Politico Reporter Suggests You’re a ‘Christian Nationalist’ if You Believe Your Rights as an American Come From God
“they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God”
Tell me you’ve never read the Constitution without telling me you’ve never read the Constitution. That’s all I could think of when I saw this clip of Politico reporter Heidi Przybyla on MSNBC talking about ‘Christian Nationalism’ and American rights.
According to Przybyla, if you think your rights come from God, as America’s founding documents suggest, this makes you a Christian Nationalist. Who knew?
Transcript via Real Clear Politics:
HEIDI PRZYBYLA: I talked with a lot of experts on this and I have seen it with my reporting, Michael, which is that the base of the Republican Party has shifted. Remember when Trump ran in 2016, a lot of the mainline evangelicals wanted nothing to do with the divorced real estate mogul who cheated on his wife with a porn star, and all of that.
So what happened was that he was surrounded by this more extremist element. We are going to hear words like Christian nationalism, like the “new apostolic reformation.” These are groups that you should get very schooled on because they have a lot of power in Trump’s circle. And the one thing that unites all of them because there’s many different groups orbiting Trump.
But the thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God. The problem with that is that they are determining, men, are determining what God is telling them. In the past, that so-called “natural law,” it is a pillar of catholicism for instance, it has been used for good in social justice campaigns. Martin Luther King evoked it in talking about civil rights.
Here’s the video:
Here @MSNBC helpfully makes it clear their disdain for Christians in America.
She says that if you believe that your rights come from God, you aren’t a Christian, you are a Christian nationalist.
Somehow they seem to not mention that our own founding documents make this… pic.twitter.com/WTLMqcqTzg
— Wade Miller (@WadeMiller_USMC) February 23, 2024
Przybyla responded to criticism by doubling down.
which distinguishes this from other Christians who leave these God-given rights at our inherent right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" — vs banning abortion, contraception etc.
— Heidi Przybyla 🌺 (@HeidiReports) February 23, 2024
I think I explained, in good faith above, the importance of establishing what natural law was for a general audience before making my main point, that CN's have a specific policy agenda they've superimposed on to it.
Sadly, none of you are addressing that.
— Heidi Przybyla 🌺 (@HeidiReports) February 23, 2024
This is part of an effort to set a narrative. This Politico piece was co-written by Przybyla:
Trump allies prepare to infuse ‘Christian nationalism’ in second administration
An influential think tank close to Donald Trump is developing plans to infuse Christian nationalist ideas in his administration should the former president return to power, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.
Spearheading the effort is Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget during his first term and has remained close to him. Vought, who is frequently cited as a potential chief of staff in a second Trump White House, is president of The Center for Renewing America think tank, a leading group in a conservative consortium preparing for a second Trump term.
Christian nationalists in America believe that the country was founded as a Christian nation and that Christian values should be prioritized throughout government and public life.
Many people in our media are completely disconnected from the people who live in the country they cover.
Featured image via NewsBusters video.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Since you have to give up rights to have a government those rights come from someplace BEFORE you have a parasite class.
We have inalienable rights in the documents for which we established our republic. We then formed a Constitution that is a blueprint allowing our government to do certain things. We retain all rights not given.
Better give the documents another read. The people have certain natural rights that come from God. Any republican government (local, state, or federal) is required to respect those rights for all. Enumerated powers are delegated to the central government, with all other powers retained by the states and the people. So we do not give up any rights. Governments have NO rights—they are charged with protecting individual rights starting with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which includes property among many other things. The amendment process exists to expand or restrict government power—but it requires approval by a supermajority of the people (acting through their states). Progressives (including people like this ignorant know nothing Pryzbyla) have twisted popular government into a uniparty tyranny that largely skips representative processes in favor of bureaucratic edicts, judicial fiat, and executive diktat. They are no longer American, except in the narrowest sense of geographic location.
Without the Declaration of Independence, there is no Constitution to build upon it.
The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of our Government, since it replaced the previous British Government.
The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, not the Declaration of Independence.
“Without the Declaration of Independence, there is no Constitution to build upon it.
