Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

0830, 27 Feb 19

Belling Slams Realtors for Anti-Christian Bigotry

Looks like Belling and I were on the same wave length this week. He brought up a couple of angles that I did not in regards to the ugly anti-Christian bigotry running through the Left these days.

The Realtors positioned themselves as being against bigotry but the action was, in and of itself, an act of overt bigotry. The Realtors made it clear that a candidate for public office who holds traditional Christian beliefs can forget about getting the organization’s support. This is vile anti-religious bigotry. The Realtors, in their attempt to take a stand against bigotry, in fact engaged in bigotry. The Supreme Court election is critical. If Hagedorn loses, the court is only one seat away from flipping to a liberal majority. When that happens, look for all of the reforms passed during the Walker era to be struck down. The stakes are very high. The Realtors’ gratuitous trashing of Hagedorn damages his campaign and makes it likelier that Wisconsin’s highest court will eventually flip to the left.

The attack on Hagedorn’s religious beliefs is part of a concerted liberal effort to block Catholics and some other Christians from serving as judges. The nomination of Gordon Giampietro to a federal judgeship in Milwaukee recently died because of the opposition of Democrat Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who objected to an interview Giampietro gave in which he defended his acceptance of Catholic teaching. Baldwin’s stand was publicly criticized by Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki and all of the state’s other Catholic bishops but Baldwin prevailed. Now, a similar attack is aimed at another would-be judge, Hagedorn.

It is unimaginable that anyone could get away with attacking a Muslim candidate’s religious beliefs. Someone who ripped a Jewish candidate for following that religion’s teaching would be labeled an anti-Semite. But it is now standard operating procedure to attack the beliefs of conservative Christian candidates.


0830, 27 February 2019


  1. Kevin Scheunemann

    Christians practice grace and forgiveness for sin of sexual relations outside marriage of God’s design.

    Liberal reaction: “Intolerant Christian bigot that must be stopped”!

    Muslims have no grace or forgiveness for homosexuals or adulterers, common punishment and practice is execution for both. Also a religion that has vile hatred toward Jews!

    Liberal reaction—-“Let’s elect a wonderful, diverse Muslim in MN!”

    Liberals make me sick in their evil hypocrisy!

  2. jjf

    It’s almost as if the WisGOP has methods of coordinating its message.  Can you imagine?  Republicans fall in line.

  3. jjf

    Oh, my blocking judges.  Six Roman Catholics on the US Supreme Court, three Jews?

  4. MHMaley

    Do Christians get receipts for grace and forgiveness ?

    How are they sure they got it ?

    And absent a receipt what happens ?
    Asking for a guy who may be in big trouble .
    He’s currently our President

  5. Kevin Scheunemann


    Would you like a receipt?

    I’ve been encouraged that Mike Pence has had a very good influence on Trump.  Trump is exihibiting more Christian traits, much more since his inauguration.

    Whether Trump professes faith in Jesus as his Savior…I’d sure love someone in press to ask him.

    His outward behavior shows some clear signs of throwing off his sinful, personal past, so I am “encouraged” where Trump is in his faith journey.

    Much more confident than I am where you are Mark.

  6. Le Roi du Nord

    “Christians practice grace and forgiveness for sin of sexual relations outside marriage of God’s design”.

    Says the guy that still brings up Bill Clinton…..     Hypocrite.

  7. Kevin Scheunemann


    Is Bill Clinton repentant?

    Stories I have seen is, he is still taking trips to “sex island”.

    Grace and forgiveness is not possible when unrepentant evil is ongoing. You call the evil out in hopes of repentance.

  8. Le Roi du Nord

    Ask him.

    Why are you so concerned about the carnal choices of others.  Perhaps you should be more concerned about your own moral well being.  You seem pretty hung up on stuff that really isn’t any of your business.

    Isn’t your dishonesty and continual twisting of the truth evil?  Will you repent?  Don’t delay.

  9. Kevin Scheunemann

    Oh Nord,

    Spoken like a true judgemental liberal.

    I’ll repent when you point out where I am disgust toward the Gospel.

  10. Kevin Scheunemann


  11. Le Roi du Nord


    And you feel you have the right to call others “judgemental”  ?  You call me a racist, yet I am the judgemental one?  Such hubris..

  12. Kevin Scheunemann


    Liberal lexicon is hyper judgemental all the time.

    I am willing to extend grace for doing the right thing and forgiveness for repentance for wrong thing. Liberals extend no grace and forgiveness for repenting for doing wrong. In fact, liberals have destroyed the concept of forgiveness in their race for victimhood insanity.

  13. Le Roi du Nord


    I’ll extend all sorts of grace when you repent from being so disingenuous.

    I’m still waiting…….

  14. Kevin Scheunemann

    Oh Nord,

    Specific, in context, accurately quoted, example?

    Just 1.

    Otherwise, it is just another allegation without evidence.

  15. Le Roi du Nord

    “That makes you both racist!”  There you go……  I’m still waiting……

    Other subject areas where you have been less than honest include: history, science, state/federal permitting, economics, political science, education and religion.  I’m sure there are more, but it would be a waste of my time to delve any deeper.  But you get the point, you can, will and have lied about all sorts of things..

  16. jjf

    As Ibram X. Kendi says, “The heartbeat of racism is denial.”  He recently tweeted:

    Our conversations on racism are so fraught because racists have personal and exonerating definitions of the term “racist.”

