Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Thursday, February 22, 2018

A Rational Look at the Second Amendment

by Tom Rhodes 2/22/2018

It 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.”

OK, let's break that down and translate to more modern English. For a state (nation) to be secure and free such a state needs a military (at the time of the writing the Militia was the defacto military, equivalent to today’s National guard). Now the comma, in this case it's meaning is “therefore.” The concluding clause is clear and concise statement that means the same today as then. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The people being all individual citizens not the government or military, the same as every where else it is used in the Bill of Rights. What makes our Constitution and Bill of Rights unique, is it doesn't list the privileges of citizens, rather it puts restrictions on the state.

The period writings of our founding fathers at the time are consistent. The founding fathers knew that states can and do become tyrannical over time. They had just fought a revolution to throw off their former tyrannical state. So they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they knew that the state must have a military to be secure (mostly from other nations). The primary reason for it was to restrict the government and insure that people retain not just the right to be armed but the means to overthrow the government should the states actions necessitate such an action.

In summary the second amendment states that because the state must maintain a military for security of the nation, the state cannot impose impediments to the people's right to have arms to overthrow the state, should it become tyrannical.

This idea is unique among all Nations in History. The idea that the masses have the right to the means and tools of overthrowing the state, and the government cannot take away or infringe upon that right. No other nation tolerates any idea except the ruling elite have control over the use of force and the masses should be disarmed or limited in arms so that the state can always have control over the masses.

Liberty is not safe and because we have liberty, and the presumption of innocence, bad people will have access to arms. Such is the cost of liberty. The alternative is some ruling elite, not the people, get to decide who is/isn't armed and what arms they can have. When somebody says shit about what other countries do, the reply is, “This is the USA, we don't give a flying fuck at a doughnut what or how other countries make their laws. Here in the USA we've restricted those in power from infringing on the We the People's right to the tools and means to kick the ruling elite out if they get too uppity.

Friday, February 16, 2018

Why Liberty Is Dangerous

By Tom Rhodes 2/16/2018

There has been another violent tragedy in the USA leaving 17 innocent children dead. Once again leftists are using it as an excuse to try and take away the rights we cherish. Because as a nation we established a government that valued individual liberty over security, preventing mad men who’ve committed no prior crimes from heinous acts is impossible, PERIOD!

The USA is unique among all the nations, our Preamble is a slap in the fast to every ruling elite who has ever lived. Saying: We The People … to secure the blessings of liberty … do ordain and establish our government. Creating a government with divided powers and very limited powers and specifics defining fundamental rights the government was prohibited from infringing upon.

Three keys to the USA that don’t exist in the rest of the world and are the basis for our government are the Rule of Law, Presumption of Innocence, and Fundamental Rights. To talk about gun laws, arresting the mentally ill, and what we can do, we must first understand and define these principles.

Fundamental Rights

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.

The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment are considered Fundamental Rights. These rights include:
  • The right to due process
  • The right to freedom of speech
  • The right to freedom of religion
  • The right to privacy
  • The right to marry
  • The right to interstate and intrastate travel
  • The right to equality
  • The right to assemble
  • And the right to keep and bear arms

    Presumption of innocence

    The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

    Rule of Law

    The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.

  • Because we all are endowed by our creator with Fundamental Rights, and we insist and restrict our government to follow the Rule of Law, and are all considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty; we are all in danger of mad or evil people committing gross acts of violence. Due Process given to all to protect their liberty, means that the government must prove, before a jury, where the accused can present witnesses and bring on experts, before any fundamental right can be restricted.

    The USA is unique, We the People do not have to seek permission from the government to exercise our rights, rather the government must first prove individuals, through their actions, should have those rights restricted. Being reasonable some restrictions on the means of exercising our fundamental rights serve a compelling interest to We the People. Your fundamental right to travel, doesn’t obligate the government to supply you with the means of travel, nor does it grant you the right to operate a 2 ton rolling motorized carriage without demonstrating your ability to do so. The requirement for a driver’s license is not restriction is not on your right to travel, only on the means you choose to travel. It is reasonable to restrict operating a motor vehicle to those old enough to do so safely, and those who understand how to do it safely, and who have demonstrated the ability to do so.

    We the People specifically included the Fundamental Right to keep and bear arms in the Bill Of Rights, not to allow pioneers to have a rifle to shoot deer, and protect themselves from brigands. Rather the government was purposefully restricted from infringing upon that right so that We the People had the tools to stand up against and overthrow our government should it become tyrannical. We’ve already allowed the government to restrict individuals far more than the purpose of the second amendment allows.