The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of our Government, since it replaced the previous British Government. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, not the Declaration of Independence.”
You are 100% correct!
Golly, a CN if I believe our Rights come from God. Well, I guess I is one. This is the making along with a few other things, of a real all out Civil War. Now we just need a misstep or two by the Supreme Court and we will be back to our history….say about 1856-7.
This is just another layer in the narrative to appeal the anxieties of d/prog and left leaning Indy voters; ‘those Christian Nationalists’ are apparently hatching evil plots behind the scenes to ….well they don’t get quite get around to that but it’s probably very scary. The intended audience are the same folks who had their inherent neurotic tendencies successfully played to and used to push Covid Mania.
IMO this is new catchall phrase for the ’24 election being test run. The d/prog need an elastic term they can use in scare quotes to stoke the unfounded fear of their voter base to try and get them out to vote. If this term catches on then expect to see abortion and trans issues under its umbrella. It’s way easier to get folks to line up against an elastic term like ‘Christian Nationalism’ that lets the individual voter ascribe all sorts of things to it than to come out and defend trans issues and late term abortions.
The Reddit level morons are genuinely concerned about Christian nationalists turning the USA into a Taliban style theocracy.
To be fair there are some folks who would advocate for Christian Primacy whose philosophy/outlook would dominate our Nation and in some cases limit our liberties if not quite a Theocracy. Sometimes we see it among the comments at LI. IMO this is very much a minority position but it does exist at the extreme.
Leftist a-hole, too many to count.
It’s revolting that the vile Dhimmi-crats and their media shills/lapdogs/lackeys/trained seals/propagandists are playing up the bigoted, fallacious and contrived boogeyman slander of alleged “Christian nationalism,” mere months after millions of goose-stepping, Jew-hating Muslim supremacists and Islamofascists marched in Michigan and elsewhere throughout the U.S., supporting genocidal murders and other terrorist atrocities committed against Jews.
Let’s talk frankly about the very real phenomenon of Muslim supremacism and Islamofascism, as opposed to the manifestly contrived, politically motivated and bigoted slander of alleged “Christian nationalism.” But, that’s a conversation that the wretched and feckless Dhimmi-crats don’t want to have; for obvious reasons involving their intrinsic moral fecklessness and bankruptcy, and, their crass political self-interest.
I long for the day when Heidi gets what she wants. An emasculated America quickly overrun by Islamofacists. Then comes her beat down, hijab wearing, STFU because you are a woman world she apparently longs for – free of those nasty Christians.
But if “Christian Nationalism” puts her panties in a twist, wait until she gets the full load of the Quran in all its glory.
The same brazen hypocrisy applies to gullible, useful idiot Dhimmi-crat homosexuals and trannies who gleefully show solidarity for Hamas, when those reprobates would happily toss them off of the nearest rooftop, or, do worse than that.
Dhimmi-crats’ full-throated support for Muslim supremacism, Islamofascism and the totalitarian ideology that animates them, isn’t merely evidence of Dhimmi-crats’ appalling stupidity and hypocrisy in supporting an ideology that stands in contravention to everything that Dhimmi-crats claim to uphold — it’s more proof that Dhimmi-crats’ moral compass is completely warped and beyond repair.
Ironic that the camp which crows about how “empathetic” they are will never figure it out until they’re taken to the rooftop.
I’ve come to believe most of them are psychopaths who are really bad at faking it.
Just not in my Country, I don’t want that for me or my daughter or granddaughters
I concur. But the left is doing their level best to get as many Islamofacists across the border as they can. Protect yourself and your daughters, because the open door is in your back yard.
Add in the great numbers being airlifted using your tax dollars. All under the guise of refugee status and supported by NGOs.
Problem I have with the take-downs of this fool, is the “Constitution” aspect of our arguments.
The “rights endowed by their creator” bit comes from the Declaration of Independence. A distinction to be noted if we want to have facts on our side. And as much as the Declaration of Independence is a Founding Document, and a large part of our legal, social and historical culture, it is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
100% true. But we must also not forget that certain rights had to be enumerated in the Constitution before it was ratified to ensure brainless nimrods like Heidi can’t forget that our rights come BEFORE the country.
