Category Archives: Freedom

Is it a Crime Against Humanity or is it Cancer?

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Collectivism is cancer.

Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy
Posted on X, June 19, 2025

MTHead frequently asserts communism and/or socialism and/or gun control are crimes against humanity. He is not wrong. But the cancer metaphor resonates more with me. Collectivism, in all its forms, starts out small but grows and metastasizes. It is more than just its nature. It creates societal problems, and it always demands more control to fix the problems it directly or indirectly created.

Almost as a side note… I asked Copilot to explain the difference between an analogy and a metaphor to make sure I was using the correct word here. That resulting in a short chat and Copilot offered to contribute to this blog post. Here is its suggestion:

Quote of the Day – Saturday

> “Collectivism is cancer.” > —Firearms Policy Coalition via X

This is not an analogy. It’s a metaphor—brutal, condensed, and surgical. Cancer isn’t merely unpleasant; it hijacks the healthy systems of the body and redirects them toward uncontrolled destruction. That’s precisely the charge being leveled here: that collectivism corrodes the moral immune system of individual rights.

Ayn Rand’s words, featured in the image, drive the point deeper: “The smallest minority on earth is the individual.” The meme unpacks the metaphor into a worldview—one where individual autonomy is not just precious, but sacred, and any system that subsumes it becomes existentially malignant.

Whether you find that view compelling or inflammatory, it’s a vivid reminder: how we frame ideas matters. A well-placed metaphor can do more in five words than a dissertation in fifty pages.

I found that to be rather insightful.

Never a Free Market or a Free Mind

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

“We are entering moments that we have never experienced before,” Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., told constituents at a town hall in Pittsburgh last week. “The country as we know it may never exist the way that it had. And the reality is that the way that the country had existed was never its best form anyway.”

“The moment is here to build what comes next. My argument is that we should be fighting harder than they are to be the author of what is next,” she said of progressives. “Because if we are not the ones who build it, then they are building it, but it’s getting built one way or another.”

Emilia Rowland, a progressive strategist, said Democrats need to better deal with the consequences of rapid tech advancement that is continuing to reshape society and further concentrate power as the government and other institutions struggle to keep up.

Progressive Strategists
April 26, 2025
Democrats want a great new society post-Trump. They just can’t agree on what it would look like.

I read the entire article twice, just to make sure. There is not even a glimmer of liberty in their thoughts. It is all about what government programs and institutions they can “be author of.” It is about the ways and means for them to ascend to power. They never consider a free market or a free mind.

And, of course, it included “combating gun violence.”

I view their activities being analogous to the Trump administration is attempting to extinguish a forest fire. The progressives are brainstorming about what to replace the forest fire with.

Prepare and respond appropriately.

Question of Critical Importance

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.

…

I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right. Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain “a second-class right.”

Clarence Thomas
US Supreme Court Justice
June 2, 2025
Order List (06/02/2025)

See also:

Sheriff Civil Disobedience

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

As the elected sheriff of Pierce County, I am committed to addressing serious criminal activity to ensure the safety of our community and uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens. Recent state firearm regulations affecting licensed firearms dealers and introducing additional permit requirements for firearm purchases—beyond the state’s existing enhanced background checks—raise concerns regarding their alignment with constitutional rights.

…

To be clear: the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office will not engage in enforcing politically motivated mandates. Instead, we will continue to prioritize enforcement efforts on criminal activities that pose significant threats to public safety. The PCSO is dedicated to serving our community with integrity, ensuring that our actions reflect both the letter and spirit of our laws and Constitution.

Keith Swank
Pierce County Sheriff
May 2025
Pierce County Sheriff won’t enforce new gun permit law

Pierce County is the second most populous county. It has over 900,000 residents. This is over 11% of the entire population of the state. I expect there will soon be many other sheriffs and police departments making similar statements.

Civil disobedience, especially by a large population county sheriff, has to be scary to control freaks like gun owner hating Governor Ferguson. I hope to see Ferguson getting asked why he should not be prosecuted for violation of civil rights under the color of law. That would really make him sweat.