    We have a choice. Be free and enjoy Liberty, or be secure. History has repeatedly shown that those who sacrifice liberty for security, end up with neither. Unfortunately there is evil in this world, and there will always be a few who will abuse their rights. The idea that we should give up due process, have to prove we are innocent to exercise a Fundamental Right; the idea that there should be laws for people in the government and different laws for mere citizens; the idea that we should sacrifice our Fundamental Rights for the security of the state, or for individual safety; should all make us cringe in horror.

    Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, doesn’t mean except for access to XXXXX because it might scare others or somebody thinks it dangerous. The freedom to access guns, drugs, fast cars, bicycling without a helmet, etc. comes with accepting the fact that Liberty is Dangerous. The alternative is to give up our Fundamental Rights for the appearance of security. As the mass shooting in France at the Bataclan theater clearly demonstrate, laws restricting fundamental rights don’t keep us safe from mad or evil men.

    Those calling for “gun control” are fear mongers who want to be taken care of and don’t value their liberty, they believe that it is better to be safe and secure. They hate the idea that the average person should, without the approval of their betters, be allowed to own guns, choose to ride a bike without a helmet, smoke, eat red meat, own a big truck, sell lemonade from their front lawn before the big game, feed the poor in their neighborhood, scares them. They believe others should dictate how the masses should live. That is tyranny and evil. Statists, as exemplified by the Democrats, will use every evil act that occurs as an excuse to exercise more control and attack liberty. As for the Republicans, they will always sacrifice rights after whining, as they are cowards and won’t stand for anything, the past 50 years have proven they won’t conserve anything.

    If you want to further restrict arms for the average citizen, there is an easy process. You can have the limits placed on government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms removed. Just pass an amendment. But know if you try, there are 100,000,000 gun owners who will fight you and that process. We prefer Dangerous Liberty Over Peaceful Slavery.

    Tuesday, December 12, 2017

    The Left Abandon’s Modern Civilization and Embrace Tyranny

    By Tom Rhodes, 12/12/2017

    Leftist’s crucifixion of their own, is further objective evidence they support tyranny and neither justice nor rule of law. The Democrats have strung up and destroyed Senator Al Franken, for gross creepy conduct without any due process whatsoever nor based on any rule of law. If Senator Al Franken’s behavior is so atrocious he should be brought up on charges, and allowed to defend himself and question his accusers before a jury. He should have been assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law following all due process.

    The treatment of the Minnesota Senator is evidence that leftists do not want or support the concepts of rule of law, and innocent until proven guilty. One can conclude two things from the left’s treatment of Franken: 1) He’s a knowing sacrificial lamb, to try and pressure the GOP to destroy their own, like Moore, without due process or even credible accusers; 2) They don’t believe that men should be allowed due process in general, and those who don’t bow to the supremacy of women will be crucified. Franken’s confession of bad conduct is evidence he is either guilty of gross creepy criminal behavior or has knowingly sacrificed himself for the good of leftists gaining tyrannical control, probably both.

    Some of the things that made the USA special, was the Rule of Law, Trial by Jury, and the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty. The idea that nobody, is above the law and all laws apply to all people, government official or street urchin, alike. The idea that you are innocent until proven guilty before a jury of your peers and have the right to confront your accuser and bring witnesses before a verdict is rendered or punishment is extracted. Abandonment of these doctrines, is a repeated historic path to tyranny. When the elite can ignore the law, and people can be punished without due process, the law has no meaning and the people will ignore it and general lawlessness will ensue.

    Al Franken is most likely a douchebag gamma who used his notoriety and power to take liberties with women who probably thought he was a creep and would have otherwise ignored him or slammed him with charges. For whatever reason those women chose to remain silent and not press charges, either for personal gain, or because although treated abhorrently the idea of having to deal with the cops and a trial and all that entails to have him punished wasn’t worth effort, or because they feared ending their career if they turned in the creep. In any case Al Franken should have been treated as innocent until proven guilty (or confessed).

    In the USA it is, and has always been considered preferable, that a crook/creep/etc. go free rather than an innocent man be punished for a crime he didn’t commit. Yes that makes it harder to punish and deal with bad people, but the alternative is that innocent people be punished out of spite. Unproven allegations should not be used to judge anybody, even would be creepy despots like Al Franken.