“The right of the people peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is and always has been one of the attributes of a free government. It `derives its source,’ to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat., 211, `from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.’ It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution… The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of `bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government…”
–US v. CRUIKSHANK; 92 US 542; (1875)
I said that was 100 % correct.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I was augmenting you.
There’s a difference between granting rights and enumerating them. The Declaration refers to people being “endowed by our Creator.” All the Bill of Rights does is list some of them.
I don’t recall which Justice it was, but either Kagan or Sotomayor once famously pointed out that a “right” was something you didn’t need to ask permission to exercise. My mitochondria have a right to make ATP by metabolizing sugar. They don’t have to ask permission to do that. It’s hard-wired. Likewise, all living things have a right to defend themselves—and just about all do. The Second Amendment codifies—but doesn’t grant—that right.
Przybyla amply demonstrates that intelligence is ~not~ a right, nor is humanity uniformly endowed with it.
” And as much as the Declaration of Independence is a Founding Document, and a large part of our legal, social and historical culture, it is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.”
It is THE founding document: hence four score and seven years ago . . . . It is not the “Supreme Law of the Land, ” It is the UNANIMOUSLY agreed to foundation upon which the Supreme Law of Land sits. The Constitution is the Supreme Law that is instituted for the purpose of securing our unalienable rights. This must be done with two requirements: 1. Consent of the governed, 2: Using only JUST powers (i,e. powers that do not usurp our unalienable rights).
If the USA were a corporation, the Declaration would be its goal statement, and the Constitution would be the operating manual to achieve it.
Well put.
The spirit of the Declaration is incorporated into the Constitution with this phrasing (a jurat) found at the bottom of the Constitution,
‘Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.”
Colonial lawmakers used British stylistic techniques to index their statutes, techniques which, following declaring independence, state legislatures used. This technique was also used by the Framers in the Constitution’s jurat.
In enacting its laws Great Britain had long employed (and still does) a legal referencing style which assigns Parliamentary-passed statutes, not to the year in which the statute was passed, but rather to the reign of the respective king or queen who ruled at the time of enactment. To give an example. The well-known Riot Act of 1714 was enacted to quell disquiet among various factions of the English population which resulted when the Hanoverian kings ascended to the British throne, George I being the first.
The full Riot Act statute may be found here,
http://reactor-core.org/riot-act.html
You will note how the statute is entitled, “Anno Primo George I,” the first year of George I, with reference to the Riot Act itself found in Section V of George’s second statute.
Congress has done the same. In citing federally-enacted statutes the official reference is always to the particular Congress which enacted the statute. E.g., P.L. 99-514 refers to the 514th statute enacted by the 99th Congress. [This statute can also be found in 100 Statutes-at-Large at 2085, and is commonly referred to as The Tax Reform Act of 1986, now codified largely in 26 United States Code at various subsections (Title 26 referring to federal tax statutes).]
With this understanding and background, the Constitution’s phrase “and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth” takes on a significance greater than most students of the Constitution even realize. By directly referencing and therefore pointing to the event of independence of the several States – the greatest pivotal event in our country’s founding – the Framers are incorporating by reference the Declaration of Independence itself.
Better link to Riot Act,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
Outstanding book on the history of writing the Constitution: The Summer Of 1787 by David O. Stewart. Really good.
Oops, I just learned that the UK dropped the “regnal year” business (for official citations to statutes) at the end of 1962.
You are wrong that the Declaration is not the law, in the sense that it’s long since been established and settled that one can only correctly interpret the Constitution when one adopts the basic precepts of the Declaration., particularly in regards to where our rights come from,
It’s reassuring to know that we can always look to Politico for wokified enlightenment.
Heidi. I don’t give a flying fk about what Hindu’s, Muslims, or atheists believe.
They are free to believe whatever they want. I don’t have to subscribe to their beliefs. But we as Americans believe that our rights come from God.