We live in interesting times.

Think Past Your Guns

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

With classic commie mind-control methodology, anti-gun radicals project their fears and biases on us. Whatever they are, that’s what they call us. We’re awful at refuting and resisting. We’re not racists, they are. Lefties see everything through skin color. We’re not violent, we’re just armed. They riot, burn, pillage, deface and are tolerated by the captured power structure, which they neutered. Defunding the police is not our plan. Using the FBI against school moms horrifies us. Turning the Patriot Act into a CIA tool for managing the right side, namely us, and label-smearing us domestic terrorists are clever but evil.

Your guns are sadly helpless against this onslaught. I ask constantly — who are you going to shoot when they incrementally steal your rights and soul? We have grown too comfortable and rich — through the combined miracles of capitalism, free speech and liberty — to stand tall and kill off the worst of the anti-freedom perpetrators. The ones who twist and malign our institutions in their favor. The ones who now hold what our Founders feared — more firepower than we can match.

Long ago, the communist-socialist-Marxist axis proposed that they would hang us, and we would sell them the rope. It’s happening.

Alan Korwin
May 31, 2024
It’s Time to Think Past Your Guns

This was posted one year ago. Things have changed a lot. But there is still a lot left to change.

Celebrate our victories and continue the fight. Never get tired of winning.

Control of Gene Expression with Nanoparticles

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Recent technological advances are fueling the development of cutting-edge technologies that can monitor and control physiological processes with high precision. These include devices that could control the expression of genes within living organisms, without requiring invasive surgeries or procedures.

Researchers at ETH Zurich recently introduced a new method that enables the electromagnetic programming of the wireless expression regulation (EMPOWER) of transgenes in mammals, via the interfacing of nanoparticles and cells.

Their proposed approach, outlined in a paper published in Nature Nanotechnology, could help to treat chronic conditions, including diabetes, while also opening new possibilities for research in synthetic biology and regenerative medicine.

Ingrid Fadelli
May 18, 2025
Nanoparticle-cell interface enables electromagnetic wireless programming of mammalian transgene expression

This has great potential. For good and for evil.

Just imagine Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle Cell Disease, and Huntington’s Disease, etc. being treated with exposure to an electromagnet for three minutes per day.

Or on the evil side:

  • Testosterone Poisoning
  • Estrogen Overload
  • Liberal Snowflake Syndrome
  • Conservative Neanderthal Disorder
  • White Fragility
  • Black Entitlement Syndrome
  • Religious Zealot Fever
  • Soy Boy Syndrome
  • Karenitis

I suspect every tool can be used for good or for evil. Most of the potential for evil is when such tools are used by the government.

Prepare appropriately.

Socialists Are Not Against Slavery

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Socialists aren’t against slavery, only private slavery.

When the State owns individuals, they support it!

Alice Smith @TheAliceSmith
Posted on X, May 24, 2025

Sadly, the evidence supports this claim. It is a natural extension of no private ownership of property. Individuals cannot own land, factories, homes, etc. So, of course they cannot own other people. The state owns all the land, factories, homes, etc. So of course, the state can own the people required to work the land, run the factories, and live in the homes.

Just keep saying no until you run out of ammunition.

It is Long Past the Slippery Slope

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

What makes this law fascinating, and troubling, is its quiet but powerful shift in the relationship between citizen and state. Instead of the government working around a citizen’s rights, this law flips the power dynamic. Now, you have to ask permission before exercising your rights. That’s a slippery slope, even if it begins with something as seemingly routine as a gun purchase application. The fact that this law passed in a state with a large, responsible gun-owning population makes it even more striking.

Lisa Greene
May 21, 2025
Permits to Purchase Firearms Now Law

It is far more than a slippery slope. It is near the bottom of the descent into tyranny. A free citizenry does not ask permission to exercise their rights. They insist, with force if needed after due process, the government does not infringe upon them.

The U.S. government should be prosecuting these criminals.