    Racist (as defined by racists)

    1) Not me.

    2) One who accuses me or people like me of being racist.

    3) A racial idea or policy not elevating me.

    4) One who says the N-word.

    5) One who has no friends or relatives or employees of color.

    6) A self-identified White supremacist

    7) A person of color I identify as an extremist

    8) A person of color not pledging allegiance to (White) America

    9) A person who knowingly AND intentionally AND admittedly institutes a policy that targets and oppresses a racial group.

    10) A person who uses a racial slur AND refuses to apologize and say, “That’s not who I am. I am not a racist.”


  17. Kevin Scheunemann

    Nord, jjf,

    Racist- when one advocates policies to limit minority kids to failing public schools.

    Unless both of you want to denounce the Evers budget in relation to limiting school choice…then I will withdraw my comment.

    Are you game?

  18. jjf

    I think it’s a great idea to stop using public dollars to prop up religious schools.

    We also have a system that funds public schools based on property values, and policies that have segregated Milwaukee based on race.  The combo has led to unequal schooling situations.

    The Wisconsin Constitution says

    “The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable; and such schools shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of 4 and 20 years; and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed therein; but the legislature by law may, for the purpose of religious instruction outside the district schools, authorize the release of students during regular school hours.”

    Do you think we’re meeting that?

  19. dad29

    Racist- when one advocates policies to limit minority kids to failing public schools.


  20. Kevin Scheunemann


    With MPS…let me explain in a way you can understand…



    Still waiting for evidence of your false accusation.

  21. MHMaley

    Mark Meadows : I am not a racist because I have black in laws .
    So here is a black persons who says her boss couldn’t be a racist . She can’t speak on the subject at this hearing but just look at her .

    I have made racist comments about the former President in the past but if you want , I’ll bring up one of my in laws in my defense for for you
    To look at .

  22. Kevin Scheunemann


    So does this mean you advocate school choice and want to stop sentencing minority kids to a multi-generational failing MPS?

    If not, you are still racist.

  23. jjf

    How about we take steps to make those schools not fail?  How about we make them as nice and spiffy and as well-funded as the average suburban school?

  24. Kevin Scheunemann


    We currently spend about $14,000 a child!

    Vouchers are 1/2 that!

    How about we vouched all kids up and let good schools compete.

    Better education. Save money!

  25. Jason

    >How about we make them as nice and spiffy and as well-funded as the average suburban school?

    How about you prove that will make them “not fail”.

  26. jjf

    Jason, how do you interpret “which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable“?

    Do you think they’re there?  Why did they put that clause in the Constitution?

    It’s not as vague as “well-regulated militia”.

  27. Le Roi du Nord


    “That makes you both racist!”   You must have missed it the first time.

    You have never, ever seen or heard me advocate for policies to limit minority kids to failing public schools. Never. Ever.

    You are lying again.  Lying is evil.  Hence, you are evil.

  28. Kevin Scheunemann


    So you support unlimited school choice vouchers to allow kids to escape from public school?

    Further, you denounce what Evers did in his racist budget?

    If you agree with those 2 things, I will withdraw my accusation you support racist policy and I will humbly apologize.

    (You still have not apologized for the misrepresentation my position on Roman Catholicism I nailed you on. So you may want to think about that as well.)

  29. Le Roi du Nord


    You just stated the problem here; that you feel it is your right to always and every time define the relative positions.  You may feel that the policies of Evers in his less than two months in office are racist.  I don’t.  You are free to believe whatever you want, but not free to call me a racist.  You are a thin skinned, narcissistic,  playground bully.

    I have always quoted you accurately as to what you said regarding catholics.  You have “nailed” me on nothing.  Again, you are lying.


  30. Kevin Scheunemann

    Nord ,

    I gave you a chance to not take the racist position, but you took it anyway….limiting and destroying education opportunities for minority kids.

    I tried to help eliminate your racism.

    Disappointed in you.

  31. Le Roi du Nord


    Our disagreement on the policies that Evers was elected on doesn’t make me a racist.  It just means that we disagree.  Your pathological need to always be “right” doesn’t paint you in a good light, and your continued name-calling of those you disagree is a great indicator of your insecurity and lack of substance.

  32. Pat


    In this day and age of Trumpism the folks who pretend they are still conservatives need to emulate their high priest and leader in an attempt to show their superiority.

    What makes me happy is knowing that there is a common sense majority that still make up this grand nation that see Trumpism for what it is. A con job.

  33. Le Roi du Nord


    Exactly.  Good work.

  34. dad29

    OK, LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy.

    Your “conclusion” on the matter means that EVERS is the racist and you just happen to agree with him–but you are NOT a racist like Evers.

    OK, then.  Whatever.

  35. Le Roi du Nord

    No, dud, that isn’t my “conclusion”.  Nor am I a racist.  But you are free to believe whatever you like, however disingenuous it may be.  Carry on.

  36. Pat

    Notice how an ideology that has a reputation, rightly or wrongly, of being made up of nothing but racists, does everything it can to make everyone else look racist with crazy ass logic in an attempt to make themselves not look racist?

  37. jjf

    Or as the Simpsons put it, in the context of Fox News, “Not racist. But number one with racists.”

  38. Jason

    So jjf can’t prove that his “idea” will work.