    That said, the massive amount of accusations of perverted actions by leftists in Hollywood, the MSM, and Government that are coming out of the woodwork are enough smoke that we should be looking for the fire. All credible accusations, especially against persons in power and prominence, should be vigorously and honestly investigated, but everyone accused of some malfeasance should be considered innocent until they confess or are charged, tried, and convicted in a court of law following all due process. Any other treatment or action is an abandonment of modern civilization and a return to Feudalism. Feudalism of the type where those in charge or their minions declare judgment without due process, and punish whom they want at their whim. Tyranny no matter how you look at it.

    These were the actions of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet, etc. who trumped up charges to murder or send to the gulag, all who they felt impeded their despotic control of the masses. More people were killed by leftists purging those who disagreed with them in the 20th century than all wars in history combined. The leftists in the USA today are doing all they can to eliminate due process and the rule of law so that they too can purge those who impede their desire to control the lives of everybody. Social media is filled with leftists memes calling for the elimination of those who don’t believe as they.

    There is a significant difference between Conyers, Franken, and Moore, and how they should be treated. Conyers and Franken confessed to their sick creepy actions and their accusers are credible and accusations aren’t from scores of years ago. Moore has always claimed innocence, and his accuser confessed to fabricating evidence. Because of Conyers’ and Franken’s confessions they should be treated like the creepy perverts they are, while Moore until and unless he either confesses or is charged, tried, and convicted in a court with all due process, should be treated as innocent. Conyers, Franken, and Moore are all statist totalitarians who should not be elected and should be replaced with a good libertarian who values the constitutional limits on government, but to treat them as anything other than innocent until proven guilty is tantamount to abandoning civilization and liberty and embracing tyranny.

    Monday, December 11, 2017

    Normal America Dosen't Care

    by Tom Rhodes, 12/11/2017

    Most of America is libertarian, most believe that as long as you aren't infringing on my rights or trying to ram something down my throat, others should be free to do as they wish. Hence making pot legal. They also believe that outside of taking care of widows and orphans and the truly needy, people should have to earn their own way.

    Normal Americans support the idea espoused by Barney Frank when in 2009 he said, "Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."

    Normal American also support the idea espoused by Teddy Roosevelt in 1902 "The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight."

    Few Normal Americans disagree with either of those statements. But what has become obvious is that the liberals and establishment types don't care what Normal Americans think. The ruling elite have for decades told Normal Americans what they should think and believe, and do all they can to punish wrong thinking.

    It has become increasingly obvious that if you fail to do, think, and vote exactly the way that the establishment minions demand, you’re a stupid, racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids. Even if you do everything that the liberals and the Never Trump minions demand, you’re still a stupid racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids.

    Because of that a huge part of the population has resorted to the most powerful non-bullet firing weapon in their liberty-loving arsenal; the devastating capability not to give a damn what the liberals and their establishment cohorts in the GOP say.

    The majority of the Normal Americans are clearly telling liberals and the establishment types to go pound sand and we will do whatever the hell we want? You know what, some of America's Normals play the game and just lie to the elite's polls, but the reality is those polls are just as wrong today as they were Nov. 4, 2016, when they predicted Hillary would win. Trump kicked her ass. Normal America told the establishment elites we aren't playing that game anymore. The fact is Normal America just doesn't care what the main stream media, liberal hacks, and GOP establishment dorks, have to say anymore.

    This scares the shit out of the ruling elite. The fact that Normal America no longer cares what the urban elite of the coasts say anymore should give us hope that liberty not tyranny will survive in the USA.

    “Where the government fears the people, there is Liberty. Where the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

    The MSM hides Junk Science.

    by Tom Rhodes, 12/11/2017

    Remember last years "scientists discover micro-plastics are evil" article. Why didn't the retraction of the reseach in Science, make as big a splash in the news. The fact is the environmentalist scientists didn’t get the results they want so just make shit up to promote the evils of man on the environment.

    “Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv are guilty of misconduct in research, Eklöv in that he has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation, and Lönnstedt in that she has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation and because the experiments were not conducted as described in the article in the scholarly journal and are therefore fabricated,” Uppsala announced in their final report.

    When looking at any scientific findings use the old addage Follow the money; if government pays for research and the results say government needs more control; or if an environmental group pays for research that says man should be restricted from using something; it should be treated like Exxon saying burning fossil fuels is good, or Monsanto researc saying RoundUp is safe, or GM saying the Corvair is a safe car.

    Science is actually simple, and a clear indicator that you should doubt the results some scientist is claiming is: if the raw data and calculations are not shared, and the experiment hasn't been repeated, then it's Junk Science and not reliable.

