Ever the voice of reason.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Biden drops out of the race.
- Thread Starter welkin
- Start date
army judge
Super Moderator
No one knows how many hours, days, weeks, months,or years remain on the life estate granted to each of us by Almighty God.
That said, Biden could remain POTUS until 20 January 2025.
However, The Almighty could have other plans.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
Hmm, you know very little about me but yet you proceed to make statements as though you do know what I do and what my thoughts are. That strikes me as similar to what you claim the Democrats do. It's easy in political arguments for people of any particular political leaning to do that sort of thing. There are those in both parties who love to sling the mud, and from your comments to me I'd guess you're right there among them, but that's just a guess from what you say on these boards.
I have not abandoned the party. Instead I want to make it better, and IMO the party would be much better off without Trump. Being a Republican doesn't requires slavishly following Trump, hanging on his every word, and believing that everything he says is akin to being gospel. Trump and the party are not one and the same, thank God. Party members can, and should, think for themselves rather than letting some politician tell them what to think.
My views on Trump go back long before he entered the 2016 presidential race. I've never liked him and after seeing the choatic way he's run his businesses over the years it was my belief then, as it is now, that Trump is not suited to the job of being president, and for me his first term only reinforced that. It was a chaotic mess with a revolving door of officials coming in and then leaving not all that much later.
I didn't vote for him in 2016 because my belief that he wasn't well suited for the job and didn't I didn't vote for him in 2020 for the same reason. Your beliefs are different than mine, so I don't expect your candidate choices will always match mine. That's okay because I don't want to force you to think like I do or to dictate to you who you should or should not vote for.
My views don't come from blindly following any media, contrary to your assertion to the contrary. I know that's that's true because, and I know this may shock you, I know myself far better than you do. Likewise you know yourself far better than I do. So I suggest you stop making statements about what I think or do and stick instead to subjects you do know.
If you're a Trump fan, I'm all in favor of your right to support him. Heck, go ahead and worship the guy if you want. The freedoms and rights we have and cherish let you support whomever you want and believe whatever you want. One of the fundamental principles of this country is that we need not all believe the same thing or support the same candidate. Everyone believing exactly the same things is not healthy for any nation, IMO.
Though I don't particularly like the policies of Biden and Harris, between them and Trump I'd take Biden or Harris as the lesser of two bad choices.
In my state there are other presidential candidates on the ballot and I may well vote for one of them. They won't win, but voting for them isn't a futile act either. It expresses my distain for the state of both major parties and the candidates they've been putting forward over the last two decades or more.
I know that the country was founded with one of its main tenants being freedom of religion. It was not, and never has been, a country for only Christains and Jews. Our founders wanted to keep religion out of our politics. They specifically did not want any religious tests for public office. So while the majority of Americans in 1789 were Christains (or at least claimed to be) this country was not founded on the idea that only people of that faith may live here and enjoy the same rights as everyone else. As an attorney I know that in the law, that the phrase "in God we trust" appears on our currency doesn't have any legal meaning or consequence.. Courts don't invoke that phrase in deciding cases nor do they punish those who refuse to reference God in the oath they take prior to questioning.
Sadly, the founders vision with respect to the role of government in religion did not last. Our money didn't start bearing the legend "In God We Trust" at the start of our Republic in 1789. Coins started to be minted with that phrase in 1864 and the phrase didn't appear on our paper currency until 1957. In both cases adding those phrases was a political move by the representatives and senators who voted for them in order to firm up support among Christains. It had nothing to do with the law. Personally I think our founders got it right when they didn't express religious beliefs on our currency, and I'd be quite happy to return to our founder's vision on that.
Court pleadings do not reference God in either federal court or in any state I'm familiar with. Some states, more likely those in the south, may still do that. It was more common to see that more widely done 50+ years ago. The Oath Supreme Court justices take did not mention God until the 1860s, and that change was made by Congress.
Neither my religious beliefs or yours, or anyone elses should be forced on others. Those who believe that their religion should be the only one allowed tragically misunderstand U.S. history and what religious liberty means. We don't need a theocracy. Those tend not to work out very well.
Or he could be removed from duty by Harris and the 25th Amendment making her the Acting President either before or after the election. I don't put it past her.
Reading your response to the thread about the media, I don't think you take your own advice. Much of what you post is exactly the left-wing media accounts of events without doing any fact-checking. Sometimes it takes a few months to get the truth sometimes a few years. But you do get the truth eventually. But you seem to just stick with the narrative.
