Is support for modern Israel a biblical mandate based on God’s promises to Abraham? Cruz: "Biblically, We’re Commanded to Support Israel" caldronpool.com/cruz-biblica…

Hypothetically, let’s grant the Left its deranged premise: Charlie Kirk was an “extremist,” and his assassination is not something to be mourned. Even if that were true, one obvious question remains: what about his assassin? Are his violent actions, at the very least, to be equally condemned? If Kirk’s words were “hateful,” what of the man who picked up a rifle and shot him dead? Was his action also “hateful”? By any reasonable standard, the murderer is more of an extremist. Yet the silence from the Left about the shooter is deafening. Instead of condemning the murderer, they reserve their fury for his victim. In their response, they revealed their distorted hierarchy of evils: Charlie’s words were worse than his killer’s bullets. Dialogue, debate, and dissenting speech are treated as more dangerous than assassination. Think about what that means. It is a tacit admission that eliminating political opponents through violence is permissible, so long as the target is someone they hate. This is not a small error in judgment—it’s a reordering of civilization’s most basic moral truths. Societies survive on the assumption that disputes can be settled with words rather than weapons. Once speech is branded as more dangerous than bullets, the path is cleared for violence to become the default tool of politics. Charlie Kirk was, in fact, a good man. But even if you accept the Left’s caricature of him, their silence, when it comes to his assassin, is revealing. By condemning Kirk and excusing his killer, the Left has effectively said: words are worse than murder. Talk is worse than terrorism. Dialogue is more dangerous than a deranged man with a gun. If the words of a political opponent are more intolerable than the act of assassination, then what remains but to cheer the shooter? It is the logic of tyranny, where dissent is not debated but destroyed. And that is the dark truth revealed in the Left’s response: the assassin was not condemned because, in their inverted moral calculus, he committed the lesser offence. For many, words are worse than murder. That should terrify everyone.

Western legal systems all agree that if a dangerous dog injures or kills, responsibility rests with the owner who failed to restrain it. This is not a modern notion, but a principle rooted in biblical law. In Exodus 21:28–29, Moses declared: “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death … if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.” This passage is not merely about animals; it is the Sixth Commandment in action. The prohibition on murder is not only a ban on deliberate killing but a positive command to value and protect human life. Neglect or apathy that leads to the death of another is treated as a form of murder. The owner of a violent animal who ignores repeated warnings is considered guilty of a crime against human life, and the law demands his removal for the safety of the community. In the UK’s Animals Act 1971, owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by dangerous animals regardless of negligence. Australian states differ: places like New South Wales hold owners responsible, but laws vary by jurisdiction. In the US and Canada, liability regimes range from strict liability to the one-bite rule, with hybrid systems in between. In every case, though, the default expectation remains: owners cannot evade responsibility for serious harm caused by their animals. The reason for this is that innocent human life must be preserved, and anyone who fails to restrain a known danger is guilty of violating that principle. Yet if this holds true for dog owners, why do we not apply the same moral logic to the justice system itself? Judges release violent offenders back into society every day, often with full knowledge of their records of brutality. When those offenders go on to harm or kill again, the victims pay the price, while the judges face no consequence at all. We are often told that no one can predict whether a criminal will reoffend. But that is precisely the issue. If the risk cannot be ruled out, why gamble with the lives of ordinary citizens? If a judge believes a violent offender can be released, should he not be so certain of his judgment that he would be willing to stake his career on it? Why should the public bear the weight of uncertainty when the judge himself assumes none of the risk? The case of Decarlos Brown Jr. makes this painfully clear. With fourteen prior arrests and a five-year prison term for armed robbery behind him, he was released back into society. He went on to slash the throat of a young woman as she sat on a train, minding her own business. It is difficult to imagine how many warnings the justice system requires before it treats such a man as dangerous beyond doubt. At what point do we hold judges accountable for their decisions? If our legal system demands that a dog owner must pay the price when his negligence costs a life, why is a judge immune when his own carelessness or apathy unleashes a human predator on the public? A justice system that consistently exposes its people to danger ceases to protect and instead betrays them. The biblical principle remains as relevant as ever: those who have been granted the power to restrain danger and yet fail to do so should be held responsible for the innocent lives destroyed as a result. Until then, there’s little reason to expect anything to change. @BenDavisCP

Is taxation the price we pay for civilisation? Nope. If a fine is a tax on doing wrong, then a tax is a fine on doing well—and increasingly, merely existing: Income Tax – A fine for earning a living. Payroll Tax – A fine for giving someone a job. Capital Gains Tax – A fine for investing wisely. Inheritance Tax – A fine for dying while owning something. Land Tax – Proof you’re renting your own land from the government. Sales Tax / GST – A fine for buying something. Stamp Duty – A fine for transferring ownership of something you own. Fuel Excise – A fine on your freedom to move. Superannuation Tax – A fine taken from your future before you reach it. Carbon Tax – A fine for existing. Luxury Tax – A fine for being too successful. Council Rates – A fine for occupying your own home. Fringe Benefits Tax – A fine for rewarding your employees. Motor Vehicle Registration Fees – A yearly fine for using something you own. Toll Roads – A fine for driving on roads that your taxes already built. Excise on Alcohol and Tobacco – A fine for legal behaviour that the government can't criminalise. Bank Interest Tax – A fine for saving money. Congestion Charges – A fine for showing up in the same place as everyone else. Pet Registration Fees – A fine for owning a pet.

"While we were told to fear a Christian theocracy, a more insidious shift occurred: the state began to absorb the functions of the church." We Were Told to Fear the Church Becoming the State So the State Could Become the Church caldronpool.com/we-were-told…