precedent”? What about Chester Arthur?
??? You confuse me. Chester Arthur was President, born in Vermont. And there us no chance that a court will say Cruz can’t run because he * is * a natural born citizen. The only public figure espousing this type of f.u.d. Is Trump. No one else on any side of the aisle is talking about this. It’s almost in tin foil hat territory. ????
Duells Quimby: “??? You confuse me. Chester Arthur was President, born in Vermont.” You are confused — and I fully expect that, similarly with others in this thread who are actively attacking my person (*), you will continue to be confused — because you decline to be un-confused. The question of whether Chester Arthur was Constitutionally qualified to be US president did not turn on where he was born. Just as the question of whether Obama, or Cruz, or Jindal, or Rubio are Constitutionally qualified to be US president does not turn on where they were born. Chester Arthur is… Read more »
So, you’re a Rubio guy??
Let me ask it directly then: What is a *natural born* citizen? See RFB’s comment/explanation.
The cited code says that said person is a citizen “at birth”, and by definition, is not a “naturalized” (the only other kind of) citizen.
Please provide me with verbiage directly from the U. S. Constitution that says something different than the above.
Hmm, ‘wonder if uninformed personal opinions go “to Heaven”? (as opposed to other places?)
It reminds me of the joke:
Q: “Is there anything that you have not thought of?”
A: “I don’t know…how could I?”
Do you ever wonder what happens to willfully “uninformed personal opinions”?
Like yours?
Please, ….
do tell! ; – )
(See 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at Birth: (g)) per RFB!
Once again, the issue is not mere US citizenship.
“Once again”, “natural born” is apparently defined by “8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at Birth: (g)”
Adams, Jefferson, Franklin…..I lion.
I lion, please provide your correct legal definition of “natural born”, chapter and verse, which is not the same as your personal opinion. (Where ever it should happen to go!)
It’s a shame about Justice Scalia, but his death certainly rocked the political scene.
“This is not awkward timing — it is perfect timing.”
Agree completely. If America wants another Elena Kegan, let them elect a democrat. If they want a shot at a Scalia, then a republican not named Trump is the man to elect. (And I agree that out of this bunch Cruz would probably give the highest chance.) Its perfect timing.
Pastor Wilson, your conservatism is showing again. Fretting over which shade of jurist we get and about Constitutionalism is playing on the progressives’ game board. When the Devil invites you to a game of chess, why even sit down at the table?
Better to spend time attacking the actual centers of power, rather than focusing on the reality-show presidential race — or better, building new ones. (New St Andrews is certainly a vital step in that direction, for which I am very grateful.)
Right, because only until one is a white nationalist who views IQ as Human Destiny can one truly be a “conservative.”
To whom are you referring? (I am neither a “white nationalist” nor a “conservative”.)
Kinism, as I understand it, is white nationalism with a Reformed gloss. Or, you have my folksy way of defining a Kinist: an man of middling intelligence who’s never talked to a woman before, but when he does he’s sure what he skin tone and eye color will be. You know, you’ve got to propagate the white master race and kick all the cultural Marxist half breeds out, amirite?
Then what kind of nationalist are you? :)
“Southern nationalist” is as good a label as any, though I reject the liberalism typically associated with the term.
Ok, honest answer and what you’d consider reasonably accurate. I’m thinking though – If white nationalist doesn’t accurately describe you, still, doesn’t white have *something*, really quite a bit, to do with Southern nationalism? Am I entirely off in thinking that? Also – “the liberalism typically associated with the term” – I confess I don’t know enough about the subject to understand what you mean by that.
The Southern states were settled by the English, Spanish and French, so yes, it’s a civilisation built by white people. “White Nationalists” are people who want to form a society based on a rather weak ethnic tie; for Midwesterners and non-Yankee Northerners I suppose that may be the best some of them can do, but Southerners have an actual society and tradition they can try to restore that goes back 300+ years. By “liberalism” I mean the whole democracy/equality/popular-government package — the ideals of the American Revolution.
Then a southern culture/civilization is the emphasis of Southern nationalism, more than ethnicity per se, but that civilization is one by/of western Europeans and their descendants – if I’m understanding correctly. For the second part, what you prefer as best for a society includes something in addition to or beyond the aims of the mainstream of Southern nationalism, like restoration of monarchy for example – again, if I’m understanding you correctly .