So yes, let's look at Jan 6th. Trump told the protestors to be peaceful and patriotic. Not one word that would incite an insurrection. But what happened got out of hand as a riot. But not because of anything Trump said or did.
These are the only two quotes from his speech where he says anything about going to the Capital:
We now know that the entire narrative of insurrection was planned by Nancy Pelosi and her complete disregard of the security of the Capital. She refused to call in the National Guard. We know that she was complicit in causing the riot. Hear in her own words that the riot was her fault. The article linked to has a link to her video confession.
Pelosi taking responsibility
Pelosi's plan was further carried out by forming an illegitimate house committee, contrary to the House Rules that did not have even one member of the opposition party, to investigate the so-called insurrection. We know that it was a planned hit job on Trump and his supporters. We know that because of the hearings that were held by Jim Jorden's committee in the House over the last few months. You can find the documentation in the Congressional record. Pelosi's committee also destroyed important testimony. It was a total setup and hit job from the start.
So yes, let's look at Jan 6th. Trump told the protestors to be peaceful and patriotic. Not one word that would incite an insurrection. But what happened got out of hand as a riot. But not because of anything Trump said or did.
These are the only two quotes from his speech where he says anything about going to the Capital:
The full text of the Trump speech
We now know that the entire narrative of insurrection was planned by Nancy Pelosi and her complete disregard of the security of the Capital. She refused to call in the National Guard. We know that she was complicit in causing the riot. Hear in her own words that the riot was her fault. The article linked to has a link to her video confession.
Pelosi taking responsibility
Pelosi's plan was further carried out by forming an illegitimate house committee, contrary to the House Rules that did not have even one member of the opposition party, to investigate the so-called insurrection. We know that it was a planned hit job on Trump and his supporters. We know that because of the hearings that were held by Jim Jorden's committee in the House over the last few months. You can find the documentation in the Congressional record. Pelosi's committee also destroyed important testimony. It was a total setup and hit job from the start.
Trump ran in 2016 on a platform of clearing the swamp and that is exactly what he did. He was against the Deep State. If you came into his administration and did not fulfil what you were appointed to do, you were fired. That is how he ran his real estate business and that is the way he ran his administration. And that is the way the Country should be run.
Biden, on the other hand, hasn't fired anyone in his term as President. Just look at the assassination attempt on Trump. Did Biden fire the director of the USSS? No, she was allowed to resign 11 days after the attempted assassination. Do you call that leadership? And then he puts out accolades in a press release.
It is a futile act because in a country where there are just two major parties where one will win, the only place it makes any sense is in your own mind. You are not expressing your distain to anyone. You may as well stay home and not vote because your vote will count for nothing.
Last edited:
army judge
Super Moderator
Really, my friend?
This looks bleak at first, but it also approximates my perception of the issue.
When Americans are asked to check a box indicating their religious affiliation, 28% now check 'none.'
A new study from Pew Research finds that the religiously unaffiliated – a group comprised of atheists, agnostic and those who say their religion is "nothing in particular" – is now the largest cohort in the U.S. They're more prevalent among American adults than Catholics (23%) or evangelical Protestants (24%).
Back in 2007, Nones made up just 16% of Americans, but Pew's new survey of more than 3,300 U.S. adults shows that number has now risen dramatically.
Researchers refer to this group as the "Nones."
Frankly, the phrase under discussion covers all major religious faiths that serve/worship a specific deity.
Perhaps, the phrase developed as follows:
The phrase "In God we trust" has appeared on all American currency since 1957, but its controversial history goes back much further than that.
The phrase "In God we trust" is all but inescapable in the United States. It is pressed on coins, printed on dollar bills, and, in many states, present in every classroom. But for a country that purportedly separates church and state, why adopt a national motto that harkens back to Christianity?
Even more perplexing is that this motto, officially adopted in 1956, replaced a much more secular one, E Pluribus Unum, or "Out of many, one," which had served as the de facto phrase prior to the change.
Like many things in America, the switch was the result of a complex set of historical circumstances dating back to the Civil War, with the added paranoia of the Cold War providing a new desire for Americans to separate themselves from the atheist, communist Soviets.
But that's not all there is to this story. Discover the real history of America's complicated relationship with the motto "In God we trust."
When Was "In God We Trust" Added To Money?
The motto "In God we trust" was inspired by the fourth verse of America's national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner." The line reads: "Then conquer we must, when our cause is just, and this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'"This dedication to the Almighty became highly influential for the proud patriots of early America. But according to the Pew Research Center, the first official use of "In God we trust" came 50 years later.
