Posted on 09/21/2018 9:46:26 AM PDT by uscga77
Great quote from a radio talk show host, Mark Steyn, that speaks of the absurdity and patent unfairness of having the judge testify before his accuser does and then be out of the room: Acts 25: 16 “I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over any man before he has faced his accusers and has had an opportunity to defend himself against their charges.
The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (Ac 25:16). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Well, of course the Romans were more advanced than progressives.
With the exception of some certain unnamed middle east cultures, every culture is.
Progressives are proof that evolution is not always in a good direction.
Well said. Progressive is truly a misnomer.
“Progressives are proof that evolution is not always in a good direction.”
But they are on the right side of history.
If pro is the opposite of con,
then is progress the opposite of congress?
To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him. (Acts 25:16)
He condemned the modern versions as "dithering" with the King's English. (This may not be a verbatim quote. But I am pretty sure he used the verb 'dither'.)
To which I will add the reported demand that the accuser would not be under oath when she testified nor would Kavanaugh's attorney be allowed to cross-exam the witness.
If true, it says a lot about an attorney who, on behalf of her client, would encourage the government to act in such a way. It sounds very much like Russia's legal system of several decades beginning in the 1920's.
Perhaps a preview of our future if we continue to lean to the left in our schools and our culture.
K should us refuse....
he hasn't heard any official charges and he should not be asked about things he hasn't officially been notified of ....
“Progressive is truly a misnomer.”
While I agree with you if we talk about common usage, that usage includes a hidden implication.
Leftists take advantage of the fact that modern Americans are taught that “progress” is a good thing. Actually, the strict meaning is simply, “intentionally moving towards” something. But person can be said to be making progress on the way to catastrophe, or some other bad result.
If true they don't need to bother any further. If you are prepared to accuse a person of a serious offence and not prepared to swear to it under oath then your testimony is useless.
If true, I say don’t allow her to testify and put it to a vote this Monday.
I like what Mark said last night on Tucker in response to Gillibrand’s absurd comment that Kavanaugh must be guilty because he’s not asking the FBI to investigate the allegations against him - “Well I think that Gillibrand is the one who broke into my car in 1998 and stole my radio - she’s not asking the FBI to investigate so she must be guilty”.......
Now there is some wisdom. Thank you.
While I agree with you if we talk about common usage, that usage includes a hidden implication.“Progressive is truly a misnomer.” - uscga77
Leftists take advantage of the fact that modern Americans are taught that “progress” is a good thing. Actually, the strict meaning is simply, “intentionally moving towards” something. But person can be said to be making progress on the way to catastrophe, or some other bad result.
Actually, you and I are progressive - in the sense that we believe in progress of, by, and for the American people. The word “progress” actually appears in the Constitution:
- Article 1 Section 8:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
The Biblical standard for eye-witness testimony is two or three agreeing together about the same incident which they all witnessed.
2 Corinthians 13:1b
By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.
Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.
In this case the current matter is already settled other than the testimonies so far were not under oath. All of the other testimonies contradict the accuser.
The left demands we believe an accuser with no clear recollection, no physical evidence of any kind, and ALL of the people she says were witnesses contradict her testimony.
Quia non est Romanis consuetudo damnare aliquem hominem prius quam is, qui accusatur, praesentes habeat accusatores, locumque defendendi accipiat ad abluenda crimina.
Minor correction:
Kavanaugh did answer questions under oath about this matter on Monday.
The Democrats refused to come ask any questions.
Just found out that now 3 of the 4 witnesses / party attendees identified by Ford, including Mark Judge, have given statements under penalty of perjury. They ALL contradict the claims of Ford. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republican staff have also reached out in an effort to get such testimony from the 4th person who was alleged to be at the party as identified by Ford but have not received testimony under oath I believe.
There are some minor differences. For example, it is missing prefatory "I told them that". It starts "Quia not est" [Because it isn't the Roman custom...].
I find the "ad abluenda crimina" an interesting Latin turn of phrase [(to receive an opportunity of defense) for dispelling/refuting the charges]. All Greek texts have: τόπον τε ἀπολογίας λάβοι περὶ τοῦ ἐγκλήματος [that he might receive an opportunity of defense (ἀπολογίας) concerning the charges.] Close enough.
Here is the complete verse:
ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 25:16 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
πρὸς οὓς ἀπεκρίθην ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθος Ῥωμαίοις χαρίζεσθαί τινα ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἀπώλειαν, πρὶν ἢ ὁ κατηγορούμενος κατὰ πρόσωπον ἔχοι τοὺς κατηγόρους τόπον τε ἀπολογίας λάβοι περὶ τοῦ ἐγκλήματος
That was fun. Thanks. I seldom get an opportunity to read Latin and Greek.
My money is on, Monday morning Grassley says the accuser has made a mockery of the process and failed to show up at the appointed time.
He then schedules the vote for Tuesday morning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.