I agree with Alexander Pope: “For forms of government let fools contest; whate’er is best administered is best.”
Ted Cruz also went to the bat for John Roberts, of whom there were plenty of red flags prior to his appointment.
Were there really red flags? I wasn’t aware of any, but I wasn’t following things very closely. What were the red flags?
Cruz withstood a blistering campaign for the Senate against Republican establishment’s David Dewhurst. It was the same stuff we’re hearing now. Nobody likes you and you look funny and, oh yeah, you lie. That was the worst they could throw at him. The Texans (young and old) saw through it and elected him based on his record which is genuinely impressive. He’s smart, consistent and doesn’t care what the weenies in Washington threaten him with because if they didn’t make him, there’s not as much they can do to break him. He is a man of the people in the… Read more »
The accusation of “Nobody likes you” holds the most sway with those given to the hypnotic allure of being liked. They are puzzled and dismayed when encountering those who give it no weight.
It reminds me of another statement by a guy who was told “Nobody likes you”: “I did not come here to be liked, I came here to do the job. If I wanted to be liked, I would join a country club.”
Cruz withstood a blistering campaign for the Senate against Republican establishment’s David Dewhurst. It was the same stuff we’re hearing now. Nobody likes you and you look funny and, oh yeah, you lie
Nonsense. I live in Texas, and David Dewhurst was most certainly NOT saying Cruz “looks funny” or “nobody likes him.”
You can’t just make stuff up and post it. Well, you can, but you reveal yourself to be either extremely stupid, or extremely dishonest.
“We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. …. Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity.” Scalia said this? Wow and thanks.
Lack of that prayer and that courage is what did in mainline churches long ago, and may do in some presently evangelical ones. Which tells us where we need to start.
Anyone you can name you’d like to see nominated? I’d like to see Clint Bolick and Chip Mellor from the Institute for Justice considered, and maybe other IJ lawyers. (One of those two I think recently got on a state court in Arizona.)
Offtopic, but I’d like to hear Doug’s thoughts on the rape-threatening Purdue professor who didn’t receive as much as a slap on the wrist because it was against the family of a pro-lifer. Google Jamie Newman for loads of coverage from the major media outlets. (that last bit was sarcasm unless you didn’t know).
ruse
So nobody is talking about the elephant in the room? Doug’s talking about “metaphorical murder,” why not actual murder?
Was Scalia murdered? No autopsy, found with a pillow over his head, strange circumstances everywhere.
He was to weigh in on PP Texas case amoung other lightening-rod cases.
Does the wicked Establishment kill it’s enemies and cover the murders up?
Poindexter ( owner of resort) is a big Democrat donor and is pictured with Barry.
No autopsy makes this whole thing stink like rank Limberger
Nice try. But what if the shoe was on the other foot?
What if this was G.W. Bush’s last year in office, with a strong chance of a Dem winning the Presidential, and the death of a liberal justice, would you really still believe that this should be a decision for the next President?
I smell a lot of hypocrisy on this issue.
Jonathon, it’s not hypocrisy if there is a right and wrong answer. Obama’s answer, regardless of where he stands in his tenure as president would be wrong. Biblically, completely, constitutionally, wrong.
We should desire right judges with right judgments. The only Messiah is Jesus. Cruz is no messiah. But he would be leaps and bounds more biblically and constitutionally correct than Obama. Therefore that is what we are to work for.
When the ship is headed over the waterfall, what use is it to brawl over what the figurehead on front should be replaced with?
Preach it, brother!
Politics these days is no more than entertainment.
If that’s what God is doing, if he’s going to give us a Hillary or a Bernie, if he took Scalia for the same reason, then God is good and he is just. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
Our job is still to remain faithful to what he has already revealed, which is to work for justice–biblically defined.
Yes. But neither voting for federal officials, nor fretting about choice of bureaucrats, counts as “working for justice”.
Who said anything about fretting? I’m not wringing my hands. I personally think God is going to deliver us to the very godlessness we (as a country) seem to desire. But as a citizen who believes that while it might not be required of me to vote, but that I certainly have that freedom in the gospel, that I’ll vote as biblically as possible.