In 1861, a Christian minister named Reverend M. R. Watkinson of Ridley Township, Pennsylvania, penned a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase petitioning for "the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins." In part, Watkinson's suggestion was intended to improve the morale of Union soldiers, assuming that if they had the blessing of God on their side, they would prevail in the war. What's more, Union states wanted to display what they truly stood for to the outside world.
{Poster's Note: Once upon a time, so very long ago; Donkeys and Elephants weren't that far apart. Both animals loved this great nation.}
Chase found some sense in the reverend's words, and he put out an order for the U.S. Mint to begin producing coins with a religious reference on them. Initially, the director of the Mint suggested the phrase "God, Our Trust." Chase then changed it to "In God we trust," and the motto began appearing on Union currency in 1864, beginning with a two-cent coin.
"In God we trust" was added to coins with room for the phrase one year later. Soon, however, paper money became increasingly popular — but it wasn't until the mid-1950s that "In God we trust" was added to bills.
"In God We Trust" Becomes The Official Motto Of The United States
After the Civil War, the United States saw a rise in secularism. As a result, many Americans started to believe that using religious language in a governmental context was inconsistent with the values of the country.In the 1950s, however, Americans found themselves increasingly wary of anything reminiscent of the Soviets and communism.
Given that the Soviet Union was aggressively atheist, the American pushback to this ideal gave way once more to a rise in religion. Americans were less averse to using religious language in governmental settings, and so, in 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill making "In God we trust" the official U.S. motto and requiring it to appear on all American currency.
Democratic Congressman Charles E. Bennett of Florida sponsored the bill, stating that the United States "was founded in a spiritual atmosphere and with a firm trust in God."
Of course, this decision was not met with universal praise. While many religious Americans were happy to put the phrase on government buildings and currency as a show of faith and opposition to Soviet ideals, some non-Christian Americans — whether atheist, agnostic, or of another religious denomination — considered the use of such language a slight against the Constitution.
Even today, the use of the phrase "In God we trust" can be controversial.
The Controversy Surrounding "In God We Trust"
One major opponent of the phrase "In God we trust" in recent years has been Princeton University professor Kevin M. Kruse, whose book One Nation Under God casts a critical eye on the use of the phrase.In his book, Kruse acknowledges the various ways in which Eisenhower attempted to revolutionize religion in American society during his presidency. For example, Eisenhower is the only president in U.S. history to be baptized while in office. He also had a close friendship with the evangelist Billy Graham, who was widely considered to be "among the most influential Christian leaders."
Eisenhower also instituted the National Prayer Breakfast and began his Cabinet meetings with prayer. When Congress added the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, Eisenhower was a strong proponent.
All this is to say that Eisenhower strongly believed that America was, at its core, a spiritual nation. Moreover, he used religion in America as an indicator of what separated the United States from the Soviet Union.
In a 1954 radio address, Eisenhower made a point of emphasizing the purported role of religion and spirituality in American politics, saying, "Out of faith in God, and through faith in themselves as His children, our forefathers designed and built the Republic," as reported by HISTORY.
Eisenhower's Judeo-Christian philosophy may have resonated with many Americans at the height of a religious boom in the mid-1950s, but those ideals have been called into question several times in the decades since.
In more recent years, Eisenhower's original sentiment that the phrase "In God we trust" is representative of American values has been a GOP rallying point, particularly during the Trump presidency.
During his first State of the Union address, then-president Donald Trump invoked the phrase, saying that "faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, are the center of the American life." In a different address, he referred to the United States as a "nation of believers."
For some, these statements echoed their own deeply held convictions and religious beliefs, but for others, they seemed to blur the lines between religion and politics.
Mislin ultimately summarizes the issue well, writing, "'In God we trust' is not a motto that reflects universally shared historical values. Rather it represents a particular political, economic and religious perspective."
'In God We Trust': Inside The Controversial History Of America's Official Motto
"In God we trust" has been the national motto of the United States since 1956.
allthatsinteresting.com
I used to tick "Other" because few, if any, forms/lists included Eastern Orthodox. Now? It's usually "None."While I identify as as Russian Orthodox, it is really only culturally. In recent years, I only attended Church with Mom, when she desired and was capable (that said, we were never huge churchgoers growing up). Now? I haven't been since Mom's funeral and associated services. I consider myself agnostic at this point. If there IS a Higher Power? I suspect my actions, behavior, and treatment of others will be what matters. If there isn't? Well, it's how. I'll be remembered. Plus, I despise the hypocrisy of organized religion.