    I asked him to prove how his statement ” How about we make them as nice and spiffy and as well-funded as the average suburban school?” would make schools “not fail” and he has not responded.   jjf… time to shut up, since you can’t prove anything.  No need to read anything you type any more…  what a waste of your Social Justice Keyboard.  <sad face>

  39. Le Roi du Nord

    Pat and jjf:

    This explains it:
    “Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting”.

  40. Pat


  41. Kevin Scheunemann

    The liberal disciples are out in full preach mode. The sermons of authoritarian secular humanism getting more voluminous.

    “Thou shalt not oppose our secular commands with your Christianity.”

    Intolerant, Insensitive, Evil.

  42. Pat


    And there’s a perfect example, right on cue.

  43. Kevin Scheunemann

    Just looking for a little tolerance that it is “OK” to be Christian while in public office?

    Not finding a whole lot of Tolerance among the intolerant lefties around here.

  44. Pat

    It’s perfectly okay to be a member of any faith, as long as decisions are constitutionally based versus faith based.

  45. Kevin Scheunemann


    So you are openly saying we need to ignore the WI Preamble?

    The Preamble is the guiding statement and intent on the WI Constitution.


  46. Kevin Scheunemann

     “We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government,insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this constitution.”


  47. Pat


    I’m openly saying that there is nothing wrong with anyone being greatful to their god for any and all blessings that may be bestowed upon them, as long as decisions are constitutionally based versus faith based. The amendments within the constitution are what the actual documented intentions are.

  48. Kevin Scheunemann


    Who are you to question the “gratefulness” of someone who takes the Preamble of the WI seriously in their professional life and personal life.

    Just because you destroy gratefulness to Almighty God in your personal life does not mean Hagedorn is required to be ungrateful in his personal life.

    I see nothing but gratitude to the Almighty in his personal life as WI Preamble exemplifies.

    I see a lot of ungratefulness from the godless liberal lexicon when it comes to living the Preamble personally and professionally.

    Hagedorn should be held as an example of good government to intent of WI Constitution, however, godless elements pervert that in their evil and destruction of the WI Constitution.

    It’s awful and disgusting the ignorance and derision toward the Constitution on display here.

  49. Pat


    You really need to learn to take a course in reading comprehension. Please go back and re-read what I’ve said. No where did I say anything close to what you’re alleging. And, I haven’t brought up Hagedorn once. He, by all appearances, leads a very good and respectable personal life.

    Once more you are making up facts that don’t exist. Also known as lying.

  50. Kevin Scheunemann


    What you are challenging is: How dare someone exhibiting the living WI Preamble in their personal life carry on that same gratefulness professionally on the bench.

    That liberal godless arrogance, that someone cannot live the Preamble personally and professionally is a huge problem.

    We should be disqualifying those rejecting the Preamble, so you have it all backwards.

  51. Pat


    Please provide the direct quote where I said what you’re alleging.

  52. Kevin Scheunemann


    When you say Hagedorn cannot live his faith on the bench.

    “Faith” and “gratefulness” are inseparable.

    You cannot be grateful to Almighty God without faith.

    What we need to work on is your denial of the top line of the WI Constitution, and your godless brethren ignoring the most important line of the WI Constitution…and your failure to defend a good man living his gratefulness to Almighty God in his personal life.

    Join me in endorsing Hagedorn?

  53. Pat

    Kevin said, “When you say Hagedorn cannot live his faith on the bench.”

    Please provide the quote where I said that.

  54. Le Roi du Nord


    It is Pavlovian with k.  He can’t help himself.

  55. Le Roi du Nord

    “Faith” and “gratefulness” are inseparable”.

    No, they aren’t.  You are making stuff up again.  Another case of lying for jesus.  Awful, just awful.

  56. Kevin Scheunemann

    Pat, Nord,

    You are demanding he NOT consider the Constitutional Preamble in his deliberation about upholding the WI Constitution.

    I’ll bite. How can you have “gratefulness to Almighty God” without faith?

    The fact there is any talk those 2 things can be separated shows your profound misunderstanding of Christianity.

  57. Pat


    Please provide a quote from me to affirm your allegation. If you can’t please apologize for your lie.

  58. MHMaley

    I’m for charter schools for parents who want to send their kids to alternatives to their local schools that are both overseen by a public school board .

    If you want to have your kid taught a particular religion , pay for it yourself , just like I did .

  59. Le Roi du Nord


    Maybe this will resonate with him:

    “You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgment on another. For on whatever grounds you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things”.

  60. Le Roi du Nord


    Here is your quote: “Faith” and “gratefulness” are inseparable”, here is your request: “How can you have “gratefulness to Almighty God” without faith?”.   See the difference?  Do you even know you are consistently inconsistent?

    I’ll answer in the context of your original claim:

    I am grateful for the great family we have.  I have faith that the Brewers will win the World Series in 4 games.

    There, I did it for you, and didn’t have to lie or call anyone names.

  61. dad29

    just like I did .

    Whining doesn’t look good on you, Maley.

  62. dad29

    overseen by a public school board

    Why, sure!!  A “public school board” is a guarantee of excellence!!  Just look at Madison and Milwaukee, or Racine, or Kenosha!!

  63. Le Roi du Nord


    There are 421 public school districts in WI per DPI.  You named 4.  Not much evidence in your favor.