Otherwise, what man giveth, man takes away. The liars, thieves, and cheats who inhabit the halls of Congress come and go. God’s law is eternal
This atheist believes our rights are the natural state of things. It is mankind that revokes or otherwise restricts those rights.
I may not be Christian (and never was), but I am very much on the side of what this screeching, flighty female.
That came out wrong. I’m very much a nationalist, just not a Christian one.
The Gentle Grizzly: This atheist believes our rights are the natural state of things.
Hence, the Declaration of Independence also refers to the “Laws of Nature”. (Not all of the Founders were conventional theists.)
Or expressed a little differently our rights, ‘natural rights’ to include those enshrined in the Constitution, do not come to us FROM gov’t. Nor are they dependent upon the whims of any gov’t whether that be a Judge, a member of Congress or the Executive Branch. Whether one believes in a ‘god’ or GOD or the flying spaghetti monster or no deity at all gov’t isn’t the grantor of rights.
Our natural rights are inherent in individual Citizens and in the US framework power flows from the individual to grant the State specific responsibilities and the power necessary to perform those responsibilities. The gov’t does not grant rights to individuals (though it can with consent of the people grant privileges such as a driver licence or business licence) Much to the dissatisfaction of the d/prog many of whom seem to want the gov’t to be all powerful with dominion over all aspects of daily life.
“CN” apparently has become the new “NGR.”
This is a fundamentally stupid person. Why would anyone need her to explain natural rights when she obviously doesn’t understand the concept herself, or that the concept is a foundational basis of the United States.
First they came for the Jews…
Christian Nationalism is the left wing dog whistle to continue to vilify Christian’s and conservatives.
Paint them as unworthy to live freely, then make it easier to execute them. Make them less than human, then execute them.
Rights under the law can can only be understood when one understands law itself.
The rational purpose of law is to have a stable, orderly society so people can live without so much disruption that daily life becomes a constant crisis. Too much law, and people suffocate. Too little law, and we devolve into tribal warfare and/or every man for himself.
Morals are standards of right behavior which have a non-negotiable spiritual sense to them; we adhere to them as a result of believing them as the logical consequence of holding a spiritual certainty.
One good example of a spiritual certainty moral truth is “All men are created equal, [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [and] among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
In fact, that particular moral truth is the singular most important underpinning of all the rationality, logic and law which follows it in America.
*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…*
Law is morally ethical only if it derives its power from the consent of the governed, and American law is founded on the idea of self-evident moral truths.
Once the basic truths are in place, then you can have ethics, standards, rules and laws which extend from them. But without basic truths as the foundational premise, everything which follows would by definition be arbitrary.
So, when you ask why have law, it’s so we can implement the safeguards which sane people over the years have come to understand are essential for ordered society.
But when insane people are in power, society suffers and groans, because without rational sanity in law, the law itself devours its people and its country.
One clear example of that kind of insanity is how liberals deliberately obfuscate sound factual distinctions when convenient to their political aims.
And there are many other examples of the insanity of liberals, such as how they turn the courts and the law into weapons to punish their enemies.
But ultimately liberals (aka commies) do not accept as valid the idea that there can or should be any moral values stemming from a spiritual source, and they do not accept the idea that people should be allowed to hold to moral values to the extent that holding to those values results in lifestyle choices which liberals disagree with.
In other words, under the godless liberal/commie view of law, all power stems from and vests to the state. And under such a regime of law, there is no allowance for faith principles to be part of the decision matrix in the mind of a citizen.
Back in 1776, the British royalists claimed all power vested in the king. Today, liberals and commies claim that all power vests in the state. Back then, the royalists were morally wrong, and they were doing evil when they used force to try to impose ta wrongness.
Today, the liberals and commies who are cheating and corrupting America are also morally wrong, and they are also doing evil.
Rex: Back in 1776, the British royalists claimed all power vested in the king.
Well, no. Parliament also had a large share of power. However, the American colonists had no representation in the British parliament.
