Are we responsible for the sins of our fathers? How far do you go back and make reparations? How do people prove that they are due reparations? What about people who have ancestors who were on both sides of situations that modern America deems offensive? Should our own individual contributions be nullified because of the sins of our fathers? In this episode, Marnie shares a little of her own family tree to illustrate how convoluted and impractical the reparations and accountability arguments really are.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and subscribe to our email list so you don’t miss an episode.
Tree in Featured Image Copyright Ruslan Ivantsov / BigStockPhoto.com
What is common sense for some makes no sense to others. Each person comes to conclusions based on their core beliefs. We may think others are irrational but their views are quite rational when you root back to the fact that they have different fundamental beliefs than we do.
This episode of Front Porch Sense deals with the root cause of rifts happening between those with varying viewpoints. How can we ever have a civil discourse on sensitive topics? Is it even possible? And why bother?
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and subscribe to our email list so you don’t miss an episode.
Featured Image Copyright: Ivan_u / BigStockPhoto.com
In this episode of Front Porch Sense, Marnie addresses Nike discontinuing the Betsy Ross Flag Nike shoe because Kaepernick was offended by it. Why do modern people disrespect the Founding Fathers and the sacrifices they made? Why are people so hopped up to judge people throughout history and each other? Marnie talks about the ingratitude, judgmental and hypocritical nature of modern America and why we need to step out of that and into gratitude to preserve freedom.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and subscribe to our email list so you don’t miss an episode.
Featured Image Copyright: krisrobin / BigStockPhoto.com
The Betsy Ross flag is supposedly a symbol of oppression now. I’m assuming this is because the Constitution was ratified with slavery still going on. The US Constitution motivated the states to eventually abolish slavery — that’s what the 3/5 of a person count for slaves was about. The states received representation based on population and by not letting slave states count their slaves as a full person, it motivated them to set the slaves free. The states wanted those representatives. Their say in government depended on it.
No, this was not ideal. The ideal would have been to end slavery from the get go, but the people of that time were not ready. If the US Constitution had not been ratified at that point, the fledgling nation would not have survived. Un-united, the states would have been subject to future attacks by England and other foreign powers.
It’s easy for us to look back and judge the past when we were not there. Yet I’d say our Founders could look forward on our day with equal disgust. They could easily judge us for other reasons… like a complete and utter disregard for the sacrifices made, a flippant attitude toward our divinely inspired Constitution, the atrocity of murdering millions of unborn children, and ingratitude for the blood spilled that we might enjoy freedom.
We often forget that the nation (set in motion in 1776) with its imperfections is the same country that fought the Civil War to set everyone free. Yes, white men actually fought and died and spilled their blood in gory battles that black men, women and children would no longer be enslaved. Think about that!
My ancestors fought for the Union (and they were Southerners) and hundreds of thousands gave their lives because the American ideal articulated in 1776 set in motion a wave of freedom that demanded the obvious… that ALL eventually be set free. Progress rarely happens in one fell swoop. It takes time to effect change.
The fact that we’ve reframed history to spit on the sacrifices made by our Founders and smear their character is indicative of an ungrateful, prideful populace. Let us be a little more understanding and grateful for what we have. Ingratitude leads to pride and pride goes before a fall.
Featured Image Copyright: nazlisart / BigStockPhoto.com
Are you accepting or rejecting freedom in your life? Many of us are actually rejecting freedom without even realizing it. This episode is an exploration of why some people actually don’t want freedom and why many of us outright reject it. How can we truly embrace the freedoms available to us? What is the purpose of freedom in the end?
Featured Image Copyright: Aaron Amat / BigStockPhoto.com
We often think of the three branches of government as the checks and balances we have in the United States, but there are more checks and balances intrinsic in the U.S. Constitution.
This episode explores 3 additional important ones that we need to be protecting. All the checks and balances are under attack, but especially these three that people don’t talk about. Maintaining all the checks and balances the Founders put in place will protect our freedoms and increase the likelihood that our nation may endure.
Please subscribe to our email updates and follow our Youtube channel and/or Facebook page and share with others! Let’s keep our nation free!