  64. dad29

    Those 4 districts mal-“educate” near 40% of the State’s chilluns.  Or don’t you care about blacks and hispanics?  You racist, or something??

  65. Le Roi du Nord

    Nope, not racist or anything similar.  Just interested in truth rather than knee-jerk ideology and hyperbole.

  66. Kevin Scheunemann


    All our war on WI Constitution now….when you guys actually read what it says!


    Sure, that is, indeed, being grateful about blessings in your life, but it is not at all grateful to Almighty God. You would not be living the Preamble by missing that key component.

    As far as your bible passage. Romans Chapter 2, is one of the great chapters in the bible. If you go down to verse 5, Paul is talking about unrepentant sinners passing judgement in first 4 verses. Repentant sinners, living in grace and repentance are still called to discern right and wrong to help build fellow believers up and encourage one another in the faith. Shining the light of Christ with their good work and abhorring evil openly. ( which is a few chapters later in Romans. Romans is my favorite book of the Bible outside Gospel of John. I would be happy to discuss it all day. Romans 8 is thee great chapter of the Bible.


    If you are not upset about Hagedorn exercising his faith in the bench, why are we debating at this point?

    Will you join me in endorsing Hagedorn?


    We are not talking schools, but whether godless atheists, like yourself, have tolerance for gratefulness and faith on the bench. I’m seeing that is a big no, maybe you can show me you have Tolerance for faith and gratefulness on the bench as WI Constitution calls for?

  67. Pat


    How about apologizing for lying?

  68. Kevin Scheunemann


    When we can get clear on what the lie was, I would be willing to discuss, and if I am in error, I will apologize.

    We can never get to a clear on what the alleged “lie” is.

    If you are not upset about Hagedorn exercising his faith on the bench, why are we even debating this thread?  I read pretty clear from your comments you want him to divorce his faith from his professional judicial life, thus negating the Preamble of the WI constitution.   If that is not the case, your statements are very unclear, and you should clarify what exactly your problem with Hagedorn is.

    I apologize if the “nuclear bomb” of the Preamble blew up the godless case against Hagedorn, but it was clear many of you have not read the first line of the WI consitution.

    Just because the argument was lost by the godless on this group, does not mean you have to accuse me of lying.

  69. Pat


    You accused me of saying things that I didn’t. You have been unable to provide a quote to prove your accusations. You lied.

  70. Kevin Scheunemann


    Please point it out with accurate, in context, quotes.


  71. Pat


    I’ve pointed them out, and in context, and asked countless times for you to provide a quote of mine, in context, to prove your accusations. Go back and read them for yourself.

  72. Kevin Scheunemann


    All I see is you losing an argument because you were not clear on what the top line of the WI Constitution says.

    I cannot defend the against your allegation, if you are unwilling to specifically point it out, so we can discuss it.

    1.) What I see on this thread is:  godless screaming Hagedorn needs to uphold the Constitution by divorcing his profressional judicial life from his personal life of Christian faith.

    2.) I point out the Constitution calls for men of faith in “gratefulness to Almighty God” in the top line of Constitution.

    3.) Then I see the godless dump on the Constitution and Hagedorn should not uphold it or follow the Constitution on the top line.

    This thread has been hilarious all the way.

  73. Pat


    Here is your quote, “When you say Hagedorn cannot live his faith on the bench.”

    Please provide the quote from me where I said that.

  74. Kevin Scheunemann

    Pat, you said at 9:42 AM above

    “I’m openly saying that there is nothing wrong with anyone being greatful to their god for any and all blessings that may be bestowed upon them, as long as decisions are constitutionally based versus faith based. The amendments within the constitution are what the actual documented intentions are.”

    again at 7:42 AM above:

    “It’s perfectly okay to be a member of any faith, as long as decisions are constitutionally based versus faith based.”

    I’ll accept your apology.   Always willing to forgive.  I understand that you over-stepped with accusation in the heat of the debate.   I did throw the WI Preamble at you AFTER you made those statements.

  75. Pat


    I never said a judge can’t live his faith, but decisions on the bench should be based on the constitution. Are you saying decisions on the bench should not be based on the constitution?

  76. Le Roi du Nord

    The WI Constitution also has this to say:

    “(N)or shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies”.  So is providing $$ to religious schools unconstitutional?

  77. Kevin Scheunemann


    “…Based on Constitution”.

    Constitution says it is established in “gratefulness to Almighty God”. Can’t have that without faith. Faith is the first thing to consider when interpreting the Constitution.

    Why are you now arguing against the WI Constitution.

  78. jjf

    Jason, “which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable“ is not MY idea.  It’s the state Constitution.  What do you think that clause means?  Why did they put it there?  Do you think it’s being carried out?

    No, we have a system where school funding is tied to local property values, so the nice parts of town get the nice schools, and the poor parts of town get the poor schools.

  79. Pat

    Kevin said, “Faith is the first thing to consider when interpreting the Constitution.”

    How so?

  80. Kevin Scheunemann


    WI Constitution itself is formed out of “grate(fullness) to Almighty God”, you cannot be grateful without faith.

    Sure, there are godless judges that have no gratefulness to Almighty God, but those liberal judges ignore thrvtop line of Constitution….that should be the reprehensible position.