Rex: One good example of a spiritual certainty moral truth is “All men are created equal . . . ”
Your position ignores how monarchy was thought to work. Historically, duty of vassals to their lord *and* the duty of lords to their vassals was the preeminent value. This created a stable politics which could lead to general prosperity and happiness. Democracy and Republicanism were considered unstable systems which would lead to anarchy followed by tyranny.
Notably, the American experiment devolved into civil war within a century.
Wow, she’s almost as brilliant as Claudine Gay. She should be president of Yale.
Just a totally ignorant American communist party media hack. Stupid is as stupid does Forrest would say. She has not one clue about Christianity, It’s not only that she doesn’t have a clue, she doesn’t even suspect. How did she get a college degree? Oh, never mind.
The bigoted left can’t win on issues, the democrats are losing support from their traditional bases, so yet again they resort to creating yet another childish label in attempt to demean an insult opponents. You know who else where Christians and nationalists? Every frigging founding father. I won’t call her a blithering idiot because that might appear hypocritical given the foregoing, but she really is a blithering idiot, if I were to use that term.
Yeah Ok “bigoted left” maybe also name-calling, but again they are religious bigots and they are from the left so not sure how else to address them.
Calling her an “idiot” does a disservice to idiots in general. She is not only stupid, as many idiots are, but is programmable by the latest communist “talking points” that come in the daily email train from high levels of power. They can’t think for themselves, as she
demonstrates, so they are prone to learn lies from those willing to distribute them.
Government is designed to protect each person’s pre-existing fundamental rights, not to create these rights.
Freedom of religion was what brought many of the original colonists to America in the first place. That is why it has been enshrined in our history forever. Leave it to the communists to try to demean and destroy religion. If you read some history books you will find they have a 100 yr record of doing just what this ignorant fool is trying to do. She, and her ilk, richly deserve to end up at Satan’s right hand in my book.
“… that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights….” — Declaration of Independence
The key word there is not “Creator”, as Heidi seems to think. It is “endowed”.
It matters not one bit where our inalienable rights come from. What matters is that they became ours the instant we were created (however and by whomever you believe that happens) and were enshrined in the Constitution to protect them. They are ours because they are human rights and we are humans. Period. Full stop.
Christians can believe they come from God, and that’s fine. But atheists have the exact same rights because they are human rights.
While we’re on the topic:
… that to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men…. — id.
And the key here is not “government”, as Heidi likely believes. It is “preserve”.
Government did not create our rights; its role is to preserve rights which predate it and are ours because we are born human.
But she would know that if she’d ever read the Declaration of Independence or Constitution that she seems so keen on critiquing.
well stated
“They are ours because they are human rights and we are humans. Period. Full stop.”
If you believe the Constitution gives us our rights, consider foreign countries whose political structure does not bestow one or more of the rights we enumerate.
When those countries violate “rights” that they don’t even recognize in their political documents, the USA (sometimes even the UN) gets on its high horse and calls them “human rights violators.”
How hypocritical, to believe that governments bestow rights, yet criticize another government for violating a “right” they never bestowed.
It actually does matter what we attribute the basis of our rights to be. And that’s because even the claim of “natural rights”, from a standpoint of logic, only exist because we say they do. And if we say they do not, then who is to argue, or how?
But when one admits, even in the general sense, that God exists and is the source of our rights, this becomes a nonnegotiable premise.
“Endowed by their Creator” is an earth shattering premise, because only that premise declares that our rights have a provenance which is beyond question.
Ultimately, the concept of the existence of God must be upheld, else society eventually devolves into the law of the of fang and club.
And ultimately, we either admit that there are rights which man is not allowed to question, or we do not.
And simply put, there is no power in the idea that there are natural rights.
But the idea that there is a God who has the final say, that is indeed a powerful idea.
And if that’s where we get our rights, then our rights truly cannot be questioned.
“And that’s because even the claim of “natural rights”, from a standpoint of logic, only exist because we say they do. And if we say they do not, then who is to argue, or how? But when one admits, even in the general sense, that God exists and is the source of our rights, this becomes a nonnegotiable premise.”