And if the sum-total of my work for justice is voting, then I whole-heartedly agree with you. But it certainly falls within that sphere.
It is hypocrisy, but only because conservatives are hypocritical liberals.
*Most* persons who call themselves ‘conservative’ are really “unprincipled liberals” (*), not all are. For, example, I’m not.
(*) an “unprincipled liberal” is someone who implicitly accepts the leftist assumptions which undergird “liberalism” — he just doesn’t care for where the logic of those premises goes. Thus, in an ultimately futile effort to escape going to those places, he makes “unprincipled exceptions” to those premises. But, since he has no principle by which to make-and-defend those exceptions, he will *always* cave once the leftists decide to take his latest “hill to die on”.
Sure. I’m specifically referring to American conservatives in the current year, though — all of whom accept liberal presuppositions.
We’ve all been marinated in those leftist presuppositions, almost from birth: it takes effort — and, generally, the help of others — to come to see that the falseness-to-reality isn’t merely in where those presuppositions lead, but in the presuppositions themselves.
.
My point is that the unprincipled exceptions the he-only-thinks-he’s-conservative makes can be an opening to help him come to that realization.
When you remove liberal assumptions from American conservatism, what is left?
Didn’t Reagan put Kennedy on the court in his last year before the election?
Kennedy’s predecessor retired mid-summer of 1987. That would be the more relevant date.
It’s also relevant that Reagan hadn’t issued huge, contentious executive orders to accomplish things that he wanted Congress to do but that Congress didn’t want to do.
Excellent. Excellent. Very well done. Recommending and sharing. Thank you, Doug Wilson.
Republicans have made their livings off of the abortion issue for 40 years. Why would they want to break up a good racket?
Since the Constitution *actually* makes the supreme Court (*) subservient to Congress, Congress could totally outlaw abortion at any time, if they really want to do so.
(*) that is, after all, the capitalization used in said document for that organ of government
snooze
Concerning Cruz (and Rubio, and Jindal, and Obama) and his non-relationship to natural born US citizenship, one of the I-will-not-see-the-truth-and-will-do-my-best-to-keep-others-ignorant contingent makes the following (false) assertion and (disingenuous) demand — “The cited code says that said person is a citizen “at birth”, and by definition, is not a “naturalized” (the only other kind of) citizen. Please provide me with verbiage directly from the U. S. Constitution that says something different than the above.” So, to put paid to both the assertion and the demand, I reference the Constitution — “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of… Read more »
What kind of citizen were the ones who were present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence?
Particularly John Witherspoon, born in Gifford, Scotland, James Wilson, born in Carskerdo, Scotland, Matthew Thornton, born in Ireland, George Taylor, born in Ireland, James Smith, born in Northern Ireland, Robert Morris, born in Liverpool England, Francis Lewis, born in Llandaff, Wales, and Button Gwinnett, born in Gloucester, England.
“….you all know this; therefore, you *also* know….”
Well, at least well run lemonade stands can continue in anonymous success, absent interference from those who know otherwise! ;-/
I think you can relax llion. You’ve secured your place as the February troll of the month. Phew, for a while there I was worried.
I am so sorry — I misjudged you: I judged you to be simply mistaken; instead, you insist that you are intellectually dishonest.
However, in my defense, I hadn’t yet read all your posts at me.
Before 1776, there were no US citizens.
Do you know this? After that, there was a time called……..
“the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,”
That time has now passed, since the US Const. was adopted and the US citizens who were born before the US existed, have all passed.
Don’t ya know? ; – )
Your arguments are falling flat, Ilion, without any alternative explanation of where the line lies between citizen at birth and natural born citizen.
Speaking of death conspiracies from the left- why no autopsy for Scalia?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/15/conspiracy-theories-swirl-around-the-death-of-antonin-scalia/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_conspiracies-215pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
lose
See Washington Post article raising same question about no autopsy.
bemuse
Let me guess,
Cruz?
Trump has given two names he’d consider for Supreme Court: Diane Sykes and Bill Pryor.
Who does Cruz like currently?