    Instead, you, and your fellow godless make the good faith based candidate, who reads all the Constitution the criminal.

    Liberals should stop ignoring the WI Constitution.

  81. Pat


    Should judges make a decisions based on the constitutional law or based on their faith?

  82. Kevin Scheunemann


    Based on Constitution flowing from their faith. That is only way top line can be applied in WI Constitution.

    It’s those without faith on the bench is where the Constitution gets ignored with faithless liberal judicial activism.

    Will you join me in endorsing Hagedorn?

  83. Pat


    So if a judge is of the Muslim faith he should interpret constitutional law based on his faith.

  84. Kevin Scheunemann


    Tough one because I am not convinced Islam has things like “gratefulness”, “grace” and “forgiveness.”

    The Muslim has a false god, but that god is not one of gratefulness, grace, and forgiveness. So they would be opposite of a grateful godless atheist without God. Muslim would have their god, not the Almighty God, without gratefulness, grace and forgiveness. In fact, probably worse off than the godless in considering it.

    So they may think they know “Almighty God”, but they would just be kidding themselves….like atheists that claim to know the WI Constitution.

  85. Pat


    And that’s why rulings should be based on constitutional law and not based on someone’s faith.

  86. Kevin Scheunemann


    Atheists have god, they just see themselves as god, which is way worse than a humble Christian with gratefulness to Almighty God.

    Join me in endorsing Hagedorn?

  87. jjf

    Which atheist thinks they’re God?

    I once knew a dyslexic atheist who thought he was dog, but that’s a story for another time.

    Humble, like Kevin!  He knows everything, and will tell you so, and knows better than anyone actually trained and educated in a field, but he’s as humble as can be.

  88. Pat

    Kevin asked, “Join me in endorsing Hagedorn?”

    I will need to research the candidates for judicial qualification, and experience with constitutional law before I make a decision.

  89. Kevin Scheunemann


    When the godless attack a Christian for openly exercising his faith….And I defend against the godless attack….I hardly think my humility is at issue.

    Why do the godless think they can inflict a morality of sin on the church and criticize someone for rejecting that sin?

    Being godless, by definition, lacks humility.

  90. Kevin Scheunemann


    Election in 4 weeks, don’t take too long.

  91. Pat


    Would you take a Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Atheist judge who is brilliant and addresses Constitutional questions with an originalist/textualist approach over an evangelical judicial activist who decides cases based on their moral code?

  92. Kevin Scheunemann


    You assmue there is such a thing as an “Evangelical judicial activist”.   That would mean they are probably liberal.   If they are liberal, they probably stand for anti-biblical things like abortion.    If they stand for evil like abortion, you have to question their Christianity.   Ergo, not sure such a person exists.



  93. Pat


    But would you take a Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Atheist judge who is brilliant and addresses Constitutional questions with an otriginalist/textualist approach over an evangelical judicial activist who decides cases based on their moral code?

  94. Kevin Scheunemann


    There is no such thing as a “Evangelical judicial activist”.

    It’s like saying “Christian abortionist” or “Bill Clinton, marital fidelity counselor”

  95. Pat


    Ok, you can’t answer my question. All you had to say is that you don’t know.

  96. Kevin Scheunemann


    You are asking me which breed of horse can beat a unicorn in a race.

    When you get back to reality, I can comment.

  97. Pat


    Ok, remove the word activist. What say you?

  98. Le Roi du Nord

    Just curious, why can’t there be a “Evangelical judicial activist” ?  Sure seems like the kind of jurist k would want on the bench…

  99. jjf

    Kevin, what’s wrong with opposing Hagedorn based on his stated positions?

    You act like a faith-based position should be given some special status, that we can’t oppose him because he says his positions are faith-based.

    Again I’ll ask why the Founders opposed religious tests for office. What did they want to avoid?

  100. Kevin Scheunemann


    So they are just claiming to be “Evangelical”.   I would like to see evidence they are a true Evangelical by action in their life…for instance, they don’t support abortion, infanticide, they support marriage under God’s design, willing to properly discern good and evil, etc.   If they are true bible based Evangelical, why wouldn’t I vote for them.

    If they are a pretend Evangelical, flag waving the gay agenda, support baby killing, infanticide, support transgender mutilation in kids, flag waving Darwinism, and is ashamed at the mention of Christ and the gospel…they might be a “judicial activist”, but they certainly are NOT “Evangelical”.

  101. Le Roi du Nord

    So a true evangelical can’t believe in science?  That is what you are saying, right?

  102. Kevin Scheunemann


    A true Evangelical Christian can believe in science.    They have to be careful of those things that are called “science”, but really are leftist religions, like: Evolution, climate change, bodily mutilation in name of rejecting biological sex/gender, health care that involves baby killing, etc.

    A lot of false teachers/religions out there.

    Christ is the only way.

  103. Pat


    So we’re clear, and I’m taking you in context, you would take an evangelical judge who decides cases based on their moral code over a Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Atheist judge who is brilliant and addresses Constitutional questions with an originalist/textualist approach?

  104. Kevin Scheunemann


    An true Evangelical judge would be brilliant and address Constitutional questions with an original/textualist approach because they would truly understand the Preamble.

    If they area pretend “Evangelical” then your question is legitimately in play.

  105. jjf

    Just calling balls and strikes, right Kevin?  In Jesus’ name!  Anyone could do it!  No possibility of personal bias!