    Wednesday, September 27, 2017

    Insanity of the Left is Destroying Success

    By Tom Rhodes, 9/27/2017

    “A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” ~ Samuel Adams Feb. 12, 1779

    Voicing the very same ideas that founding father Samuel Adams stated over 200 years ago, Pennsylvania Law Professor Amy Wax gave a lecture, titled “Diverging Family Structure by Class and Race: Economic Hardship, Moral Deregulation or Something Else?” She noted that despite what they may say, the upper middle class and most successful people exhibit 50's era traditional Christian morals, and that the less a group of people embrace "bourgeois culture,” the less prosperous they are.

    She presented statistical data that supported the fact that those who embrace our old moral traditions tend to be more successful than those who don't. She summarized the successful behaviors of "bourgeois culture” as, "Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime."

    This reads remarkably similar to Economists Dr. Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas Sowell's repeated editorials noting that if you complete high school, get a job, get married, and have kids, in that order you dramatically reduce the chance of living in poverty.

    For over 200 years the message, by example, of successful people, has been that adhering to traditional Christian virtues is the most successful way to pursue happiness. It's almost as if God gave us the Commandments not for His sake, but for ours. Evidence that the Bible is the "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth."

    Is it a coincidence that those who love liberty generally embrace bourgeois culture, and those who seek to silence ideas they don’t like, and force others to conform, and in general support a tyrannical powerful government, reject bourgeois culture? The insanity of the left, attacking hard work and self-discipline, and bourgeois culture, is self-evident. The vitriol and hatred leftists have exhibited to Professor Wax, and the left’s general attack on our liberties seems proportional to their rejection of virtues, clearly demonstrating that Sam Adams was right. The question is, why does the left tear down the very values that evidence indicates are those which bring prosperity, and happiness?

    Tuesday, September 19, 2017

    Climate Alarmism, A Religious Tenant of Totalitarian Leftists

    By Tom Rhodes, 9/19/2017

    For people on the left, left-wing issues are not political issues; they are religious issues. Consider global warming. To leftists it is an existential issue. The reason they want to criminally charge those don't accept man is causing catastrophic climate change is those who oppose their beliefs are heretics. The atheistic left is even more devout in their condemnation of heretical views. Any science or research that doesn't support their religious view of man being bad and earth being good must not be allowed. The failure of all the "scientific" models in temperature predictions is not a repudiation of their beliefs. The failure of virtually every prediction they have made concerning climate over the past 50 years is irrelevant, just as is the failure of all of the predictions of Armageddon made by religious zealots doesn’t diminish the faith of believers. They have faith that man is causing the destruction of the earth and therefore man’s actions should be controlled and limited by the enlightened, and no amount of facts will sway their faith.

    Man-caused climate change is questioned because there is indisputable scientific evidence this isn’t the Earth’s first rodeo when it comes to cyclical cooling and warming. The Earth experienced periods of glaciation followed by melting long before Leonardo DiCaprio’s excessive use of private jets and the construction of Al Gore’s energy devouring Nashville dream home. The statistical reality is man's contribution to climate change is so smaller than the margin of error in the analysis we can do. But that doesn't fit into the religious beliefs of the left.

    A primary tenant of leftists is that humans are a bad evil force that is harming mother nature. Katie Herzog at Grist.com clearly and plainly stated this religious tenant of leftism, writing on January 16, 2015, “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.” Granted most leftists don’t go to this absurd extreme, but then most Christians didn’t follow Jim Jones and drink the Kool-Aid either.

    Climate Alarmism is a tenant of leftist faith and the left is zealous about it to the point of extremism, like Islamist they will use violence and seek to criminalize criticism of their faith. Like Islamists they seek to dehumanize all who don’t share their belief, so that they can feel no guilt to murdering, attacking, condemning, and taking away the rights of non-believers. Whom they feel don’t have the same rights because they are less than human. The call to punish “climate change deniers” is the lefts religious zealotry to gain control of our lives.

    The United Nations (via UNEP), is pushing international judges to criminalize any climate change belief contrary to their own. Professor Richard Parncutt has called for the execution of prominent “GW deniers.” Climate Progress Editor Joe Romm called for deniers to be strangled in their beds. James Hansen, who has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has likewise called for trials of global warming deniers. There is a very long list, going back decades, of leftists wanting to silence scientists and other heretics who dare question their beliefs.

