Before we get started, here is what this post is all about.
On NYtimes.com, there is an Opinion Piece by Atossa Araxia Abrahamian titled “There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote”.
In it, Ms. Abrahamian states that
I’ve lived in New York since 2004, but haven’t once had a chance to cast a ballot here. Last fall, I grew so frustrated that I started mailing ballots to my hometown in Switzerland. But voting in a place I haven’t lived in since I was a minor makes about as little sense as not voting in the city where I’ve lived my entire adult life.
The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect people’s desires. The United States already has plenty of institutions that account for noncitizens: The census aims to reach all residents because it believes everyone, even aliens, matters. Corporations enjoy free speech and legal personhood — and they’re not even people. Would it be such a stretch to give noncitizen residents a say in who gets elected to their state legislature, Congress or the White House?
What’s more, allowing noncitizens to vote in federal, state and municipal elections would help revitalize American democracy at a time when enthusiasm and trust are lacking. While 2020 was considered a high-turnout election, only about 65 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. Compare that to Germany, where turnout was 76 percent in the last general election.
Democrats are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of this change — at least at first. But it could have interesting ripple effects: Elected Republicans might be induced to appeal to a more diverse constituency or perhaps to enthuse their constituents so deeply that they, too, start to vote in greater numbers.
It’s also just good civics: Allowing people to vote gives them even more of a sense of investment in their towns, cities, communities and country. There’s a detachment that comes with not being able to vote in the place where you live. Concerns about mixed loyalties, meanwhile, are misplaced. The United States not only allows dual citizenship but also allows dual citizens to vote — and from abroad. Is there any reason to think resident foreigners should be less represented?
Oh, I can think of a few.
Why are Liberals, like this New York Times Contributor, so desirous to give noncitizens, including those who are in our country illegally, the Constitutional Right to vote, a right reserved for American Citizens?
Democrats are eager to allow noncitizens to vote in OUR elections because the “Democratic Socialism” which has become their party’s political ideology is still rejected by the overwhelming majority of American Voters….and considering the way that the Biden Administration is going down the toilet, they will lose every election they enter.
Those who are in our nation illegally will be more than happy to vote in these Democratic Socialist Candidates because they will be told and will believe that they will be getting a bunch of free stuff and they will be able to share in the American Dream.
And, those who are here legally from another country will enjoy the same rights as Americans without having to take an Oath of Loyalty which all those seeking citizenship have to take.
Voting in American Elections is a Constitutional Right as prescribed by our Founding Fathers, to be exercised by American Citizens ONLY.
We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.
But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.
Our Founders gifted us with our American Liberty, won through the blood of patriots.
Liberty is Freedom with Responsibility.
Voting is the responsibility of all American Citizens of legal age.
It is also a PRIVILEGE…one which illegal immigrants and those who refuse to take an oath to be LOYAL AMERICANS have not earned.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling favoring religious organizations in a dispute over COVID-19 restrictions, “irrelevant” and not “final” while arguing that the decision is really more of a statement on the court’s new conservative bent.
“They wanted to make a statement that it’s a different court. That’s the statement they’re making, I understand that. And that’s to be expected,” Cuomo said during a Thanksgiving Day call, alluding to the impact of the recent addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the bench without calling her by name.
“We know who we appointed to the court. We know their ideology. It’s irrelevant from a practical impact because the zone that they were talking about has already been moved. It expired last week. I think this was really just an opportunity for the court to express its philosophy and politics,” he said.
In a 5-4 ruling Wednesday the high court temporarily blocked New York’s COVID-19 restrictions on houses of worship, arguing that they “strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”
The court said that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America are likely to succeed in their arguments that the restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and that they would cause irreparable harm. The groups had sued Cuomo over his executive order limiting worship gatherings to 10 people for those in red zones and 25 for those in orange zones.
Cuomo argued on Thursday that the dispute isn’t settled.
“The decision isn’t final in the first place right. It goes back to the Second Circuit Appeals Court so it’s not even a final legal position. Second, it didn’t affect our mass gathering rules that 25%, 33 etc. So it didn’t mention those. It didn’t mention the overall limits. I think the basic point is you know why does the court rule on an issue that is moot unless — and which they had just decided several months before in other cases which presented the same argument — why rule on a case that is moot and come up with a different decision than you did several months ago on the same issue? You have a different court and I think that was the statement that the court was making,” he argued.
He further noted that while he values the role of the church in society, there is also a need to protect public health amid the pandemic.
