Thursday, July 2, 2026

Our Very Christian Founding


The United States has reached its 250th birthday, and remarkably, there is still debate about whether we were founded as an explicitly Christian nation. That’s because late 19th-century academia came up with the nebulous idea of a post-Christian “Enlightenment,” causing a lot of confusion. But there shouldn’t be.

Part of the problem is that some Christians today want to see the Founders as conventionally Christian, when some were not. Jefferson, for one, was a resolutely heterodox thinker. The amateur historian David Barton even had to withdraw his 2012 book The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson due to the numerous fake or unsupported quotes he used.

But that’s all quite irrelevant to the question at hand.

Rather, consider this -- a country today with Sharia law as its official justice system would undoubtedly be considered a “Muslim country.” So also, the United States is founded upon an explicitly Christian system -- the English common law.

49 of our 50 states have laws that essentially state -- the common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force…

That includes Justice Coke’s magisterial 1608 opinion in Calvin’s Case, where he wrote the “law of nature is the law of England,” and the “law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation, and direction...”

The English common law began with Saxon King Alfred’s 893 AD Doom book, enshrining Christian natural law by coordinating the customary laws of the Anglo-Saxons with the principles of the Ten Commandments and New Testament.

The British scholar John C.H. Wu wrote that the “English common law is a cradle Catholic while Roman law was a deathbed convert,” referring to the legal system begun by Catholics, and continued by Protestants, such as Coke.

Russell Kirk explained in The Roots of American Order (1974), that Blackstone’s famous 1765 Commentaries was the common law’s “lodestar” for the Founders.

From this Christian jurist they learned of “no taxation without representation,” the “absolute rights of the individual,” and that the law of nature “being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

Kirk stated “The natural law described by Blackstone was rooted in Christian ethics… There, more clearly expressed than by Locke, is (the) fundamental doctrine of American politics.”

Not content to leave credit for the Founding to the lawyers and the Scholastics, though, academics since the late 19th century have tried to claim our system for a collection of disparate philosophers, later dubbed “Enlightenment thinkers.” Men who never studied law or theology -- from Voltaire to Kant -- who shied away from Christian natural law, or like Hume, Bentham and others, denied it entirely. Some, like Locke, were also supporters of slavery, and nearly all of them supported “scientific racism.”

Few of these men or their ideas were of great interest to the Founders. Rather, they were only championed later by Progressive-era politicians such as Woodrow Wilson, who dismissed natural law and promoted a " living Constitution," or Oliver Wendell Holmes and his “legal realism,” which stood common law on its head.

The Founders also had no use for the anti-clerical zealotry of Tom Paine. (And even Paine believed in a soul and an afterlife and a Supreme Being who authored the Rights of Man).

Benjamin Franklin, who called himself a deist at times, might be better described as a super-generic Protestant. A lot of the Founders were merely estranged Anglicans, as the English Crown treated its American church as a patronage operation and filled it with Tories.

But the Founders knew modern natural law began with St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans and with St. Augustine’s principle -- restated by Coke -- that “an unjust law is no law at all.” They knew the Imago Dei became the universal political refrain, “all men are created equal” under the Church Fathers.

Some, such as the brilliant James Wilson, read Aquinas and the Anglican Richard Hooker. Educated in law and theology, he wrote in 1791, “Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law which is divine… Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and moral sense, forms an essential part of both.”

All knew of Cardinal Langton and his role in Magna Carta, securing the right to trial by jury among other things. They also knew of Simon de Montfort, the struggle for elective democracy and the birth of “no taxation without representation.”

The lawyers read the cleric and jurist, Henry De Bracton, a contemporary of Aquinas, who wrote his monumental On the Laws and Customs of England in 1259, insisting that the King was always bound by law and that his nobles could even bridle him like a horse if need be.

The English American scholar Theodore Plucknett stated that the “Constitution of the United States was written by men who had Magna Carta and Bracton, and Coke and Littleton before their eyes.”

