We Hear You: God, Faith, Prayer, Veterans, Columbus, and Originalist Judges
Ken McIntyre /
Editor’s note: We picked some sentiments and perspectives from The Daily Signal’s audience that seem to suit Thanksgiving weekend and what we celebrate, reflect upon, and give thanks for. You can write us at [email protected].—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Katrina Trinko’s commentary, if there is no God, as many have been taught in our schools and now believe, then prayer makes no sense at all (“Why I Pray, Even After the Texas Shooting”). But God is, and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.
Weren’t those killed in this little Texas church seeking God? Yes, they were and those who had trusted Christ as their savior from sin are now in his presence, rejoicing. Not rejoicing that they were murdered, but rejoicing in their deliverance from this sin-sick world.
That is one reward of those who diligently seek him. Those left behind do indeed need our prayers and support in any other way we are able. The loss of loved ones, regardless of the cause, is devastating.
One last thought. It’s easy to trust God when everything is going well. It’s a real test of that trust when things don’t go well.—Larry Klassen
As Americans, we hear and use the word “freedom” and have our own understanding of what it is. God has given us, and all creation, freedom.
But like other concepts in Scripture, we do not fully understand “freedom.” This gift is so important that God will not violate it. Thus, he permits things like acts of violence to happen.
It’s quite difficult to understand because our idea of freedom is so shaped by our American and 21st-century notion of freedom, which is closer to license.—Margaret Erickson
***
None of us gets out of this world alive, so it is important that we know where we are going to end up. Faith leads prayer.
Without faith, what value is prayer? It’s like a great letter with a stamp but no address, where does it go?
Those who died at the gunman’s hands in Texas are fine. We pray for the living who lost friends and loved ones, and we remember those who passed, but we understand they are OK.
Many things happen in this world that we don’t like. We can’t control it all, just our individual choices, actions, and beliefs that can make a better world.—Robert Hutchinson
Why I Pray, Even After the Texas Shooting https://t.co/cuJTj9XdTD pic.twitter.com/t1dFX4u9Vr
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) November 7, 2017
Those who doubt God’s existence, who see prayer as a waste of time, I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for their failure of imagination that a power could exist outside themselves and their visible existence that orders the affairs of humans.
Prayer, religion, faith—they’re like soap. To help, they must be used. Then, of course, you can become informed and train, and learn how to deal with an eventuality like Sutherland Springs, Texas, in your own life.
But unless you understand it can and very well may happen to you, you’ll do nothing.—Steve Ross
***
Katrina Trinko’s commentary is very well written. God gave free will to his creation, men and women, to do the deeds of their hearts. It’s their choice to do evil or good, and even to accept God or not.
Those who accept his free gift of salvation will be saved, those who don’t will spend eternity separated from him. Prayer does work. Believe or not, that is your choice.— Paul Delfornia
Senate Confirms Barrett as Judge; Democrats Decline Cruz Dare to Defend Religious Liberty https://t.co/B9yzqDTZ5s @DailySignal
— DUANE ALLEN (@DUANEALLEN) November 1, 2017
Do Our Judges Have Religious Freedom?
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Casey Banks’ report on Amy Coney Barrett, it’s totally appalling that only three Democrats had the integrity to vote to confirm a Catholic judge to the Court of Appeals in Chicago, a heavily Catholic city (“Senate Confirms Barrett as Judge, Declines Cruz Dare to Defend Religious Liberty”).
The First Amendment protects the free expression of religion, which means you get to live your faith, not hide it under a rock. And Article VI of the Constitution provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Perhaps Democrats forget that in 1960 they ran for president a fella named Kennedy who, when asked whether a Catholic could run for president, pointed out that nobody ever asked his brother Joe, who was killed in World War II, if a Catholic could give his life for his country.
As it turned out, two other Catholic Kennedy brothers died for their country: JFK, who was assassinated while serving as president in 1963, and his brother Bobby, who was assassinated while running for president in 1968.
I say this to the Democratic Party: You’re rapidly losing what is left of what once was your base, a working class that includes a lot of good, hardworking Catholics along with members of many other religions. As for me, I will never vote for a Democrat again.—Fred Bloggs
***
“The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein tells Amy Coney Barrett. Well, “the dogma of atheists” lives loudly within atheists too.
