Bernie Sanders – Job Applicant Invalid Because of Religion?

Bernie Sanders

A video released on YouTube recently shows the confrontation between Bernie Sanders and Russel Vought, “discussing” his column he wrote for Wheaton College.

Apparently, Vought wrote the column in support of Wheaton’s decision to fire a professor who “expressed theological solidarity with Islam and Muslims”*. The conservative website, The Resurgent, published his column, which caught Bernie Sanders’ attention.

Senator Bernie Sanders, however, disagreed with Mr. Vought’s statements, claiming he was an “Islamophobia” for proclaiming that Muslims are condemned. Bernie Sanders was flustered as Russel Vought coolly replied to his irrelevant questions, such as “Do you think your statement that you put into that publication, ‘they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ the Son and they stand condemned’, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?”.

This act of religious disrespect by Russel Vought, in the eyes of Bernie Sanders, disqualifies him for nomination for Office of Management and Budget. However, if we examine a little closer, Russel Vought was quoting directly word-for-word Mark 16:16b, where Mark writes: “…but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

The issue here, while Bernie Sanders’ accusations and position are totally unbiblical, but that this standard is even being upheld. A Christian man seeking employment from the government, which has its roots laid in the very Word of God, will be voted against because of a religious stance he has taken.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances -1st Amendment 


Congress, including Bernie Sanders, has no right to stand against a Christian standing in office of any position. On the same note, it has no right to stand against any religion, be it Christian, Muslim, or any other religion that may or may not be favorably seen by anybody. Furthermore, Article VI of the Constitution takes this to another level:


no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


I can’t say whether or not Bernie Sanders conducted a religious test on Vought, but it sounded very much like a rough interrogation. However, 3,268 people who voted on One News Now’s poll (here) (a striking 96.46% of the voters) believed that he did violate Article VI. This kind of interrogation, the kind where the interrogated has no option to reply, is unacceptable.

I hope to see this point brought out within the next few days by the public, but there is no question where the law stands – Russel Vought cannot be withheld from the Office of Management and Budget with the grounds of his religion or anything he wrote regarding Islam or Christianity in his column.

(Watch video)

*onenewsnow.com

Advertisements

Gun Laws

Bullet

Gun laws are a big issue that come up frequently among many circles. Anybody who knows me knows that I am pro-guns. But I want to talk about the topic of machine guns. Aside from a semi-auto, I’ve never held a machine gun. But I do know what they’re capable of: they are capable of rapid fire, death, and fun (if used properly). I’ve seen quite a few videos of people shooting machine guns into lakes or ponds, and it looks fun. Dangerous? Yes, they can be. But you don’t instantly classify shooting a gun under dangerous. You won’t shoot your eye out.

But machine guns have come up in quite a few gun law discussions recently. One News Now says “Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, says the argument is that machine guns are different from other firearms and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.” How absurd is that? What is the difference in the danger level between a machine gun rather than a semi-auto? Machine guns are simply a new type of weapon in a long chain of technological weapon advancements. Are future weapons, because of their difference from the firearms of the age when the Second Amendment was made, going to be unprotected by the Second Amendment? I should hope not. But the Orlando shooting recently poses a threat to the freedom of guns.

A source tells me that AR-15 weapons and pieces are going out of stock and, what is in stock, is raising in price dramatically. My question is, why? I read where somebody quoted the government in stating that outlawing guns will solve the problem, and then the person quoting proposed the solution: Why not outlaw killing people? Their intent was not to be humorous but to draw out the flaw in the thinking of gun abolitionists: getting rid of guns will not make things safer. The second amendment was made to allow citizens to possess guns, not for mass shootings, but to protect themselves from robbers, villains, and ISIS. If I read my sources correctly, nearly every single “mass” shooting in the news has the shooter connected to ISIS. So now I ask, are guns the issue, or is ISIS the issue? This seems to me a bit of a rhetorical question. I think that the answer is not banning guns but, on the contrary, making them easier to get for American citizens. This action will enable us to defend better in the case of a shooting.

Outlawing guns will make protecting America harder. Citizens will not have firearms and will be vulnerable to attacks. Guns make things easier to fight back, but ISIS does not have to ban guns. This results in ISIS bearing arms and America bearing olive branches.

 

Social Media of Terrorist Visa Applicants

Icon

On December 2nd, San Bernardino was a victim to a terrorist attack. Fourteen people were killed in the attack. But I’m not here to write about the attack; I’m here to write The losses of brothers, sisters, parents, or children was grieved nation-wide, by every American citizen abroad. But our great country of America did absolutely nothing about it afterward. What do I mean? There is a Governmental policy that limits their investigating agents. When an immigrant seeks a visa, the American government does a background check on that person. However, they are not allowed to check their background online – over social media. “During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process,” says John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis.
As John Cohen again put it, “Immigration, security, law enforcement officials recognized at the time that it was important to more extensively review public social media postings because they offered potential insights into whether somebody was an extremist or potentially connected to a terrorist organization or a supporter of the movement”. But the government limits itself by not allowing their agents to look into the Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram backgrounds of these people. As it is called “public social media”, it should be expected to be public. This blog is public, your comments are public; it would not be a violation on the government’s part to come to my blog, read the post, and then read your comments.
One governmental official said, “They felt looking at public postings [of foreign U.S. visa applicants] was an invasion of their privacy.” As we have just covered, of course, it is not. While I plan to post later on about invasions of privacy that the government really is making, I don’t plan to talk about their invasions on social media, because there aren’t any! The government is doing its job by investigating the history of the foreign visa applicants.
So what do we fix? What’s the problem? Are they doing anything illegal? The problem is quite clear: either the visa issuers are not taking the national security that is in their hands seriously, or they don’t care about our national security. Are they doing anything illegal? Yes. It says in James 4:17 “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” That is the case with our government. They know what they have to do, what is the best for their country, and that is to use social media for part of the visa screening. But they don’t do it. They sin, breaking the law. Why wouldn’t they just use the social media for screening? I don’t know, but it is becoming a serious problem.
As senator Charles Schumer said, ““Had they checked out Tashfeen Malik, maybe those people in San Bernardino would be alive.” I doubt that the families who suffered the losses are against social media used in visa screening.

Quotes taken from ABC News.

God’s Law and Order

Welcome to God’s Law and Order! If this is your first time stopping by, than welcome! I hope you enjoy it. If it’s not, than welcome back; thanks for coming again. So, in my last post, I said that I was still working out a few of the details before I officially launch. Well, those have been taken care of, and I plan to launch tomorrow sometime. So if you know anybody who is or might be interested in politics, God, their relation, or anything else pertaining to this blog (or my other one here), then let them know! I can’t wait to get started on this with y’all. Thanks for stopping by, and may God bless you.

Getting Started

Hello World.

This is God’s Law and Order’s first post, but right now, I’m just working out the details before I officially launch the program. If you are here to see this, thank you so much for stopping by. But you were a bit early, and I don’t have much, if anything, up yet. But you should come back in a week or so, and I’ll have the whole thing set up by then, hopefully. Thanks for stopping by, and hope to see you again soon! If you’re interested in more of my projects, view my original blog here. Thanks for the interest!

~Ryan