Defending the Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & the American Constitution
Tuesday July 29th 2014

Self-Educated Man

lincoln family bible study


Read along with us; share your insights, ask questions, post a link that adds to the discussion


Federalist 58 by James Madison. 1. Under the proposed Constitution whose interests were represented by the U.S. Senate? Is it so today? If not, how might it be remedied & by what means? 2. How did the Constitution provide for updating representation in Congress? 3. Madison credits the U.S Constitution with assigning the greatest power, that of the “purse strings” to the U.S. House. In your opinion, how might the House assert that power to reduce the size & cost of government today? 4. Explain in your own words Madison’s warning against too many men serving in the House. How might his warning be applied today as calls abound for a more direct democracy & for scrapping the electoral college system? 5. Is democracy the form of government our Founders gave us or was it a republican form? Explain the difference.


TML is syndicated by:

Google News (Internet)

Newstex - No. 1 Rated Authoritative Content

Feminists Criminalize Comments in Europe

BY PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY

In America we have the blessings of free speech, fully protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution. The roots of this special right do not trace back to England, but to the Christian ministers who evangelized the colonies, creating the Great Awakening. To this day England and the rest of Europe do not protect a constitutional right of free speech. Some remarks in Western Europe can cause the speaker to be imprisoned.

In America we have the blessings of free speech, fully protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution. The roots of this special right do not trace back to England, but to the Christian ministers who evangelized the colonies, creating the Great Awakening. To this day England and the rest of Europe do not protect a constitutional right of free speech. Some remarks in Western Europe can cause the speaker to be imprisoned.

Feminists in Europe have exploited this lack of a right to free speech in order to criminalize statements that they call “sexist”, an indefinable term which means any comment feminists do not like. By criminalizing sexist speech, governments in Europe will scare people away from many remarks and comments that are entirely appropriate. As long as government and feminists can define what is “sexist”, much valuable speech will be censored.

There are many statements in the Bible, in Shakespeare’s plays, and in other valuable writings that feminists or government might deem to be sexist. St. Paul had enemies in his day, and some might seize upon his comments about different roles for men and women in order to censor him. If a church minister were to quote St. Paul or other portions of the Bible on differences between men and women, should he face prosecution if a government bureaucrat declares it to be “sexist”?

England, 18 other nations including Germany and France signed an absurd United Nations treaty about Women that requires them to pass new laws making sexist comments a crime and outlawing “psychological violence,” which they define broadly to include statements “seriously impairing a person’s psychological integrity through coercion or threats.” This is sold to the public as part of a phony campaign against domestic violence, and politicians are apparently still too afraid to stand up to the feminists even to stop such obviously bad laws.


Contributing Editor, Phyllis Schlafly, is the Founder and President of Eagle Forum, a national radio show host, and a best-selling author.


Used with the permission of Eagle Forum.


The Moral Liberal recommends: Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade (Politics and Society in Twentieth-Century America)