Why is that not a problem? Are we to believe that only atheists can be objective? What nonsense comes from the minds and mouths of those on the left.
This is why it is so important to nominate originalist judges who are, as indicated by their record, committed to judging cases by the law and nothing else. Those on the left make decisions on the basis of political ideology, not the law, and they think everyone else does too. They are wrong.— Larry Klassen
***
Dianne Feinstein represents a liberal electorate, is 84 years old, has been in the Senate 25 years, has hundreds of IOUs preserved with the lobbyist army who will provide her the funds to be re-elected in 2018. She’s a poster child for why we need term limits, and why I support the “convention of states” movement.— Wiley Brooks
NPR Legal Reporter Criticizes Gorsuch for Citing the Constitution https://t.co/F7MLjgbadd pic.twitter.com/6Y4Kv2AJqW
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) November 12, 2017
The Supreme Court’s Relationship With the Constitution
Dear Daily Signal: About Elizabeth Slattery’s commentary: So our tax dollars are going to support this drivel and criticism of our Supreme Court from National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg at a time when lawlessness seems to be advocated as the new norm (“NPR Legal Reporter Criticizes Gorsuch for Citing the Constitution”)?
I thought NPR was to be a source of inspiration, education, and respect? Since when did it join the liberal agenda?
We have enough crazies trying to tear this country and our legal system apart without paying another one to do so. I will report this to my elected representatives. We are $20 trillion in debt. We do not need to be financing propaganda.—Beverly Seymour
***
Following precedents is merely a conventional practice; the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Anytime a precedent is found to be in violation of the Constitution, no matter how long it has been in effect, it should be overturned. And that is what Justice Neil Gorsuch means when he says things that suggest he has no reverence for precedents.
Justice Elena Kagan is an activist judge who doesn’t like the Constitution the way it was written. So she can’t get along with Gorsuch, who actually meant it when he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Far from Gorsuch’s being less smart than Kagan (or Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for that matter), the problem between them probably arises because he is smarter as well as better educated and better able to argue his points, which will always be constitutionally supported.—Geoffrey Meade
***
I am not the most astute person when it comes to Supreme Court issues, but here is my opinion on Justice Neil Gorsuch: He is a go-getter. He is not prone to sticking his head in the ground and waiting for someone to tell him to bark.
He sees a problem or issue, then he will address it. His job is to uphold the laws of our country as laid out in the Constitution and its amendments. It is not his job to kowtow to what liberal individuals want.
He is his own man, and he may not follow conventional D.C. politics or for that matter his fellow justices. He is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stodgy city run by politicians who long ago should have crawled back in the hole they come out of.
Justice Gorsuch, you keep referencing the Constitution. Maybe some day the liberals of our country will learn something; then again, we are talking about liberals.—Bill Davidson
***
Heaven forbid that Justice Gorsuch would bring up (gasp!) the Constitution when considering Supreme Court cases! Most people think that is what is supposed to guide their decisions, not just feelings and emotions.
I’m pretty tired of political “unwritten rules” of the Supreme Court or Congress or anything else in Washington. You want rules, spell them out. If Merrick Garland were on the court, would the left be praising him for jumping right in with his opinions? Of course they would.
That is probably part of the left’s problem—Gorsuch’s career as a judge has been based on the Constitution, and they want to ignore it. I guess they want him to just sit quietly in a corner for a couple of years until he “gets” the unspoken ways of the court? Just go along with the opinions of others, without joining the discussion?—Amy Little
***
I wish people would stop referring to U.S. Supreme Court nominees as filling some prescribed left or right seat of orthodoxy handed down through the generations. It is a sad state of affairs where a person’s political and not judicial positions are foremost in consideration.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is arbitrator of the Constitution, so why is it that seeking the originalist meaning of that storied document is deemed controversial?
And as to superprecedent? Why is Roe v. Wade so storied as to not be overturned, based on the newly found evidence that unborn children have sensory feelings at under 20 weeks? Can’t revisit it? If this were true, wouldn’t Dred Scott still be in effect?