They also had the best of later Scholastics, distilled down by secondary sources. Such as Cardinal Bellarmine and his work, De Laicis, which the Founders encountered continuously -- through Locke’s Second Treatise, Filmer’s Patriarcha, and Sidney’s Discourses, which alone offers two dozen quotations. British American historian Caroline Robbins in 1947 called the Discourses the “textbook of the American revolution.”

It was even discovered in 1917 that Jefferson’s personal copy of Patriarcha had quotations from De Laicis underlined, especially regarding the consent of the governed.

Jefferson was always evasive about the broad sources of his work, writing to Henry Lee in 1825, he would only mention “the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.”., skipping 1600 years of European history between the Stoics and the Enlightenment; and ignoring the giants of the English common law, both the Catholics -- Bracton, Fortescue, Littleton and the Anglicans -- Coke, Hale, Blackstone.

Unfortunately, shortchanging the traditional Catholic and Anglican thinkers has led to the myth that the Founders were all deists. But the history is clear. Jefferson’s phrases -- “all men are created equal,” “endowed by their Creator,” and “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” -- were already common in 14th-century England.

Patrick Henry’s 1775 Liberty or Death Speech, a great influence on Jefferson and Washington, well illustrates the Christian God the Founders had in mind.

“We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power… millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force… we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles…”

Someday, Americans might get a better understanding of their real history and all the things progressive-era academics have labored to obscure. Beginning with the Christian ideals in the center of the Declaration of Independence, the Apple of Gold, as Pres. Lincoln memorably phrased it.



Podcast thread for July 2nd

 

LOL! Never fails to amaze me.

America at 250 Is Awesome Despite Our Problems


The United States of America turns 250 years old this week, defying the odds and defying the haters for over a quarter of a millennium. It’s time to take stock of where we’ve been, where we are, and where we’re going. It’s easy to be a doomer; look at this week’s reaction to a single court case on an issue we’ll eventually win. But then again, it’s always easy to throw up your hands and sob, “There’s nothing I can do,” thereby relieving yourself of the duty of action. That’s un-American.

Let’s not sugarcoat it: We have problems. We see communists elected to positions of authority in New York City, Los Angeles, Denver, and Washington, D.C. Polls show that many Democrats today appear to hate America more than they hate red meat, AR15s, and testosterone. Yet we also have the fresh experience of World Cup fans from around the world arriving in our great country and being knocked out by how impressive it is. And it is a great country.

But the question is: Can it be greater?

We’re not like any other country on Earth. We descend from people who left the relative comfort of their homelands to carve out a new kind of nation from a wild continent full of tornadoes, vast deserts, and fierce, warlike savages (That’s not a diss to Native Americans; it’s a recognition that those tough warriors were worthy foes, and their later service in the U.S. military is legendary.)

The idea of a “nation of immigrants” has gotten a bad name lately because of the illegal aliens, lazy chiselers, learing center entrepreneurs, and brutal criminals who dominate the headlines, while our ancestors—who did the hard, honest work of building the greatest country in human history—get pushed into the background. But our ancestors all came here, and they came here because they were special. America is special, born of a refusal to comply and an obstinate rejection of obedience. We rule ourselves. My upcoming new conservative novel, “American Warlord,” is premised on that truth!

Two hundred fifty years ago, a band of tough, courageous men declared independence from the most powerful nation on Earth and then fought a long war until they won it. That is our heritage. That is our past, and that must be our future. They built something never before seen on Earth. If you want your children to understand it, make them watch "The Thread of Liberty: Keeping Our Republic"—because they sure as hell won’t learn the truth from unionized public school teachers who are more interested in gender nonsense than in teaching honest history and civics. You must teach the next generation who we are. We have to know who we are because this government belongs to us, not the bureaucrats, politicians, corporations, or NGOs. We have a fight on our hands to keep it that way.

Progressivism is an ideology designed to steal what is ours and redistribute scraps to greedy constituencies in exchange for votes and power. It is the opposite of Americanism. It is anti-freedom, because genuine freedom means freedom from their yoke, and they cannot tolerate that. One of their favorite tools is running America down. If they can make us forget who we are, they can demoralize us, and then we're a soft target. Remember the 1619 Project? It was historically illiterate, written by clowns and pinko activists, and embraced by the gullible. Its purpose was never truth; it was propaganda meant to demoralize. “You didn’t build that,” Barack Obama’s notorious lie, was a vicious rhetorical stiletto strike: if you didn’t build it, it isn’t really yours, so they can take and redistribute it. We see the same impulse today in proposals like a “billionaires' tax” designed to establish the principle that what is yours is the state's. They will ultimately try to take everyone’s success, property, guns, speech, and independence.