    The hue and cry to control us all, was once the imminent ice age, they it was called global warming, but because the climate didn’t freeze as predicted, then didn’t warm as predicted, and storms didn’t increase as predicted, etc. etc. etc., they changed their refrain from global warming to climate change. The climate change agenda is a desperate effort to gain greater control over our lives. As political commentator Henry Louis Mencken explained “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Leftists in their religious zeal have want the power to control the lives of others whom they feel should live as they dictate and not be given the liberty to examine the evidence and live and do what they think will best provide happiness.

    Leftists religiously oppose the foundations of the USA and reject the idea that government was instituted by the mere people to protect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They believe leftists by virtue of their superior intellect and compassion, should be able to dictate how the masses should live. Hence they seek to kill and outlaw and silence heretics that would dare question their beliefs. They are no better than Islamic terrorists, who kill those who question or criticize their beliefs.

    Friday, July 21, 2017

    Marco Rubio Sponsors Bill to Fine You $1Million if You Trade with Israel

    By Tom Rhodes, 7/21/2017

    No that’s not hyperbole, if the bill he’s sponsoring becomes law, you choose to boycott certain companies, you can be fined up to a Million bucks. It will be a crime not to do business with Israel. This may be the most insane law ever proposed. What’s sick is that the bill is supported equally by both the Republocrats and Demicans.

    As reported in The Intercept, congress is proposing the criminalization of political speech and activism if it involves boycotting one of their biggest contributors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC). I have nothing against Israel, but more importantly, I will defend your right to do business with whomever you please, and not to do business with whomever you please for whatever reason you choose. It’s called liberty.

    Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), may quite possibly be the most insane federal law ever proposed. The sick thing is has bipartisan support from both statist parties. A group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Along with ultra-leftist senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand as sponsors is none other than Florida’s own Marco Rubio.

    The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year. It is now beyond question that our government wants to outlaw opinions and ideas and legal actions that aren’t approved by the state. The corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make badthink go away. Be it a boycott of Israel, or speaking out against socialism on campus, or publically noting the facts that homosexuality is unsafe and unhealthy. These kind of laws are not only unconstitutional, but will intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.

    Meanwhile, some co-sponsors seemed not to have any idea what they co-sponsored — almost as though they reflexively sign whatever comes from AIPAC without having any idea what’s in it. Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, for instance, seemed genuinely bewildered when told of the ACLU’s letter, saying, “What’s the Act? You’ll have to get back to me on that.”

    Monday, July 10, 2017

    How to Send the Left into Vituperative Sissy Fits

    by Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2017

    How to get push a statist into a tizzy is to be rational not emotional, even libertarian statists will exhibit vituperation, if you utter an obvious, objective, measurable truth, that supports the way things are, not the way they feel things should be, like uttering a historically observable fact like - The West is superior to the rest of the world in every significant way, and Western civilization is the height of human achievement and worth fighting and dying for. If the response to such a statement is angst and anger you are clearly communicating with a totalitarian control freak who wants the government to be their mommy and to take care of them when they screw up, they fear a life where they will be allowed to actually suffer the consequences of the choices they make, or their some utopian thinking bohemian who believes that without government we would all just "get along."

    As an experiment, read the vituperative sissy fits that will be replied if you post the below truth/heresy to your favorite social media:

    Not only is Western civilization the best and most advanced culture in the history of humanity, but the USA is its greatest manifestation.

    Friday, June 9, 2017

    Bernie Sanders Commits Impeachable Offense

    By Tom Rhodes, 6/9/2017

    Bernie Sanders violates the Constitution making a religious test a qualification to be confirmed by the Senate.

    Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    During Wednesday's, confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Bernie Sanders said a Christian who believes in the bible is unfit for public office.

    The Bern is pissed because Vought dared to write a basic tenant of the Christian faith, writing, “Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human).” Vought wrote. “If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve.”

    In Luke 10:16 where Jesus said, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Based on that Vought noted, "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned."

    Duh!! Christianity is based on the fact that there is only one path to salvation, that path is through Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. Whether you believe that or not, whether you are a Christian or not, is totally irrelevant, merely stating a fundamental principle of your faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies anybody from any office or public trust.

    The Bern is saying that if you, as a Christian, actually believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, then you are not qualified for office or public trust. Clearly he is adding an unconstitutional religious test to Senate approval. Vought’s words about the exclusivity of his Christianity, was clearly the reason why the Bern found him an unqualified to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”

    The Bern has made it clear if you are a Christian, willing to publically affirm basic Christian beliefs, you do not qualify for office or public trust,. Doing so he has put religion as a test for government office a unambiguous violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. As such Bernie Sanders has violated his oath of office and should be impeached from the US senate.