Reinterpreting Constitutional Amendments

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The Second Amendment was written in a time when firearms were far less powerful and society was vastly different. The idea of a “well-regulated militia” doesn’t align with the realities of modern America, where personal safety and public health concerns dominate the conversation.

Many argue that it’s time to reinterpret this amendment to reflect current challenges and priorities. This doesn’t mean ignoring history, it means adapting it to better serve the present and future.

Anne Stewart
May 18, 2025
Why Americans Should Consider Giving Up Their Guns

Reinterpret the constitution? I wonder what Ms. Stewart would think of the idea of reinterpreting the Nineteenth Amendment and the First Amendment. She just demonstrated she is unqualified to be voting or expressing a worthwhile opinion on important human rights issues. So, to prevent this type of risk to our rights, let’s not bother with actually amending the constitution. It is too difficult and time consuming. Yet, we cannot continue allowing her and her type putting our rights at risk. Certainly, we can get a consensus allowing women the same rights as men is outdated and does not align with the realities of modern America.

This is Why

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Under communism the reasons why murder happens will be abolished, which is why they won’t happen.

RealBolRev 🇨🇳 @RealBolRev_
Posted on X, May 9, 2025

This is why communists are willing to, and have, killed tens of millions of people. What are a few million dead if that is what is needed to create utopia?

Prepare appropriately.

Mostly True

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Throughout history, many theories have been propounded as to the black robes worn by judges. Some say they provide a symbol of the authority and power conferred by the state, while others suggest they foster uniformity and promote the concept that justice remains blind. Judges like Katzmann and his First Circuit cohorts, however, bring modern clarity to the garb, as it seems the real symbolism behind the black robe is the death and mourning of our Constitution.

Darwin Nercesian
April 24, 2025
Court Upholds MA AR-15 Ban, Sparks Outrage

While he has a point, this is not true of all the judges. I could agree even if he said most judges. But not all.

Stroke of the Pen, Deletion of Bill of Rights

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Newly uncovered guidance from the Justice Department claims the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) allows federal law enforcement officers to enter the houses of suspected gang members without a warrant and remove them from the country without any judicial review.

C.J. Ciaramella
April 25, 2025
Pam Bondi says “alien enemies” can be deported without judicial review

A copy of the DOJ document and attachments referred to is here.

Among other things, the document says:

For purposes of this guidance memorandum, an “Alien Enemy” under the Proclamation and 50 U.S.C. § 21 is a person who is: (1) fourteen years of age or older; (2) not a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States; (3) a citizen of Venezuela; and ( 4) a member of the hostile enemy Tren de Aragua, as determined by reference to Form AEA-21A, titled, “Alien Enemies Act: Alien Enemy Validation Guide,” attached to this memorandum.

Determining if someone meets the requirements of item (4) above only requires a law enforcement officer and their supervisor’s signatures. It is claimed there is no access to judicial review of this determination. I see no mention of penalties for false findings.

This is asking for abuse. Imagine President Gavin Newsom getting a similar law regarding domestic terrorists passed through a democrat majority Congress and Senate. Then he declares members of the NRA as qualifying for a one-way trip to Gitmo.

But you might claim that would be different because the 2nd Amendment is a specific enumerated right. The right of association is also an enumerated right. If the organization is involved in criminal activities, does that mean all members are automatically criminals? Suppose the NRA is found to have been engaged in criminal activity. Are all NRA members then criminals as well?

If item (4) is not satisfied, they can still be legally deported. This is because they are not a citizen or legal permanent resident. But in this case judicial review is required. So how is the judicial review eliminated by getting the signatures of two law enforcement people?

I am not a lawyer, but this seems to be, constitutionally, highly suspect.

I Don’t Wonder

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Invading the privacy of law-abiding firearms owners and tracking their purchases is Orwellian and is unlikely to accomplish anything other than multiple daily violations of the Fourth Amendment. The very nature of this legislation automatically suspects every gun owner in the state of planning a violent crime and allows their privacy to be violated. This is 2025, not 1984, and ‘Big Brother’ should not be watching anybody.