But we’re Americans. They can’t have any of it.

It has been refreshing to watch international visitors marvel over things we Americans take for granted—whether a giant plate of BBQ ribs, a Buc-ee’s, free soda refills, ubiquitous air-conditioning, or the sheer wealth and power on display. They see citizens flying their own flag and warplanes thundering over sporting events and contrast it with their own nations’ sorry lack of patriotism. Their people have been taught to loathe themselves; we’re b****s and proud of it. We have shown what only we can do militarily in recent actions against Iran, and claims that we “lost” are nonsense. We’re rich, too. Our poorest state has a higher GDP than the country we broke away from in 1776.

Donald Trump was elected on the Make America Great Again platform, and the ruling class has always hated it. They are not patriots. They weaponize patriotism when convenient and discard it when it isn’t. They don’t love America; they love power.

Sadly, many such people hold office. They want to drive the country into the ground, as they did in Detroit—once the richest city in the world, now a Democrat hellscape of poverty and crime. They believe we deserve to live in squalor and fear. Without God, they fill the void inside themselves with a secular faith that casts us as villains so they can play heroes. They hate that we refuse to be led like subjects. We refuse because we are citizens who demand our God-given rights.

There is plenty to worry about: young people flirting with Leftism, global enemies, exploding national debt, unsustainable spending, and a disturbing willingness (revealed during COVID) to surrender freedoms on command. Some on the Left have shown that they are willing to go to lethal extremes to regain power— they murdered Charlie Kirk, and how many times have they tried to assassinate President Trump? I’ve lost count.

Spreading doom is easy. It is also weak and unnecessary. Courage, bravery, and feistiness are not dead in American hearts. Remember the pilot shot down in the Iran conflict? He never lost faith because he knew America would never leave him behind. We moved heaven and earth to bring him home. And we did. No one else could have, and no one else would've tried, except maybe Israel, which partially explains why it's hated too. Regardless, that's America.

The future? I believe Americans are going to take their country back. We are done being replaced by foreign invaders, taxed to support chiselers of every income bracket, and told we have no moral right to exist or govern ourselves.

It’s time for a new, non-violent political revolution. We reject the failures, lies, and corruption of a parasitic ruling class. In America, the ruling class should be the citizenry itself. The proper chain of command is: God, American citizen, politicians, bureaucrats, and other parasites.

We will not surrender our God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution—the rights to free speech and to freely worship, the right to keep and bear arms and defend life and liberty with righteous force, or any of the others. Leftists will not seize our property, nullify our votes, or turn this glorious Republic into a squalid dictatorship. Two hundred fifty years ago, a would-be tyrant sent enforcers to impose his will upon us. We shot them.

That’s incredibly based.

The future is bright. We will go farther, faster, and better than ever before. On this 250th anniversary of the United States of America, choose to be an optimist like the pioneers who faced far greater challenges and walked west anyway. Celebrate America's quarter-millennial birthday by declaring your independence from traitors, losers, and doom-mongers by being unapologetically American.

Happy 250th Fourth of July!




🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Pentagon Announces New 'War Force,' but Recruits Will Be Pounding Keyboards, Not Manning Tanks


RedState 

The Department of War announced a new hiring initiative called “War Force” — but recruits won’t be carrying M27 automatic rifles, they’ll be sporting slide rules. They’re looking for software engineers and tech specialists to keep us at the forefront of the AI and technological arms race.

New hires could make a decent pile of change:

The initiative doesn’t seek to hire trigger-pullers but rather AI experts and other software engineers that could “embed down to the unit level across the department” to support operational needs and “ensure a more lethal United States military,” according to an OPM press release.