I’m sure Cruz would love to nominate Benjamin Netanyahu. But he would probably have to settle for Jonathan Pollard.
How fascinating that the death of Antonin Scalia has transformed the Democrats into staunch defenders of the Constitution.
Just listened to Cruz talk at Community Bible Church in Beaufort, SC…..well worth the hour invested as he documents what IS at stake, now that Scalia has died….This CRUZ speech “put the cookies on the bottom shelf”, GO HAVE SOME MILK AND COOKIES TODAY!
This may have been posted, I didn’t wade through all the comments. The article suggests that there is, at least, tangential precedent for waiting to appoint a new Justice to the SCOTUS. And even if there wasn’t, I imagine the Republican-controlled Congress will block and stall until the election.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html
Here’s the relevant portion:
“…in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”
On the “dark humor” side of things, we get The Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-compiles-shortlist-gay-transsexual-abortion–52361?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default
“…President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia…”
Cruz or bust.
Considering the dirty trick that the Cruz campaign pulled against Carson in Iowa — and Cruz’s response when called on it — “Cruz or bust” just means “Bust!”
Cruz is a deceiver. He probably would appoint a good judge, but people should not vote for someone willing to lie their way to the presidency. Sure wish Rand was around about now. He would have chosen another Scalia.
“Cruz is a deceiver … people should not vote for someone willing to lie their way to the presidency.”
That’s what Iowa taught me about Cruz. Before that, I *wished* he were a natural born US citizen.
Yeah, there’s that problem too.
Sure wish Rand was around about now. He would have chosen another Scalia.
LMAO.
Yeah, Rand Paul, the guy who couldn’t grab his ankles often enough for Al Sharpton and the Black LIves Matter radicals, the guy who said he wants to repeal all laws for which blacks are arrested at higher rates than whites, (i.e. pretty much all laws) would’ve appointed another Scalia.
Yeah. Sure he would’ve.
“The question before the country ought to be, “Who do you want to make the nomination to fill that seat?” It is a controversial issue — so let the American people decide it. This is not awkward timing — it is perfect timing.” I agree with this, so long as the proposal is not put forth as some sort of universal convention of political courtesy that holds in all cases regardless of the particulars. The reasons why this approach is legitimate is unavoidably tied to the merits of the underlying differences in judicial philosophy and constitutional construction. If we give… Read more »
The fundamental problem of conservatism is that it treats enemies as if they were opponents. The conflict between Christendom and liberalism is not a contest where both sides agree to abide by the same rules; it’s war, and it will continue until they are separated into different societies or one blots out the other entirely.
I’m not suggesting that we ought to get our terms and arguments straight for the sake of satisfying the perpetually intellectually dishonest. But, while that is not a worthy motivation, it does not follow that we ought not seek to get our terms and arguments straight. There are other reasons for doing so. There are rightly inclined folks out there, Christians included, who have not necessarily clearly thought things through at any given juncture, and they need to hear clear consistent articulations of why we are pursuing this course or that. Yes, the truly dishonest souls out there will still… Read more »
I couldn’t make heads or tails of that.
My apologies if I muddled it. At the risk of a little oversimplification, let me put it this way: 1. My first post made the point that those in favor of giving Obama’s nomination efforts the stiff arm ought to refine their justification for it. I agree Obama ought be given no quarter in such efforts, but I think the articulated reason ought to get to the crux of first principles of governing and jurisprudence, rather than this cute little dance about supposed standard practices of political courtesy in election year vacancies -which comes off as mere opportunism. 2. Your… Read more »
Glenn Beck says Jesus killed Scalia so that America would elect Cruz president.
So that’s good to know. I guess I’ll switch from Trump to Cruz, then. I mean if Jesus goes to the extreme of killing Antonin Scalia, it sounds like kind of a big deal that we vote for Cruz.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/glenn-beck-god-brought-about-scalias-death-so-america-would-vote-for-ted-cruz/
It’s amazing how fast evangelicals have added Mormonism into the syncretistic pie in the wake of Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney. How long before guys like Rusty Moore and Franklin Graham start talking about America’s Judeo-Mormo-Christian heritage?
Obummer should go out with a bang and nominate Cruz to fill the spot. We would not know what to do.