I’m sorry, but this is nonsense until He is willing to testify in court for the defense as an authority, to satisfy a skeptical judge and jury. Until then, either of these claims is equally vulnerable to “He said, she said.”
“And that’s because even the claim of “natural rights”, from a standpoint of logic, only exist because we say they do.”
No. They exist because they are observationally there.
You WILL speak your mind freely unless someone stops you. This is as true for lesser animals as it is for humans even though they bleat, neigh, growl and roar.
You will defend yourself unless you can’t.
You will claim territory and possessions. And you will defend same
You will pursue what you think is best for you as best you can.
Our ‘unalienable rights’ are the rights all living things claim simply by being.
Governments exist to protect those rights
None of your statements actually equate to observing those things as rights. Tell me what did rights look for the slaves in the US? How did they exercise there rights? How come the constitution had to be changed to incorporate there rights? That doesn’t indicate natural does it.
One can truthfully say “atheists have the exact same rights” only under a system of law which actually allows for rights on an honest basis and equally.
For example, under Sharia Law, an atheist would not have equal rights, because under Sharia only Muslims have full rights. You might want to claim “human rights” or ‘free speech’ against such a system, but go to Kabul and defecate on a Quran in public, and see how far human rights and free speech get you. .
The underlying premises of “natural rights” and “human rights”, like all rights, have no power in them if they cannot be enforced. And against a tyrant in power, they cannot be enforced.
Sharia law countries, like Marxist countries, do not allow for deviations; you are allowed only what those in power say you can have and nothing more.
But America is unique in that we are founded on the idea that our basic rights are beyond question because they come from our Crestor.
By the means of acknowledging God in the general sense, while the the same time not allowing for any one particular species of religion to be established as being determinative, the Founders created a system, which until now has been robust enough to fend off all challenges.
But if the leftists/Marxists get their way, and the logical premise of our rights is vitiated, then America will devolve into a rule-of-man hellhole, rather than the rule-of-law blessing it’s been since 1776.
“The underlying premises of “natural rights” and “human rights”, like all rights, have no power in them if they cannot be enforced. And against a tyrant in power, they cannot be enforced.”
A realist would say that no matter who “gave you” your rights, you have only the rights that you can defend and enforce. That is why if you are not exercising your rights “guaranteed” by the second amendment, you aren’t serious about your rights.
And yes — against a tyrant in power, they CAN be enforced. Nobody promised it would be easy, but Italy and Romania did it. So did England, and the people who did it there were actually the source of their OWN rights.
Functioning societies don’t need people defending themselves with guns. Seems like a failure of society to me.
Only people who believe their rights come from God and who believe they owe a duty of right living, including defending freedom, are mentally tough enough to fight with total commitment to a finish. Every army which ever fought with power, had behind it a culture which actually did believe in a higher power, even if it was only expressed via the so-called ‘devine right’ of its rulers, or a spiritual connection to ancestors, etc. All of them are logically speaking, a connection to the idea of a higher power. The difference here in America though, is that we have landed on the right formula, which is that God actually does exist, and we have to respect that our rights come from God.
Rights come from you and you give them to the other guy. It’s thought of as the reverse though, which pretty much conceals it.
I didn’t downvote you (though perhaps I should).
Rights (for all homo sapiens) come from G-d: not from Joe Biden, not from Chuck Schumer, not from you – and I’m not even considered a religious man.
Should anyone deny me my G-d-given rights, I would have little compunction about discussing the notion in whatever manner necessary: I would defend my actions on the basis of (immediate) threat reduction.
It’s only by giving the other guy rights that you exist as unique and non-interchangeable. That’s how rights became moral.
Emmanuel Levinas _Outside the Subject_ “The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Other” p.116ff
I wasn’t aware you had to be a Christian to enjoy G-d-given rights
Guess there are a lot of Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist, Baháʼí, Jewish “Christian Nationalists” out there
Heidi Przybyla: what a piece of TP!
Yours is exactly the point I was trying to express above and it came out a word salad that would do ,-la Harris justice.
WTFFF??
We use the Latin alphabet in America, not Cyrillic.