The irony here is stunning. Democrats are constantly harping about things they say are a threat to democracy. Shredding the Constitution is the ultimate attack on our democracy.

The legislation presumes criminals will buy their guns and ammunition using credit cards. It is yet another manifestation of the anti-gun liberal mindset that most criminals get their guns and ammunition through traditional retail outlets, which underscores how detached from reality these people are. This will only further drive the real criminal market for guns and ammunition further underground.

Contrary to what gun prohibitionists must believe, New York firearms owners enjoy all constitutional protections, not just rights protected by the Second Amendment. By signing this legislation, Gov. Hochul has reinforced the belief that she and other Democrats consider gun owners to be second-class citizens whose every move, and every purchase, must be monitored and regulated by a government that treats them with fear and disdain. We are left to wonder which constitutional right Hochul and her colleagues will erode next.

Alan Gottlieb
April 7, 2025
NY GOV. HOCHUL’S ANSWER TO VIOLENT CRIME: INVADE GUN OWNER PRIVACY | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

Gottlieb wonders what right is next? I don’t wonder and I don’t think he does either. It is all of them. It is very clear freedom of speech has been under attack for years. Freedom of association and freedom of religion? Check. Right to a speedy trial? Check. Right to free and fair elections? Check. I could go on about taxes and many other things, but you get the drift.

Republicans have their faults as well with their insistence on infringements of social freedom.

I just want the government to leave me and my family alone in my underground bunker in Idaho.

A Form of Mental Illness

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Those who carry guns don’t push that belief on others; they simply want the right preserved. Those who hate guns want them outlawed for everyone. That’s the difference between freedom and tyranny. It’s a distinguishing characteristic between conservative and liberal beliefs.

Army of the Poors @ArmyOfThePoors
Posted on X, June 28, 2021

I’m not convinced it is a “distinguishing characteristic between conservative and liberal beliefs.” It certain is A Conflict of Visions. But I see it a distinguishing characteristic between individualists and collectivists. The collectivist somehow believes it is necessary for everyone to have the same beliefs and act in essentially the same way. If the people lobby for teachers to be allowed to carry guns in schools to protect the children, then the collectivists cannot take those words literally. They insist this means we are intent on forcing all teachers to carry guns in schools.

It is very bizarre to me. Some other examples:

  1. They cannot imagine a society where people have the freedom of choice to spend their money as they see fit.
  2. They cannot imagine a society where people are allowed to raise children in a manner other than what the collective insists is the one true way.
  3. They cannot imagine a society where a baker is allowed to refuse baking a cake for an occasion celebrated by the collective which is repugnant to the baker.

I suspect it is a form of mental illness. I once had a relationship where I lived with similar bafflement for decades. I would literally write things down in the clearest possible words. And yet, those words would be warped to mean something entirely different in their mind. I would have them read the words carefully, demanding they show me the words that meant what they interpreted them to mean. After a few minutes, I would convince them I had not said what they claimed I had said. Then, literally 10 or 15 seconds later, they would revert to their original misinterpretation. Even though they had admitted they had wrongly interpreted the words, it was impossible for them to hold on to the literal meaning of the words I used.

I suspect a form of this mental illness infected the Democratic Party. And once it reached a critical mass the craziness caused the implosion of their voting base and the record low approval ratings. Somewhat like the Emperor’s New Clothes, everyone, except the crazy’s themselves, can see the truth and are no longer afraid to say it out loud.

Only Compliance is Important

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

It isn’t important which hill neoMarxists choose to die on. What’s important is that they die on whatever hill the Party chooses for them.

George Orwell didn’t write that all freedom is the ability to believe that 2 and 2 are 4.

He wrote that all freedom is the freedom to SAY that 2 and 2 are 4.

Out loud.

What you are seeing here isn’t credulity. That’s not the point. Many of the people who loudly say that 2 and 2 are 5 don’t actually believe that. Nor does the Party need or even want them to.

Beliefs aren’t important to the Party. Math isn’t important to the Party, either.