Let’s get real. Bringing back originalism into constitutional law is only a threat to leftists and progressives and socialists/communists, which is why they protest a Scalia, Thomas, or Gorsuch.—Derek Dubasik
It's time to end the idea that right-wing hate killed JFK https://t.co/Ct5HJ0UiG5 @GinnyMontalbano @JarrettStepman @DailySignal #jfkfiles
— Ken McIntyre (@KenMac55) November 2, 2017
Unanswered Questions About the Kennedy Assassination
Daily Signal: There are too many “unanswered questions,” for lack of a better term, surrounding the Kennedy assassination. Ginny Montalbano and Jarrett Stepman’s summation may have some merit, but they’re standing on an uncredible foundation (“Why the Narrative That Right-Wing Hate Killed JFK Is False”).
As one who supported the Warren Commission’s findings in a college debate, in later years I found that the commission’s “picking and choosing” of what was presented, and the complete omission of many eyewitnesses’ statements, is telling.
Earl Warren said in later life his biggest regret was the handling and incomplete conclusions of the commission’s investigation. Later years have sorted out the conspiracy “kooks,” but these later years also have brought to the surface many facts not known or dismissed in the days leading up to, and the days after, the assassination.
For goodness sake, just a review of the discrepancies in the autopsy, the timeline of when the caskets (plural) arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and the complete disagreement of what the doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas described compared to what the military doctors at Bethesda described should raise some eyebrows at least.
In later years, we learned Lee Harvey Oswald made a phone call the night of Nov. 23, the day after he assassinated JFK. This phone call was made known years after by a young phone operator at the Dallas jail. The trail of this phone call speaks volumes and adds a new dimension to Oswald, who Jack Ruby fatally shot Nov. 24.—James Trower
The Truth About Columbus https://t.co/kKO92rpubp via @JarrettStepman @DailySignal
— Janie Johnson – America is Exceptional (@jjauthor) October 15, 2017
Who Christopher Columbus Really Was
Dear Daily Signal: This B.S. is getting old, as Jarrett Stepman’s commentary reveals (“The Truth About Columbus”). Christopher Columbus was on a mission, but as any human being can tell you, things don’t always go your way. However, his main claim to fame is he discovered a passage to the New World.
But based on those who want to change history, he was a monster. And if that is the case, the name of the city of Santa Ana should be changed because this general and his army wiped out the Alamo and attempted to destroy not only those inside but everyone who stood in his way. He was a coward.
It’s the mission of the extreme left to eradicate our history, good or bad. At the rate this is going, we will turn the country back over to the Indians and move back to Italy—or wherever your family came from.—Chuck Faraci Sr.
***
Columbus faced the great unknown with fortitude. He navigated by the stars. Mutiny was ever present as his men despaired of finding safe harbor.
Who was stranger, the natives or the seamen? Columbus was a leader who did not give up. He made several trips to the New World. I must read more. Thank you, Jarrett Stepman. I did not know the gold was to finance the crusade to retake the Holy Land.
The incorrigibles may break the statues. We will rebuild them, bigger and better than before.—Mary De Voe
***
Historian Howard Zinn and his followers and believers wish to destroy a man and a symbol to further reduce and eventually destroy the stature of the nation and culture that grew out of his discovery. Ultimately he and they will fail, but the damage will infect a generation.— Steve Ross
***
There is little question that the thoughtlessly adhesive anti-culture warriors would have felt right at home in Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany, attaching themselves to a rotten ideology as if they were mindless robots. These unable to think and unable to discern good from evil are devoid of critical thinking capacity, and are easily brainwashed into anything that is anti-American.
The anti-Columbus nitwits haven’t a clue what it took to discover America, or even what the United States of America is truly about. They gravitate toward collectivist nonsense, as it warms their barren souls. And as long as it is against “the man,” or whatever is representative of the predominant culture, they are at ease with it.—Brad Gillespie
***
So the left sees Columbus as this horror figure who unleashed unrestrained migration from the Old World to the New World. But today the left supports unrestrained migration from everywhere to America. Nothing like total inconsistency and hypocrisy. Why am I not surprised.—William Koehler
***
The goal of all of this monument destruction is to remove anything that could suggest that our history might have been other than the Marxist version of it.
The Fabian socialists arose toward the end of the 19th century. They espoused Marxism, but did not believe in the violent overthrow of governments; they thought that co-opting the institutions of democracy was a more lasting alternative. Their emblem is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, depicted in a stained glass window that hangs in the London School of Economics (founded by Fabians in 1895).
