Founding Faith by Steven Waldman

Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America by Steven Waldman

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Steven Waldman has written a very informative and fairly balanced book on the Faith of the Founders, majoring on five (Franklin, Adams, Washington, Jefferson and Madison) although touching on others.

My version had 274 pages with 16 in the introduction. There were 208 pages of writing with the rest being notes and index.

Waldman boiled down the important points in the last chapter of the book:

1. Liberal Fallacy 1: Most Founding Fathers were deists or secular.
2. Conservative Fallacy 1: Most Founding Fathers were serious Christians.
3. Liberal Fallacy 2: The Constitution [and Bill of Rights] demanded strict separation of church and state throughout the land.
4. Conservative Fallacy 2: Separation of church and state is a twentieth-century invention of the courts.
5. Liberal Fallacy 3: Separation of church and state was designed mostly to protect religious minorities.
6. Conservative Fallacy3: Advocates of separation are anti-religion.

And the last: The Founders had this all figured out.

A correlation I would add, is that the Founders were some monolithic bloc who agreed on everything.

You may not agree with his conclusions, but he backs it up with lots of quotes and notes and takes on the fallacies of both sides.

Highly recommended.

View all my reviews

Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin

So.

We’ve known that Ann Coulter’s chosen candidate in 2016 is Donald Trump. She makes no bones about it.

Ann lost her luster for me long ago. The red meat she’s into is not my cup of tea. But it makes liberal heads explode whenever I link to or quote her.

Clean harmless fun. She’s wrong about Trump, but she’s wrong about other stuff, too, in my opinion.

None of this makes her not a conservative.

Apparently Michelle Malkin, at the least, thinks Donald Trump is right on immigration. This has led some to say she’s not conservative, even though Trump’s position is not that different from many Republicans.

Which shows itself in the polls.

Just because people support Trump , it doesn’t make them liberal.

But it seems that it’s not enough to not support Trump in this crazy election year, you’ve got to condemn those who support him. Heck you might even have to condemn those who don’t say negative stuff about those who support Trump.

I believe I’ve read both ladies enough to know they’re not liberal.

And I’ve already been blocked. Oh well.

Single issue voters. All other issues hinge on one single issue. And if you don’t agree, you’re a pariah.

But hey, what do I know…

I’m probably not a “real” conservative myself.

My reads 2015-11-15

via Trump: Paris massacre would have been ‘much different’ if people had guns – CNNPolitics.com.

via Forget insurance. These Delaware docs only take fees.

via Paris pays the price of inaction: Column.

via After the Paris Attacks, a Call for Justice—Not Vengeance | The Nation.

via What Barack Obama said about ISIS being contained | PolitiFact.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

via Kohler workers reject offer, OK first union strike at company since 1983.

via Witness intimidation ‘out of control’ in Milwaukee County.

via Tom Still – Wisconsin needs more start-ups to counter loss of legacy industries.

‘The Attacks Will Be Spectacular’

‘The Attacks Will Be Spectacular’

This article caught my eye in my news feed today. After today’s tragic attacks in France, it seems even more apropos to look at it.

Of course, the conventional wisdom is to blame George W. Bush and his administration for not heeding advance warnings of the 9/11 attacks.

They may be right. Hindsight is 20/20, after all.

But I just wonder…

In the face of determined terrorists what can be done.

Here is the headline from @Slate: France Was Already on High Alert Before Friday’s Attack

I certainly don’t have all the answers, maybe not even a couple. But if this latest attack was pulled off with the French on high alert, I tend to be a little easier on the Bush administration for ignoring intelligence that an attack was going to happen without any hard intelligence on what was going to happen.

What exactly could have been done? The terrorists were already here. No flags were raised. Taking the attack to Al Qaeda sooner would have helped how?

There were other interesting notes in the article. Like enhanced interrogation techniques. Worth the read even if you disagree with what they write.

Most Think Founders Would be Disappointed in U.S.

A new Gallup survey finds that despite a high 85% of Americans saying they are “extremely” or “very” proud to be an American, 71% say the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed in today’s United States, while 27% say they would be pleased.

via Most Think Founders Would be Disappointed in U.S..

I’m not sure what they would be disappointed with. Conservatives and libertarians may feel they would be disappointed with how big government became and how dependent we are on it. Liberals no doubt think it would be how a few seems to have influence over the many.

I think they’d be pretty happy that their experiment has lasted this long.

Related articles

• U.S. Patriotism Slipping (usnews.com)
• Poll: Founders wouldn’t be pleased (politico.com)
• Most in US Still Proud to Be an American – Gallup.com (gallup.com)

Map: Literal meanings of places in the U.S.

Map: Literal meanings of places in the U.S. – Slate Magazine. And the world.

Map! #mapgeek