Today’s Polish, like her surname, uses the Latin alphabet
You cannot just run together latin consonants and think that that is a pronouncable word. You get things like that when people take non-latin alphabets and just remove the decorations and leave the closest LOOKING latin letters in their place. But the result is UNREADABLE and makes a mockery of the idea of a phonetic alphabet.
This is not an issue of a particular exception, but a raping of the alphabet, itself.
“Prz”?? That might be using Latin letters but it is not. They only look like Latin letters. That is impossible to pronounce … no matter how you cut it. Unless, it is a foreign language where the implicit vowels are understood (not to mention the actual pronunciation of the consonants) … which ain’t English.
Hmm?
“…ght”? as well as some other three-letter combinations in English.
The northern German pronounciation of Strasse (shtrasse) or Kartöffelchen
Try some Hungarian words: most Americans can’t pronounce Budapest correctly.
Please: Polish pronounciation may appear daunting at first sight – it’s not
I’m afraid we Americans have become rather insular – and a lot of us were derived from Western European stock, unable to speak with our grandparents
This isn’t Poland. You can’t just make up any letter combinations and expect Americans to accept them. “ght” and other pronunciation exceptions are part of accepted English writing. That doesn’t give people license to just write any letter combinations they want – with their own private pronunciations – and demand that Americans accept them.
When you write a word in a foreign language you try to transliterate that word, as best you can, in the foreign spelling. You do not demand that the foreigners recognize and adopt your spelling and pronunciation. There are lots of phonemes that don’t exist from one language to another. One understands that all words in a language can only be pronounced with the phonemes that that language has available. This is just common sense.
Whenever I see Americans spell their names with tildes I remind them that there are NO TILDES in our alphabet. Period. They are using a foreign alphabet.
@ ThePrimordialOrderedPair
I guess growing up with my father’s family who spoke only English when they came here (they were going to be Americans and Americans spoke English), but grew up speaking Kahubian, Hungarian, and German;
and my mother’s family who spoke only English (they were going to be Americans and Americans spoke English) when they came here, but grew up speaking Ukrainian and Russian, I learned early on that not all “a”s were pronounced “eh”, not “i”s were pronounced “aye”, and not all “o”s were prounced “oh”- and from my Irish and Welsh friends I learned quickly that not all words were pronounced as they were written in American English.
There’s still a problem whether data is pronounced “dahta” or “dayta” in American English.
Why, I’ve even heard the surname “Smyth” pronounced with a long “i”.
I don’t know your last name (nor do I want to), but I’m certain I could find a way to mangle it with an American English pronounciation, at which you would (and should) take offense.
I don’t take offense at people pronouncing my name as it is spelled in English. I have a Hebrew name that includes a sound that is impossible to pronounce in English and I have never demanded (or even asked) that any American even try to say it. It would be obnoxious of me to demand that an American learn the nuances and sounds of a foreign language. And I spell that name as I want people who speak English to read it, not in some odd “direct” translation of foreign letters into English.
But I am never offended by how anyone pronounces my name. Amused once or twice, maybe, but never offended. What would be the offense?
As to the many exceptions that we already have in English writing – all languages naturally develop such exceptions. That is part of a living language. In English, it is especially pronounced as we have, indeed, taken in many words and spellings from other languages. But that does not give anyone free license to just do away with all rules and write anything any way they like and then demand that Americans accept it.
This Polish name is still not as bad as the “Ng” stuff I see for Vietnamese or whoever the hell it is. It’s close, but not quite that bad. I don’t who ever thought that that was permissible or a reasonable thing to do. Crazy.
Well now. Pardon the ever-loving [coitus] out of them!
Something in not ‘unpronounceable’ just because YOU can’t pronounce it.
It is you who are wanting, not language.
The story of Polly Przybyl is a cautionary tale against red flag laws familiar to all second amendment activists. The name is what it is.