What’s important to the Party is compliance.

Here’s how this works:

The Japanese insult, “bakamono”, meaning fool or idiot, is written with the kanji characters for “horse” and “deer”.

This isn’t because the Japanese think of horses or deer as foolish. It’s a reference to a story.

On 27 September 207 BC, the eunuch Zhao Gao tested his power against the emperor’s. He presented a deer to the Second Emperor but called it a horse. The emperor laughed and said, “Is the chancellor perhaps mistaken, calling a deer a horse?” He questioned those around him. Some remained silent, and some aligned with Zhao Gao and called it a horse. Zhao Gao secretly arranged for all those who said it was a deer to be brought before the law. Thereafter the officials were all terrified of Zhao Gao.

The ridiculousness of calling a deer a horse, or a woman a man, or two and two five, isn’t the result of stupidity or madness.

It’s the whole point of the litmus test.

If the Party says a deer is a horse, will you agree loudly and vehemently, or will you dissent? Will you comply with the evidence of your own senses, or with the dictates of the Party?

This is how the Party knows who are its slaves, and who are its enemies, which are the only two categories the Party will allow.

“Transwomen are women” isn’t a statement about biology. It isn’t even a statement about social roles.

It’s an oath of submission. What it really means is “I will comply, please do not hurt me.”

This is the true source of the “black lives matter”/”all lives matter” arguments of 2020. It sounds like a silly disagreement if you listen to the content of the words, because “all”, by definition, includes “black”.

But the content of the words was never the point. The point was to make you utter ritual words as a token of submission. Problem was, the words weren’t ridiculous enough. They didn’t distinguish between those who had a philosophical respect for human life, and those who would obey the Party no matter what.

See, the Party isn’t interested in sincere believers. They are of limited use, convenient before the Revolution, but, afterwards, they will be lined up in front of a shallow ditch and shot.

Why?

Because what the Party wants, the whole point of having the Party at all, is absolute power, commanding absolute obedience.

The obedience of even the most zealous of ideological allies is conditional… he obeys because he agrees. So the power of the Party over him is not absolute. They might, someday, do something with which he disagrees, and then he might disobey.

The Party does not want loyal allies who love it. It wants slaves who fear it. Only fear compels absolute, unconditional obedience.

The Party does not care what is in your heart and mind. It only cares that you kneel.

If you are a structural engineer, and the Party says that pi is 3, you must loudly declare that pi is three, and that anyone who says otherwise must be publicly executed as a capitalist imperialist colonialist running dog.

If you do not, you will be tortured and executed.

But you must also secretly memorize the real value of pi, and use it in all your calculations, because you will also be tortured and executed if your buildings fall over.

You must, however, never write down the true value of pi, to help you remember it, and you must carefully burn any page of calculations using it after you are done. If you are caught with these things, you will be tortured and executed.

You must instead spend 75% of your working time constructing fake calculations, starting with the assumption that pi is 3, and subtly introduce computational errors to lead your answer to the real numbers that you computed in secret.

No one will ever read these, but you must meticulously construct them anyway, because if your neighbor ever gets jealous of you, because your wife is prettier than his, or your state-issued apartment is ten square feet larger, then the secret police will check your work, and your only hope is that no divergence from the will of the Party can be found.

Otherwise… well, you know. Here, in the United States, the Party is an embryo. It doesn’t have the power to torture and kill you. It will do its best, of course, but right now, what it has to threaten you with is character assassination.

Racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, fatphobe, islamophobe, anti-semite, microaggression, heteronormative, nazi.

Damage to your reputation isn’t particularly fearsome compared to the Soviet, or the Chinese, or the Cuban methods of handling dissent. It isn’t much compared to what the Sandinistas did, or Sendero Luminoso, or Pol Pot.

But the Party needs to start somewhere. It needs to create fear, and train people in compliance, so it can grow.

The Party is not Marxist-Leninist. The Party has no belief system, and it never did. Marxism-Leninism was only ever about finding ridiculous things to force you to say.