The history departments of the colleges and universities were early targets of the Fabian efforts. That these efforts have been successful is evident in that most high school graduates know little or nothing about our history or how our government works. Civics, formerly taught in junior high, is a thing of the past; history classes emphasize the worst aspects of our past while minimizing or ignoring the incalculable good we’ve done.
Monument destruction is one more milestone on the way to convincing the populace that America is the world’s bad guy—and weakening its resistance to assimilating into a New World Order.—Adrienne Adler Downs
***
Although Columbus was not a perfect person, he was a resident of his times, just as we are. We are not perfect either, and history will look back on us in judgment also.
I grieve for the many injustices done to American Indians, but I cannot change history. What happened, happened. Let’s be balanced and remember people like Columbus as what they were—men with faults who overcame great odds in their struggle to do what they felt was right.
I cannot hold Columbus up as a man of perfection in his social opinions, but I can see that he was trying to do what was right in the sight of God as he understood it. For that alone he deserves credit.
There was infighting among Indian tribes long before Columbus; they annihilated each other when it suited them. Evil is not confined to Italian explorers.
Columbus certainly didn’t come west with the idea of killing off the indigenous population with diseases. And let us not forget that some of our sexually transmitted diseases were unknown until he came here and brought them back to Europe. So the diseases went both ways.
I suggest that if anyone feels so badly about living in America today and their conscience is torn over it, they should move back to the country of their ancestry. It’s easy enough today to find out what that is. Then you can live there in peace, knowing you personally had nothing to do with the mistreatment of Indians or anyone else.
Or you could just do like I do: Realize your ancestors may have played a part, but you personally didn’t. And then do what you can now to be the right kind of person so it doesn’t happen again.—Bill Martin
***
Those on the left have proven themselves to be Marxist totalitarians. The anarchy they employ is a tactic to delegitimize our institutions and silence dissent. That they will be among the first victims of their success (useful idiots) is as unthinkable as the history of failure that is its legacy. True believers all, they luxuriate in the nihilism that condemns them, ever believing that the dogma will somehow produce results different from the past.—Joe O’Reilly
***
It would be a tragedy for the U.S. to lose this piece of explorative history and to quash the inquisitiveness of youngsters as they have for generations read about the brave exploits of discoverers of the New World, including Ferdinand Magellan and so many others. They capture the imagination of young souls, and those discoveries lead us on into space and scientific studies.
Imagine a United States without such heroes and just the villains of human sacrifice. So one day will Richard Branson be vilified? What will Mount Rushmore look like?
This violence has far exceeded the bounds of decency, of our Judeo-Christian founding. Conservatives and the right have to look into their own souls for allowing this to morph while they did nothing. Pull up your pants and act like big boys and girls, and tamp down Antifa with all your might—or lose your children too in this fight.—Christina Paul
Weinstein Scandal Reveals Truth About Hollywood’s Feminism: https://t.co/Kwi00Ix8OM via @KatrinaTrinko @DailySignal
— Paul D. Gallagher (@paulgallagher) October 13, 2017
What Harvey Weinstein’s Behavior Says About Feminism in Hollywood
Daily Signal: Thank you to Katrina Trinko for pointing out what is so obvious to those who can read and think: Hollywood and the left at large are totally hypocritical (“Weinstein Scandal Reveals Truth About Hollywood’s Feminism”).
They don’t care about any values worth having; they care only how they are perceived, and how they want to be perceived as morally (and in every other way they can manage) superior.
Hypocrisy is both their means and their end. Harvey Weinstein is merely taking the rap for what they do every day.—Mel Livatino
***
I really hope these women file criminal charges, because a bunch of creepy men are reading about this and trying to figure out how to set themselves up to be able to sexually coerce or attack women and get away with it.
There has to be hard consequences, such as Harvey Weinstein’s spending the rest of his miserable life in jail, or I think we are going to start seeing more of this.
We cannot allow this to be a small slap on the wrist kind of deal. Something more than just losing his job. For decades, Weinstein trapped, frightened, tortured, and harmed other human beings for his pleasure. Justice needs to put this monster away.—Shauna Anderson
***
Many women in show business expose themselves to men in show business who treat them badly. Those women come to believe that all men are like the men in show business.