(In 1994, Lee Przybyl of Lockport, New York invaded his mother-in-law’s property to “reclaim” his abused wife, Polly. He left only when repelled with a licensed handgun. Lee then claimed Polly had subjected HIM to “domestic violence.” After waiting for the police to confiscate her firearms, leaving her sufficiently defenseless, Lee killed Polly (with a gun) and severely wounded her mother. before committing suicide later in the day. A police official said later he was “very comfortable” with the officers’ decision to disarm Polly; another claimed that “nobody forced Polly” to surrender her guns.)
I guarantee that the thugs at the FBI already have a terrorism “tag” for the big, bad Christian Nationalists.
We have to keep in mind that Przzxkblkx and her ilk think that people need to be imprisoned for thought-crime, in general, and specifically for the thought-crime of thinking that anything she or her coreligionists believe is incorrect in any way.
In fact, this comment, by itself, would be enough for her to have me arrested and removed to her version of Siberia.
Mark Twain was right about arguing with people like Heidi. She’s an idiot. Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience of ignorance.
The same can be said of arguing with all leftists—they are all absolutist idiots. Someone once told me, “It’s like arguing with a stone brick wall!” I countered that was not true—at least the stone wall had the good manners not to argue back.
Uhm, make that brick wall—just writing about Heidi already has its negative cognitive effects!
I suppose it would be comical to see the left’s sudden obsession with “Christian nationalism” if the Left’s talking points weren’t based on ignorance, which is itself a serious threat to the continuation of our republic.
So does this make Thomas Jefferson a Christian nationalist? For the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, although in fairness to stupid leftists, they don’t believe in “self-evident truth” either, because they are unable to grasp the meaning of “self-evident” as Thomas Aquinas, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Lincoln learned from Euclid.
One more thing, sweetheart: By your definition, Traitor Joe Biden is a Christian nationalist too.
https://x.com/DennyBurk/status/1761114262771003578?s=20
I’m not in the habit of allowing some radical leftist whore to define me, or my faith, and I’m not about to start.
sad on so many levels.
1) these people
2) their audience.
I know 2 is small, but some how they are still employed.
Not small at all. There are people whose lives are accompanied 24/7 by a soundtrack of a blaring TV (and often a beeping smoke detector).
You mention blaring TVs. They are often next to impossible to avoid. Waiting rooms, airports, supermarkets, restaurants…
I go – every three weeks – for two 3-hour infusion sessions over two days. They have a television set in the clinic tuned to morning television, usually including The Price is Right toward the end. I must take refuge under a Bluetooth headset connected to my phone so I can listen to XM, and my Kindle with a who-dun-it to read.
Dennis Prager has said he would rather be in a “Christian Nationalist” US than the progressive state the Left wants. The Left wants “group rights” over individual rights. Seeing how FJB has abandoned allies and US citizens to their demise for the convenience of The Party, it should be obvious that no one has value except the Dictatorship.
So rights must come from an earthly authority? We have ourselves a Moloch-worshiper!
She has to be a Marxist, who thinks your rights come from government
Oh, for bog’s sake.
so what
why fall and cry that they call you a name?
this war is going to take “toxic” masculinity to sort it out
like it always has
but this time the lefty knew to put women in the front lines so any
true males will then be accused of some sort of domestic violence
have to ignore leftys rules or we will continue to be subjugated
I’m on a state bar association blog where there are attorneys who literally argue that the government gives us rights, and we have no rights but those given to us by the government–it’s as if they’ve never read the Constitution
which means they have sworn an oath to uphold, defend, and abide by a document they have never READ, or at least that they refuse to understand.
Our rights come from talking heads on MSNBC, don’cha know?
They absolutely cannot tolerate the belief that our rights come from a source outside the State, from a source they cannot control
She rails in Trump for some alledged adultery in the past, but then sails right past the known adultery in Martin Luther King’s life.
Nice double standard there, Scheweeeedie Pie…..
By lying to you about the source of your rights, they hope to persuade you that they have the authority to take them away.
Just look at the mRNA vaxx mandates. They don’t believe that you should have the right to decline an experimental medical treatment. Or the Soros DA’s letting dangerous criminals loose, but prosecuting those of us who defend ourselves. They want to take away the right of self-defense.