  106. Kevin Scheunemann


    Well, yes.

    As a Christian we are called to discern good and evil.

    that is how we determine to act in our faith in Jesus.  hagedorn has shown himself to be a faithful disciple and that will make him an excellent judge.

    why is that so hard to uderstand?

  107. Le Roi du Nord


    Looks like you get to make the call as to what is, or isn’t science, even though you have no background, nor training or experience.  Fortunately that isn’t how science works, and we are all the better for it.  Keeping your head stuck in the sand doesn’t make you smarter.

  108. Pat


    So evangelicals are inherently brilliant and would in all cases address Constitutional questions with only an original/textualist. Sounds like they are on a level playing field with the Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Atheists.

  109. Le Roi du Nord

    “hagedorn has shown himself to be a faithful disciple and that will make him an excellent judge”.

    That isn’t the best way to endorse a candidate, by saying that ideology is more important than constitutionality.  Being impartial is far more important, and far more legal.

  110. jjf

    And we’re not allowed to question his ability to be a judge, because he’s signaled to you that he’s a good Christian of the stripe you like, and we’re not supposed to question his beliefs and abilities because religious influences are above being questioned?  You want a special pass?

  111. Kevin Scheunemann

    Nord, Pat, jjf,

    I’m just tired of this notion that just because he is a practicing Evangelical Christian that, somehow, it is a handicap for him to be a good judge.

    It is disgusting talk you would instantly ridicule if it was a Muslim, or a Darwin disciple.

    Your intolerance is showing.


  112. Pat


    Don’t you wish everyone was as tolerant as you?

  113. Le Roi du Nord

    As long as a judge weren’t influenced either way by Darwin, I wouldn’t have any objection to them.  But I would if any religion swayed their decisions.

  114. Kevin Scheunemann


    It’s tolerance for evil that is the ultimate social problem. From indifference to baby killing to insane liberal intolerance for practicing bible based Christianity openly.

    I just wish liberals actually had 10% of the Tolerance they claim to have, and actually denounced real heinous evil.

  115. Le Roi du Nord

    Would believing in global warming/climate change disqualify a SC candidate?  Or belief in evolution?  Or that the earth is much older than 6000 years?

  116. jjf

    Kevin, here’s an example.  If he wasn’t a Christian and he expressed these ideas, I’d still not vote for him.  Can you see that his religion really doesn’t make a difference to me?

    Yes, if a Muslim candidate made similar statements, I wouldn’t give an free pass.

    If you think the world is only 6,000 years old, you’re not in tune with reality.  Similarly, if you are relying on the Bible for astronomy, you’ve got some ‘splaining to do.

    Again I’m waiting for someone to step up and tell me why the Founding Fathers didn’t want a religious test for office.

  117. Kevin Scheunemann


    I don’t disqualify based on religion like you do.

    But if I did, yes, disqualifying if you believe in false religion.

  118. jjf

    Kevin, I would guess you’d not vote for an atheist because of their lack of religion, even if they claimed to have the same positions as the voices in your head.  Is that considered disqualifying someone based on religion?

  119. Le Roi du Nord

    “I don’t disqualify based on religion like you do”.

    This must rank right up there with your most disingenuous statement of all time.  Everything you say is couched in you intolerant version of religion.

  120. Kevin Scheunemann


    If they were against baby killing, supported school vouchers for all, pro marriage under God’s design, fiscal conservative, and treated the liberal victimhood lexicon with the total disdain it deserves, I could vote for that person, even if atheist.

  121. Kevin Scheunemann


    I vote on issue stances, values and  character.

    Many times those things flow from religion, or lack thereof.

  122. Le Roi du Nord

    Yet you voted for trump, right?  Another case of your flexible standards.

  123. Kevin Scheunemann


    What is Hillary’s stand on baby killing?

    That right there pre-cluded me from voting for her.

    She is evil to support baby killing.

  124. jjf

    Raise your hand if you think Trump ever paid for an abortion.


  125. Kevin Scheunemann


    If that were case, I look for repentance by not openly supporting ongoing slaughter of babies!

    Hillary did that to her genocidal shame.

  126. dad29

    Read Bice’s One Wisconsin Now column carefully.  Note that Hagedorn’s position is somewhat nuanced–and, like all thinking men, has migrated.  But it’s clear that the original Constitution was just fine with a State declaring an official religion, and it IS clear that current SCOTUS religious-freedom decisions are ad hoc.

    IOW, *yawn*…so what?

  127. Kevin Scheunemann


    You just keep on trying to smear a good man, don’t you.

    Awful. Just awful.

  128. jjf

    Dad29, if it’s one thing voters are known for, it’s nuance.

  129. Le Roi du Nord


    Nope, he doesn’t need any help.  He is doing a fine job on his own.

  130. Kevin Scheunemann

    I’m suggesting the godless spitting cobras, like yourself, focus on easier prey, like Eric Holder, stumping for Neubauer.

    But you don’t want to sink your venom into actual evil, do you?

  131. dad29

    Kevin, they have a god.  Maybe three!!

    Choose or mix/match:  sex, drugs, rock’n’roll.  And when things go bad, kill the babies, or anyone else who gets in the way.

  132. jjf

    So Dad29, do you think it would be a good idea for any US state to declare an official religion, and use tax dollars to support it?