Featured Image Copyright: igor stevanovic / BigStockPhoto.com
This episode addresses the right to life vs pro choice and what is happening in the world with abortion. How does the inalienable right to life relate to a woman’s right to choose? Are we asking the right questions when it comes to pro choice? What price are we paying for abortion?
For world abortion stats go there is a detailed report at Guttmacher.org.
Don’t miss a single episode. Please subscribe to our mailing list to the right. Also please subscribe to our YouTube Channel and follow our Facebook page.
Featured Image Copyright: nopow / BigStockPhoto.com
Today people are trained to turn to government to find solutions for nearly every challenge. Government is involved in everything from health care to education to redistribution of wealth.
How do we know what situations are appropriate for government intervention and which are not? In this video Marnie discusses the proper role of government.
What do big dreams and the pursuit of happiness have to do with entitlement? Very little! In this episode, Marnie explores why taking away challenges and giving people things for free diminishes their happiness and keeps them from becoming the people capable of achieving great things.
Let’s stop robbing people of their big dreams and the ability to pursue their own brand of happiness!
When we talk about immigration in America, you usually hear opposition calling for open borders. What does open borders mean? Ultimately it means the end of national sovereignty.
Do you want to have a sovereign America? Or do you want to be ruled by the UN (one world government)? One side is for a sovereign America with borders and a clear system for lawful immigration. The other wants the destruction of borders and sovereignty.
What Is Globalism?
Globalism is working toward a one world order with one over-arching government that rules over individual nations. Eventually, globalism leads to each person being a citizen of the world, instead of citizens of their individual nations. The founders of the United Nations envisioned one world government. Member nations are obligated to the UN and to each other. The laws and regulations imposed by the UN override the laws of individual countries.
You may be saying, “So what? Why does this matter?”
I will take just a moment to explain why this most definitely matters. Anything is managed best at the most local level. Think of homes. They’re managed best when the parents are involved and responsible. Your neighbor will not love and raise your children as well as you will.
A classroom is managed best by the teacher because a good teacher knows his or her children and how they learn. A county is managed best by local people who live there, own property, care most about the area, and have friends there.
The higher up you go, the more poorly things are managed. We see this rampant mismanagement and lack of true caring for constituents on a federal level. Seriously, how concerned is the average congressman about your paycheck? My parents’ retirement? Your child’s creative skills?
Take that to a global level. How much do you think Korea is going to care about people in Kansas? How well can our country be governed by a global group who would gladly sell out our country, you, or me for money and power? It’s in the interest of each nation to govern itself.
The majority of the world is NOT free. Do we want them governing our nation? Policing our streets? Creating curriculum for our children and grandchildren?
Nationalism Vs. Isolationism
Many people confuse nationalism with isolationism. Proponents of globalism accuse those who want borders and national sovereignty of being naive at best and xenophobic at worst. Their argument is that we live in a global society with global trade and travel. They accuse nationalists of being backward and old-fashioned. Proponents of globalism often like to say that nationalists are isolationists. But this simply, is not true.
Nationalists are not isolationists nor are we against world trade or travel. Those who want to protect national sovereignty are not suggesting that we not trade with or be a part of the world. In fact, an important quality our current President possesses is his experience negotiating with people all over the world.
There is a BIG difference between amicably trading with the world and allowing the UN to set rules and laws for our citizens. There is a major difference between trading globally and letting global laws have a higher say than our own Constitution.
In his parting speech at the UN Obama said we need to give up some of our freedoms to allow for world government. This is the position of the left.
Nationalists say, “America first for Americans. Britain first for the British. France first for French, etc.” Each country must take care of its own and come to a trade table looking out for the interests of the people they represent. What good is a legal counsel during a negotiation who has no vested interest in his client?
Also, what good is an entangled negotiator who doesn’t have the ability to easily walk away from the table? The UN entangles us in foreign wars and obligates our military to police other countries. The UN appropriates our dollars to other nations — away from solving our own internal problems. There’s no way for a country to easily walk away from a UN negotiation table.
When the people are no longer represented with integrity, and our leaders are entangled in alliances that take precedence over our own people’s needs, tyranny is inevitable.