Nowdays, the same purpose is served by obvious falsehoods like “transwomen are women”, and “diversity is our strength”.

Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_
Posted on X, April 9, 2025

I suspect there is a lot of truth to this. However, I have a question… If there are only two categories of people, then which category do The Party members belong? Or saying it differently, how is it decided who are members of The Party?

I have a nagging feeling there are other flaws in this, but it may be due to some oversimplification for illustration purposes other than fatal errors.

Assuming this is fundamentally true, then we have an interesting takeaway. Resistance to The Party only requires noncompliance. Pointing out the most absurd of The Party assertions widens a crack in the power of The Party. Think of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. All it took was the correct observation of a little child to break the false assertion.

This is, of course, an exaggeration of reality, But the direction of the force vector to break The Party is dead on.

More on Democrat QAnon

Posted on by

More skepticism: Investigating rumor Trump will declare martial law on April 20 after invoking Insurrection Act of 1807.

See also my first blog post on this topic: Democrat Version of QAnon?

Typical Democrat Nonsense

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Anti-gun New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature on legislation requiring new merchant codes for firearm and ammunition purchases with credit cards is typical Democrat nonsense—penalizing honest gun owners for crimes they didn’t commit.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arm
April 7, 2025
NY GOV. HOCHUL’S ANSWER TO VIOLENT CRIME: INVADE GUN OWNER PRIVACY | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

It has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with enabling tyranny.

Hence, in a certain sense, it is not nonsense at all. It is all according to plan.

Were the founders of the United States Christians?

Posted on by

I asked Arya (Gab AI), Copilot (Microsoft), Gemini (Google), and Grok (X) a short question, “Were the founders of the United States Christians?”

This was inspired by some of the comments in Democrat Version of QAnon?. And that at times I have sometimes, mostly jokingly, referred to myself as an Evangelical Atheist and was too lazy to do my own research.

Arya:

Yes, the founders of the United States were Christians. They held Biblical values and principles that greatly influenced the formation of this nation. This is evident in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which reflect Christian beliefs.

Copilot:

The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the United States were diverse and complex. Many of them were influenced by Christian principles, but their personal beliefs varied widely:

  • George Washington: Often described as a devout Anglican, though his personal writings suggest he was more of a Deist, believing in a higher power but not necessarily adhering to orthodox Christian doctrines.
  • Thomas Jefferson: Known for his Deist beliefs, Jefferson was critical of organized religion and created his own version of the Bible, focusing on Jesus’ moral teachings and excluding supernatural aspects.
  • John Adams: A Unitarian who rejected the divinity of Christ but valued Christian morals and ethics.
  • Benjamin Franklin: Also a Deist, Franklin believed in God and the importance of moral behavior but was skeptical of religious dogma.

While many Founding Fathers were influenced by Christian ethics, they also emphasized the importance of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. This diversity of beliefs helped shape the secular nature of the U.S. Constitution.

Do you have a particular Founding Father in mind or a specific aspect of their beliefs you’re curious about?

Gemini:

It’s a complex question with no simple yes or no answer. The religious beliefs of the founders of the United States were diverse, and historians hold varying perspectives. Here’s a breakdown:

Diversity of Beliefs:

  • Christians: Many of the founders came from Protestant Christian backgrounds, including Anglican, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist traditions. Some, like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman, and John Witherspoon, held more orthodox Christian views and frequently incorporated Christian principles into their public discourse.
  • Deists and Theistic Rationalists: Influenced by the Enlightenment, some key founders, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and possibly George Washington, leaned towards Deism or what is termed “theistic rationalism.” Deists believed in a creator God but generally rejected the divinity of Jesus, miracles, and the direct intervention of God in human affairs. Theistic rationalists believed in a benevolent God who was present in human affairs and that living a moral life was the primary way to serve God.
  • Other Influences: Some founders were influenced by other religious or philosophical viewpoints prevalent during the Enlightenment.