Pushing God at me is meaningless.
Pushing God at me is meaningless.
Redemptionman
Well-Known Member
and I was going to mention that most civil case filings have in them a prayer for relief. This is a prayer to what? to whom? It to me has a historical higher power reference.
army judge
Super Moderator
Such are what I term, "life's little ironies and inexplicable anomalies".
Humanity, one might conclude to be a massive charade, even a fraud.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
Words can have more than one meaning.
Per dictionary.com, it means "to make petition or entreaty for" (Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words)
In other words, it means that one is asking the court to do something. That's all. Plain and simple.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
You are really reaching now.
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary (in addition to religious connotations)
Pray - a transitive verb meaning entreat, implore, request.
Prayer - a noun meaning an earnest request or wish.
In litigation "prayer for relief" is asking the court to render a decision in favor of the litigant requesting the relief. It's that simple.
The litigant is not on his knees asking for divine intervention from a statue, idol, or relic.
To apply a religious connotation to the phrase is beyond ludicrous.
Redemptionman
Well-Known Member
I just used this as an example, but lots of judges and courts use religious references in their decisions and making determinations.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
An example of what? It only seemed to me to serve as an example of a fundamental misunderstanding of the usage of the word.
As for the paper you shared, I would be interested in seeing something more recent in order to see how things have changed since that was written.
EDIT: An interesting note from page
army judge
Super Moderator
The 25th Amendment was discussed very early on after Former President Trump's successful first campaign. Most of the chatter, hee-hawing, and braying about the 25th Amendment emanated from Donkeys and their media fanboys and fangirls.
Odd, but 25th Amendment chatter these days mysteriously disappeared.
Redemptionman
Well-Known Member
What I find funny and every person voting Donkey should know is that Biden went on Lester Holt's interview and stated it was time to put Donald Trump in the BULLSEYE! I took this as a code to initiate a project which had been planned through dark state operatives to ignite an operation. This operation gave a crazy maniac the opportunity to kill a political opponent and former president.
Anyone who votes for that party really needs to examine themselves, their values, and what they believe. For any one party willing to do this should never be allowed to hold office in the United States.
Anyone who votes for that party really needs to examine themselves, their values, and what they believe. For any one party willing to do this should never be allowed to hold office in the United States.
army judge
Super Moderator
I unequivocally, gleefully, happily, joyfully state that I've NEVER voted (or considered voting) for a DONKEY candidate for elective office (at the municipal, county, state, territorial, or federal level)!!!
army judge
Super Moderator
Posted below is the link to a New Yorker Magazine article that was written to educate the unwashed masses, such as moi, about the great deeds done to build the USA by members of Clan Biden.
It is well written, unbiased piece authored by a person who desired to educate US about Clan Biden, especially it's Grand Poobah, Joey R. B.
www.newyorker.com
It is well written, unbiased piece authored by a person who desired to educate US about Clan Biden, especially it's Grand Poobah, Joey R. B.
The Untold History of the Biden Family
Relatively little has been known about the President’s father, whose story reveals a family’s fraught relationship with money, class, and alcohol.
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Anybody who believes that Biden advocated assassinating Trump is too irrational to even talk to.
No, it was the incompetent Secret Service and other law enforcement that gave a crazy maniac the opportunity.
The same can be said about your party.
It's all hyperbole.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
That's about as anti-democratic a statement as I've seen you make. The fundamental foundation of our republic is that the public elects its representatives, and every eligible person should be encouraged to get out and vote for their preferred candidate. Only one will win, but that doesn't mean everyone else who voted for a candidate who didn't win wasted their vote. By saying I ought to just stay home, you are indicating you don't see value in the act of voting itself, whether or not your candidate wins, and IMO that's a shame. A vote for a candidate who loses does not count for nothing. As you've expressed it, if Trump loses to Harris the votes for Trump are worth nothing. After all, as a loser in the race he would become no better than a third party candidate who loses.
If you decided to not vote because you didn't think your preferred candidate won't win, that's your right. But in that situation you aren't making your voice heard at all and you'd be indicating that voting is pretty much a worthless thing to do for anyone whose candidate doesn't win. But there is value in the very act of voting itself, whether your candidate wins or loses. It helps sustain the democratic process. It's one of the core rights that those who worn the uniforms of are armed services, like Army Judge, stood ready to put their lives at risk to defend, and some of those breave souls died defending our rights, including the very valuable right to vote. A right to vote doesn't mean anything if you don't exercise that right.
Last edited:
Share this page