“In terms of religious gatherings, look, I’m a former altar boy. Catholic grammar school, Catholic high school, Jesuit college. So I fully respect religion and if there’s a time in life when we need it, the time is now, but we want to make sure we keep people safe at the same time. That’s the balance we’re trying to hit, especially through this holiday season and the coming Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, etc. celebrations,” he said.
In support of the court’s decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that religious groups are treated differently from secular entities. He wrote in his opinion: “It is time – past time – to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”
The Thomas More Society, which has been fighting COVID-19 restrictions on religion across the nation, including the ongoing lawsuit against Cuomo on behalf of Catholic and Orthodox Jewish worshipers, praised the recent Supreme Court decision.
“The Supreme Court has made it clear that governors can no longer use a public health emergency as a pretext for dictates shutting or severely restricting the use of houses of worship while secular businesses and activities they deem ‘essential’ — and even certain favored ‘non-essential’ secular businesses and activities — are not subjected to the same draconian restrictions. What is considered ‘safe’ for grocery stores, liquor stores and massage parlors, must be considered safe for churches and synagogues,” Thomas More Society Special Counsel Christopher Ferrara said in a statement to The Christian Post.
“The Court has also ended reliance on the outdated Jacobson decision, a 115-year-old anachronism, which over the past eight months has morphed into a kind of super-precedent for any sort of restriction on constitutional freedoms governors feel like imposing during a public health crisis. Religious liberty has been rescued from the brink of extinction in the name of COVID-19, a virus with a 99.8% survival rate,” he added.
The Conservative Majority serving in the Supreme Court are absolutely right.
CHURCHES ARE ESSENTIAL.
Christianity has played a predominant role in the building of our nation. In fact, the Capitol building itself was used for church services, even before Congress moved into the building, and continued to be used for Sunday Church Services until well after the Civil War.
The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate on December 4, 1800, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson, whose approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.
Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.
U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather.
…Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.
The series of cacophonous thuds you just heard were the “I’m-smarter than-you” Atheists from both sides of the aisle, falling off their chairs. You see, they (all 8% of them) will argue until they are blue in the face that Jefferson and Madison were not Christians, and our founding documents were not based on a Judeo-Christian system of beliefs.
Then, they go out to feed the unicorn in their backyard.
Jefferson told his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation:
[A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.
I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.
I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.
But, what about Jefferson’s re-writing of the Bible, leaving out Jesus’ miracles, you ask? David Barton answered that question in 2001, in a letter to a newspaper, in response to a reader:
The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.
The other Founding Father whom Atheists claim was one of them is James Madison.
Per David Barton:
James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison’s writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.
Also, as this writing shows, Madison wanted all public officials – including Bradford – to be unashamed concerning their Christian beliefs and testimony:
I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Did you know that Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:
It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. ?
And, per Barton, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. The proposal reads:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.
But, wait. There’s more:
In 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.
In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
Finally, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
So, if you run into one of those individuals who, like NY Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Communist Mayor of New York City, BIll di Blasio, when it comes to accepting the Faith of our Founding Fathers, proves that denial is not just a river in Egypt, you can respond with one or all of three things:
If you were Barack Hussein Obama, and your attempt at Gun Confiscation had failed miserably, with both Congressional and widespread public opposition to your efforts, what do you do?
…after you threw a temper tantrum on national television…
Simple: You sign over your nation’s sovereignty to the United Nations.
United States of America Secretary of State John Kerry announced yesterday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, in spite of bipartisan resistance in Congress. Congress is concerned that the treaty could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.
Kerry, in a written statement, which he released as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, proclaimed that the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty…
We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.
Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”
On April 2nd of this year, in the modern-day Tower of Babylon, known as the United Nations, a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade was passed by the delegates. oblivious to worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that this agreement could be the precursor to a national firearms registry.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that participating countries will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.
With the unwavering support of Obama and his Administration, the General Assembly vote totaled 155 to 3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.
The problem with the treaty is that is positively porous, due to all of the loopholes contained in it. The list of controlled weaponry in it includes “small arms and light weapons”. Of course, the U.N. claims that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.
There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a sovereign nation. What does that mean?
It means that we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.
On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…
The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.
…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.
Our Founders added “A Bill of Rights” to the U.S. Constitution in 1789. The second Amendment, found in that Bill of Rights, states…
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
By selling out our sovereignty to the United Nations, President Barack Hussein Obama is definitely infringing on our rights as American Citizens as specified in the Second Amendment, and ignoring the Oath which he has taken, twice, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.