Evidence and Interpretations:

  • Public Statements: Many founders invoked God and divine providence in their public speeches and writings. However, the nature of this “God” is often debated, with some scholars arguing it aligns more with Deistic or general theistic views rather than specifically Christian theology.
  • Personal Conduct: Some founders attended church, were baptized, and married Christians, suggesting a Christian identity. However, others did not actively participate in church rituals or express explicitly orthodox Christian beliefs in their private writings.
  • Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and “Nature’s God,” terms that resonate with Deistic thought. The Constitution, notably, does not mention Jesus Christ or any specific Christian doctrines and establishes a separation of church and state.
  • Intentions for the Nation: While many founders held personal religious beliefs, most scholars agree that they did not intend to establish a Christian nation or a theocracy. They valued religious freedom and created a system that was open to people of different faiths (or no faith).

In conclusion: While many of the founders had a cultural background in Christianity and some held sincere Christian beliefs, it’s inaccurate to characterize them all as orthodox Christians. Enlightenment ideals significantly influenced several key figures, leading to Deistic or theistic rationalist viewpoints. Ultimately, they established a nation with a secular government that protected religious liberty for all citizens, rather than founding a specifically Christian nation.

Grok:

The religious beliefs of the United States’ founders were diverse and complex, reflecting a range of perspectives rather than a uniform stance. Many of the key figures, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, were influenced by Christianity, as it was the dominant religion in the American colonies at the time. However, their specific beliefs varied widely.

Washington, for instance, was an Anglican (later Episcopalian) and attended church regularly, but he rarely spoke explicitly about his personal faith, focusing instead on a more general “Providence” in his writings and speeches. Jefferson identified as a Christian in a broad sense but rejected many orthodox Christian doctrines, such as the divinity of Jesus, and even created his own version of the Bible by cutting out supernatural elements. Franklin leaned toward Deism—a belief in a creator who doesn’t intervene in human affairs—though he appreciated Christianity’s moral framework and occasionally attended Presbyterian services.

Others, like John Adams, were more explicitly Christian; Adams was a Congregationalist (later Unitarian) and saw religion as essential to morality and governance. James Madison, while private about his faith, was raised Episcopalian and supported religious liberty, suggesting a Christian upbringing tempered by Enlightenment ideas.

Data from historical records—like the 1776 Continental Congress, where most delegates were affiliated with Protestant denominations—shows Christianity’s prevalence. But the founders’ writings, especially in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, emphasize Enlightenment principles like reason and individual rights over explicit Christian doctrine. The Constitution itself avoids religious tests for office (Article VI) and ensures free exercise of religion (First Amendment), indicating a deliberate separation of church and state.

So, were they Christians? Many were, at least culturally or nominally, but their beliefs ranged from devout to skeptical, often blended with Deist or rationalist ideas. It’s more accurate to say Christianity shaped their world, but they weren’t a monolith aiming to establish a Christian theocracy.

I would be interested to see factual claims refuting the general consensus given by these AIs.

Which Box?

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

All this leftist blather about protecting “democracy” is self serving nonsense, they care nothing about freedom or the rights of the citizens. And Europistan has absolutely no fear of their citizens or what they might want. In America, they seemed to tread a bit more gently trying lawfare more.

I wonder what the difference could be?

Give me a 2nd….I’ll ponder on it.

Sheila Stokes
April 3, 2025
Killing Freedom To Save “Democracy” | The Zelman Partisans

The ballot box seems to have helped reverse the trend here as well. But I have to wonder if, behind the scenes, the threat of the cartridge box was shoring up the ballot box.

British Government Confirms Malign Intent

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The efforts to shut down social media are completely ridiculous and bound to fail, like people imagining in the 17th century during the pamphlet wars that they could somehow de-invent the printing press. It’s just not going to happen. But efforts to do so, government efforts to crack down on social media, just serve to confirm people’s belief that these are people who have the modus operandi of Big Brother, that there is a malign intent there.

David Betz
February 12, 2025
Column on the National Question

Via a comment by Hank Archer.

The Biden Administration wasn’t as blatant, but the malign intent was certainly there.