  133. Kevin Scheunemann


    No one is declaring an official religion, just calling for less hostility and tolerance for Christianity.

    But it seems hostility and intolerance is the liberal way.

  134. jjf

    If dah libruls wanted to attack Christianity, wouldn’t they be more direct?

    It’s the ideas.  It’s not your religion.  It’s not even religion in general.  There are plenty of liberals who will say they’re religious, most around here (by the numbers) would even say they’re Christian.  Or whatever.  Yes, some are agnostic or atheist or have some other middlin’ view.

    Your particular beliefs do not get a special pass just because you claim they’re religious.  Can’t you see that?

  135. Kevin Scheunemann


    The attacks against Hagedorn went far beyond issues!

    The liberal hanging mob went after his Christian school and his faith in practice.

    It was totally reprehensible.

  136. jjf

    Really?  There you go again, “faith in practice.”  Idea is supposed to get a pass on detailed examination because YOU say it’s faith-based.  Sorry.  No can do.  And if your school does it, then your school’s policies will be examined and critiqued, too.  Maybe they got extra attention because of Hagedorn, but I bet someone noticed and spoke out against the policy before Hagedorn ran.

  137. Kevin Scheunemann


    So you are judging faith in personal practice?

    What happen to “none of your business”, “do not judge”, “be tolerant” and other godless platitudes?


  138. jjf

    If you knew your Bible, you’d know “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” is Matthew 7:1.


  139. Kevin Scheunemann


    Going with your godless intepretation for a minute, then why are you judging Hagedorn so harshly…especially when he is living according to the Gospel?

  140. jjf

    I don’t care if he thinks he’s living by the Law of Leprechauns.

    Which beliefs of other religions get a free pass on judgment from you?

    What if I told you I believed something because the leprechauns told me?  You’d give me a free pass and withhold criticism?  Anyone who disagreed with me was a bigot?

    But hey it’s fun to watch the Hagedorn fan contingent double-down on the bigot claim.  Everybody who doesn’t like Hagedorn must be anti-Christian.  How’s it working so far?  Polls well with Christians?

  141. Kevin Scheunemann


    So now you can judge?

    I don’t judge, I discern good and bad, which Christians are called to do.

    I was playing with your misinterpretation of the Bible and did not expect you to expose your hypocrisy so quickly.

    Jesus is warning against judging the repentant sinner. Repentant sinners are those with sins forgiven and wiped away. You should not judge those on past sins wiped away by grace.

    Unbelievers rarely get that distinction.

    That is why you caught yourself on the rug because liberals are the most judgements people on planet and then mosquitoes scripture to get Christians to pipe down about the wrongdoing of liberalism.

    I don’t surrender to that twisted game of the godless.

  142. Kevin Scheunemann

    “Misquote scripture….”

    Stupid auto correct.

  143. jjf

    Yeah, I’m aware of the usual ways that Bible quotes get twisted, including that one.  It’s the very definition of Bible-play.  Yawn.  You’re the one who trotted it out.

    OK, I’m not judging.  I’m discerning good and bad.  I don’t want to live in a society that tells gay people they’re second-class.  Send me to the fires of hell!

  144. Kevin Scheunemann


    So you are judging after all.

    Since you have improper biblical discernment and side with sin, you would be judging, in error.

    No one is making “gays” second class citizens, but you should not get special right based on carnal choices. That’s all.

  145. Le Roi du Nord

    Jeez k, you are sure hung up on other folks carnal choices.  You really should seek counseling.

  146. Kevin Scheunemann


    You libs are the ones dredging his private religion practices, not me.

    Liberals are the ones that think carnal choices always need to be in politics.

    I prefer everyone keep it to themselves that wave them around with pride.

  147. Le Roi du Nord

    If you truly thought that way you wouldn’t always be sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.  Ditto with hagedorn.

  148. Kevin Scheunemann


    Then why do you stick your nose in the school Hagedorn runs?

    So many liberal hypocrites….

  149. jjf

    Yeah, we don’t think you’re second-class, but if we think a lot about what you’re doing in private and it’s naughty in our eyes, you can’t be in our school!

  150. Kevin Scheunemann


    That is an incorrect lie!

    All students are welcome. They are thought the grace and mercy of Christ’s salvation. In that thankful grace of salvation, the students are instructed to not conform to the pattern of the sinful world.

    If the kids graduating from the school desire to reject Christ by proclaiming things like baby murder, stealing, treating others without grace, they can request a release from membership of the church.

    No one is forced to do anything.

    The guidelines are for staff and that is how thankfulness for grace and salvation in Christ should look in practice.

    I am sorry you are lost to the sinful world and the demons that steer that sin.

    I’ll keep praying for you.

  151. jjf

    What?  You’re saying the school doesn’t allow any sinning?  They expel all the active sinners?  Or is the gay sin extra special for some reason?  Do they expel if you aren’t actively carrying out the messages of the New Testament in general, you know, the good parts?

    And these demons?  They’re powerful supernatural beings like your gods?  But it’s monotheism?

  152. Le Roi du Nord


    As you have said many times, once someone runs for office they are open to comment on their positions.  Once he made those statements he (and you) should have had some sense that there would folks that disagreed with him.  He created his own hot mess, not me or the media.