Per a job posting on the government-run USAJOBS website, personnel hired for the “forward deployed engineer” roles could make up to nearly $200,000 in annual salary if they come to work for the Pentagon for a two-year stint.

The department seeks experts in designing, building, integrating and maintaining capabilities like frontier AI, machine learning, automation and data systems.

The DoW effort is in partnership with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management:

The @DeptofWar, in partnership with @USOPM, has launched War Force to recruit America's best engineers for a tour of duty to modernize the Department and proliferate AI across the Joint Force. 

War Force engineers will embed everywhere across the War Department, even down to the unit level, to deliver tangible results to American warfighters. 

Applicants must be U.S. citizens eligible for a Secret or Top Secret clearance, with the primary work location in Washington, DC. Applications close July 10, 2026. 

Apply today

The OPM had its own announcement to make Wednesday: they’re phasing out paper processing for retirements. It will be all digital from now on:

Yesterday marks the last day of paper retirement processing in the federal government. We're turning the page on a decades-old process and embracing a fully digital future for federal retirement services. By modernizing how retirement applications are processed, we're delivering faster, more secure, and more efficient service for the federal workforce.

In a press release, OPM said the new processes will be infinitely more efficient than the old ways of doing business:

For decades, federal retirement applications relied on a paper-based process that required physical documents to move between agencies, payroll providers, and OPM’s Retirement Operations Center in Boyers, Pennsylvania. As of yesterday, nearly all retirement applications will be submitted and processed electronically through OPM’s Online Retirement Application (ORA), eliminating paper from the process and significantly reducing processing times.

The milestone follows rapid adoption of ORA, which has processed more than 155,000 retirement applications over the past year after serving only a few hundred users during its initial rollout.

OPM Director Scott Kupor thanked Elon Musk for his past efforts at DOGE in calling attention to the outdated Boyers mine.

Huge day for federal retirees - Last Day of Paper at the mine. Long overdue, but we at @USOPM are officially retiring the paper-based process that has disrespected retirees for 50+ years and led to unacceptable processing delays. Many thanks to @elonmusk for his vision on this project, @jgebbia for his technical leadership and to the many @USOPM team members who made this happen. So long, Michael J Scott!

“Michael J. Scott” presumably refers to the lead character in the comedy series, “The Office,” which depicts the zany side of a paper products business.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth has dramatically updated how the U.S. military operates, and keeping us on top of emerging technology in concert with OPM is a smart move.


‘Cowardice And Incoherence’ Is The Legacy Of The Roberts Court


The John Roberts-written ruling on birthplace citizenship marks a chief justice who has sacrificed judicial courage at the altar of comity.



In his brilliant dissenting opinion eviscerating the majority’s legal gymnastics on birthplace citizenship, Justice Samuel  Alito warned the court not to “adopt an erroneous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment simply out of fear of the consequences of ‘rocking the boat’ or as a reaction to current immigration policy.”

But fear and politics, it seems, drove the specious legal reasoning of the  “conservatives” who joined the court’s three liberals in killing President Donald Trump’s executive order ending squatter rights citizenship. A reluctance to “rock the boat” of more than a century of bad law permeates the thinking of Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the 5-4 ruling declaring unconstitutional the campaign promise Trump kept on the first day of his second term in office. 

Such cowardice in guarding the Constitution has too often marked Roberts’ tenure as the chief of the nation’s high court. From his similar constitutional contortionist act in 2020 Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California to his ridiculous reinvention of the established understanding of a “tax” in playing savior to Obamacare, Roberts has sacrificed judicial courage at the twin altars of comity and continuity. 

‘The Value of American Citizenship’

President George W. Bush’s nominee for chief justice has described himself — and all judges — as “umpires.” They don’t make the rules, he said. They apply them. 

“They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire,” he quipped. 

His latest opinion, Trump v. Barbara, reads more like an umpire who has ignored the foul lines. 

Donald J. Trump was born to rock the boat. The open border left and the Chamber of Commerce, cheap labor crowd railed against the president’s executive order aimed at “Protecting The Meaning And Value of American Citizenship.” The order asserts what many constitutional law experts — including Justice Alito — understand the 14th Amendment to mean.