The men in show business, even as they loudly claim to support women, validate a core idea of feminism—that men are bullying rapists. No wonder so many women in show business proclaim feminism.—Doug A. Cullinan
***
No wonder the Hollywood types think the pay difference for women is a huge issue: They’ve been screwed for years and supported the guys cheating them. My union shipmates earned the same pay no matter what their sex, race, creed, or likes or dislikes were. You just had to do the job.
I am so tired of being lectured by people who make their living by playing pretend or stupid kids’ games. Not to say they aren’t talented, but their talent makes absolutely no difference in the world at all.—Tim Dayton
“Textbook cultural cronyism.”
Coming to a College Campus Near You: Feminist Economics. https://t.co/ClgWvZ4LWn pic.twitter.com/J74LqXcEK4
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) October 22, 2017
The Sobering Rise of ‘Feminist Economics’
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding Kelsey Harkness’s report on “feminist economics,” every bit of this is being used as a weapon against the culture and freedom of the United States by the Fabian/progressive left (“‘Feminist Economics’: Coming to a College Near You”).
They are totally dedicated, as was our previous president, to the diminution and destruction of this country. Their expressed support of feminist rights is only a convenient facade, behind which to plan the taking of American constitutional rights from all citizens.—Carl Fisher
***
What these idiots fail to realize is that our economic system was designed to support the single most important factor in America’s success—the two-parent, monogamous, father- and mother-led family.
Today’s younger adults have been pampered into the idea that they alone are in charge and they owe nothing to society. Our country is disintegrating thanks to the liberal left, which has made government their god and mother.—Bruce Atkinson
***
It is all about “special rights” for the liberals, socialists, and communists. They believe that in addition to plain-old rights fcr all, as in the Constitution, there must be special rights for all who claim to be victims.—James Barrett Jr.
***
The government isn’t responsible for our choices, whether wise or poor. We already have affirmative action, which gives a leg up to minorities and women.
The government doesn’t give you anything. The government doesn’t own anything. It belongs to the taxpayers. Someone has to pay for it.—Coral Stevenson
The Real Value in Veterans That Hollywood Doesn’t Show You https://t.co/Dmv4WzO1N0 via @SBucci @DailySignal
— Median Politics (@MedianPolitics) November 10, 2017
Honoring Those Who Wear a Military Uniform
Dear Daily Signal: With regard to Steven Bucci’s commentary on Veterans Day, my ancestry goes back to 1634, when the population of the American colonies was approximately 10,000 (“The Real Value in Veterans That Hollywood Doesn’t Show”).
From that time until today, someone in my family has fought in every conflict America has been involved in, including with George Washington’s Continental Army at Valley Forge and the battle of Saratoga in 1777.
None of us would have the freedoms, the liberties, and the opportunities for success we have in this country if those before us had not made those sacrifices.
Articles such as Steven Bucci’s should go viral on the internet. But far too many of our young people think those who protect us (military and police) are the bad guys, and that they should be allowed to follow the laws of this country “as they see fit.” God bless America and those who protect us.—James V. Burnette
***
My ancestors on my maternal side were in this country when it was the colonies or a little after. They fought for freedom from Great Britain and also fought in the Civil War. My family on both sides fought in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the others afterward.
I am very proud of our country. I hate that our youth have been taught to disrespect our military and our police who protect us. We need to honor all who give their lives for the safety, security, and freedoms we all have enjoyed.
A sort of communism is trying to take over the values this country has stood for. We need to stay strong and honor our military, not just on Veterans Day but always.—Gail Irvin
***
I went to my first “thank the veterans” event at my youngest granddaughter’s school. I think back to 40 years ago and the way us veterans of that time were treated. To be told not to wear our dress greens off base, not to show we were Marines.
I would go the other way, always make sure I wore my dress greens off base and dare anyone to say or do anything. A few times I got a bad look or a bad word, but they all ran away.
I am happy now that we have someone in the White House who I know truly means what he says. It’s a long time coming.
About my granddaughter? She sang great. And gave Papa Jack an extra big hug.—Jack Wireman
Casey Ryan helped to compile this column.