  153. Kevin Scheunemann


    Sin does not get you expelled from church. Ongoing unrepentance of open sin when you are corrected in truth and love places you outdid the kingdom of Christ, and the church.

    Sin can be forgiven. Forgiveness includes acknowledging something as a sin, sorrow over it, and a thankful resolve to avoid the sin going forward.

    Open denial that something is a sin is ongoing unrepentance, which places you outside Christ’s grace.

    You have a beef with anyone following basic grace?

    Grace does not include ignoring ongoing unrepentance in the church.

  154. Kevin Scheunemann


    I’ll remember that when we discuss all the Islamic Democrats.

  155. Le Roi du Nord


    Even if you don’t remember, I’m sure you will make up some faux offense to suit your need to be a victim.

  156. Kevin Scheunemann


    The Catholic school in your story has standards of Christian behavior for the parents.   If the couple wants to repent and follow the grace of Christ, I am certain they would be welcome to send their kids to the school.

    What is the purpose of sending a kid to a Christian school, if the parents will openly reject and defy the Christian faith?

    The parents labor in vain, spiritually, in that example.

    In Hagedorn’s school, the children would probably be accepted, but the children would learn their parents, who would not be members of the church, are committing ongoing, unrepentant sin.   The child would learn the parents have placed themselves outside Christ’s salvation through unrepentance, and their souls risk hell in eternity.

    That is the foundational belief in Christianity, unrepentant sin, outside the grace of Christ, risks punishment in all eternity.

    So in your intolerance as a liberal, do you want the church to stop teaching the foundation of Christianity and the bible completely? or do you want the gay parents to repent and come to Christ with their child?

    I prfer the latter, because I desire everyone find the grace of Christ, so does Hagedorn.

    Christians cannot water down the tuth, because it would also risk our souls in unrepentance if we lied to the unrepentant about the truth of the consequences of unrepentant sin.


  157. jjf

    I dunno, Kevin, do they review the sins of the other parents, and expel or reject their kids for the similar sins?  All sins are bad, right?

  158. Kevin Scheunemann


    Your sins are not the problem, it is being unrepentant about open sin that is a problem.

    So if you tell me stealing from your neighbor is just dandy, and I instruct you it is not as the bible indicates…but you keep saying stealing from your neighbor is just fine, that shows unrepentance for your error.    It is not the sin of advocating the evil of stealing that keep you outside Christ’s kingdom, it is your unrepentance of evil that keeps you out.

  159. jjf

    Can you think of any other continuous sins of the parents that should cause them to reject kids?  Once upon a time, divorce should’ve been enough, right?

    How did the school know that the parents were having sex?  It would be OK to have homosexual thoughts but not act on them, right?

    Couldn’t you be civilly married and not have sex?  There’s plenty of straight marriages like that, right?

  160. Kevin Scheunemann


    Divorce is a sin most of the time….but is it ongoing?

    You can divorce for sinful reasons and be repenant.    Tough to be open, and ongoing about the sin of divorce. (when it is not done for biblical reasons: adultery and desertion).

    It is ongoing, OPEN, willful, unrepentance that needs to be corrected.

    Can someone be unrepentant in private? sure.

    A Christian should be a living example to unbelievers.   If their open sin cannot distinguish them from the sin of the unbeliever, that is a concern whether one is shining the grace of Christ in the world.

    This is why your view is so offensive.    You demand Christians allow members, parents, kids, live in open, unrepentant, willful sin of homosexuality.   Willful unrepentance sets the Christian outside Christianity, which destroys their salvation in Jesus.     They cease to be a Christian.

    It is a reprehensible demand of the godless.

  161. jjf

    I’m sure Dad29 can give you a nuanced view of divorce and annulments and whether you’re in a state to receive Sacraments.

    But hey, I bet you can name some Christians who aren’t really Christians, right?

  162. Le Roi du Nord

    “A Christian should be a living example to unbelievers”.

    That’s really funny coming from you…

  163. Kevin Scheunemann


    That includes speaking “truth in love”.

    I understand, as a godless advocate, you despise the truth, but Christians still speak it, despite your ridicule.

    Try to be nice and tolerant of absolute truth, that is all I ask.

  164. Le Roi du Nord


    The problem with your “absolute truth” is that you feel it only applies to you.  Truth is truth, no need to be absolute.

  165. dad29

    The Catholic church regards divorce as a grave evil (sin), but tolerates civil divorce if it is the only way to protect children, certain inheritance rights, or to ensure certain legal rights.  Divorce is a breach of natural law and it injures the covenant of salvation of which marriage is the sign.

    Re-marriage after divorce is another grave evil (although some few marriages are ‘null’ from the get-go, which is another topic.)  Eastern Orthodox churches allow re-marriage depending on the reason(s) for the divorce; the Roman church does not.

    Needless to say, except for Jiffy’s block-headedness, there is no such thing as homosexual “marriage.”  And–again, just for Jiffy–homosexual activity is one of the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance (along with abortion, by the way).

    Hagedorn for SCOWI!!

  166. jjf

    The church “tolerates” civil divorce?  Where do you think it should stand on accepting Sacraments in that state?

    So why doesn’t the church tolerate civil marriage then?

    More precisely, why did the church tolerate so much sexual abuse carried out by its own priests?

    Don’t forget the sin of taking advantage of the worker, Dad29!  Tell Kevin ’bout that.

Pin It on Pinterest