“[T]he privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States,” the president’s directive states. That includes those availing themselves of the lucrative and growing industry of “birth tourism.”

Trump was clear: the U.S. government would no longer issue or accept documents recognizing U.S. citizenship of anchor babies, estimated to make up about 7 percent of the nation’s births. 

Previous presidents wouldn’t go there. Trump, of course, is a different president. 

The usual leftist suspects immediately sued him. They are, of course, gloating today. Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and, to a degree, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, gave them reason to rejoice. Kavanaugh’s beef was that birthplace citizenship policy is the domain of Congress, not the president. 

‘The Right to Have Rights’

Roberts and Barrett agreed with the plaintiffs that children born to parents “unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements” of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause: “they are ‘born . . . in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’” 

Roberts relies on the trite “nation of immigrants” mantra at the expense of first principles, specifically that we are a nation of laws. And those founding laws mean little if they are bent to the whims of political expedience and political correctness. 

The opinion effectively legitimizes DEI-hire Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s fatuous idea during oral arguments that if she stole a wallet while on vacation in Japan, she would be bound by her “allegiance” to the country’s criminal laws and the consequences therein.

”So there’s this relationship, even though I’m just a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense,” Jackson said. 

In a very real sense that makes no sense. Visitors are bound by the laws of the countries in which they travel. Kind of like millions of “undocumented” migrants are bound — or should be bound — by U.S. immigration law. They don’t owe an allegiance to the country that should be enforcing said laws. And therein lies a huge problem with birthplace citizenship. 

But Roberts is riding with a long-standing bastardization of the 14th Amendment’s intent, which was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not the children of millions of illegal immigrants looking for a pass to stay. 

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ … We keep that promise today,” Roberts wrote. 

That reads like the thinking of jurist who would rather win friends and influence people than right a popular but deeply flawed interpretation of the constitution. 

The “institutionalist” has a reputation and a record on that front. 

‘Middle Way’ Roberts 

In 2012’s baffling  NFIB v. Sebelius decision on Obamacare, Roberts was the deciding vote in abandoning the founding principles of tying representation to taxation and the origination clause. He justified that abandonment via a twisted bridge of constitutional interpretation, insisting “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done [creating an individual mandate] as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

While Roberts’ defended his extra-constitutional ruling on multiple occasions, he didn’t always feel that way. In fact he originally sided with his fellow conservatives in the minority “on the grounds that it went beyond Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce,” according to The Chief, a book written by longtime SCOTUS reporter Joan Biskupic. No originalist, Roberts was originally right. 

He caved to public pressure, fearing striking down the “Affordable Care Act” would create too many waves.  

“After trying unsuccessfully to find a middle way with [Justice Anthony] Kennedy, who was ‘unusually firm’ and even ‘put off’ by the courtship, Roberts turned to the Court’s two moderate liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan,” a review of the book published in The Atlantic asserts. “The threesome negotiated a compromise decision that upheld the ACA’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power, while striking down the Medicaid expansion.”

Roberts withstood the intense pressure to change his mind in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned nearly 50 years of bad abortion law under Roe v. Wade. But court watchers say the violence and the chaos ginned up by the left — including threats on the conservative justices’ lives — after a draft ruling was leaked left an impression on the chief justice’s mind. 

‘Cowardice and Incoherence’ 

Roiling the waters comes with too steep a price. Roberts doesn’t like messy, as he made clear in his year-end message to the judiciary in late December. 

“Chief Justice John Roberts scrupulously avoided touching on contentious issues facing judges at a time of widespread discord within the federal judiciary,” NBC News reported.

Kumbaya. 

He’s done little to rein in activist judges, particularly in the realm of nationwide injunctions. Doing so might upset activist judges. Roberts has pushed back on calls for impeaching such jurists, however.  

The chief justice’s opinion on birthplace citizenship further cements his legacy of his preference for comity over conflict, political consideration over principle, to the peril of the 250 year-old republic. 

“The legacy of the John Roberts court is cowardice and incoherence,” The Federalist’s CEO and co-founder Sean Davis wrote Tuesday on X.