Ken Duffy

Jesus Christ is King. Scripture governs all of life. Reformed theology, cultural order, law, and the magistrate. War Journal + Reformlets at

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

I took my wife off social media a while back. Then The King's Hall got hammered for saying husbands should oversee their wives' social media. I stand with Brian and Eric, I correct them where Scripture does, and I own where I failed my own house.
https://t.co/7vfUSaipEK

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

There is nothing radical about Americans wanting to preserve their country, their laws, their culture, and their Christian inheritance. What is radical is telling Americans they must ignore what a rival religious and political system actually claims about itself or be branded bigots for asking questions.

Islam is not just another private faith sitting harmlessly beside Christianity. It claims Muhammad as the final prophet, the Quran as the final revelation, and historically Sharia has governed far more than private devotion. Marriage, finance, inheritance, crime, government, and public law all fall within its reach. And from a Christian standpoint, Islam denies the Son. Scripture is plain: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father” (1 John 2:23).

So yes, voters have every right to ask a Muslim candidate where his final allegiance lies when religious obligation and American civil law collide. That is not persecution. That is a basic question for someone asking to wield public power.

Abdul El-Sayed’s response at the town hall is exactly why the question matters. Asked to disavow the Muslim Brotherhood, he briefly does so, then turns the question back on the voter and frames it as an accusation of divided loyalty simply because he is Muslim. He invokes JFK and says the Constitution is his “guiding light.”

But there is more in the record than that answer admits.

In a 2009 interview, El-Sayed described a lifelong obligation to live in a Sharia-compliant way in every aspect of life, “not because of fear but because of obligation.” He chose a Sharia-compliant mortgage for that reason. He has compared efforts to keep Sharia out of American law to white supremacy and the forces behind the Trail of Tears and the Tulsa massacre. His half-sister has publicly written that the family had long ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and that their mother was active in it in the 1970s.

None of that proves he is secretly working for the Muslim Brotherhood. It does mean these questions did not materialize out of thin air.

And this is where the JFK comparison falls apart. Catholic canon law governs the church. Classical Sharia claims authority over civil and political life too. The Quran itself commands judgment according to what Allah has revealed and condemns contrary judgment. That is a real difference, and pretending otherwise is an evasion.

When pressed, the answer is always that this is private faith, that it will never be imposed, and that scrutiny itself is bigotry. But classical Islam does not treat Sharia as a private hobby subordinate to whatever civil government happens to exist. It claims divine authority over law and judgment.

The Constitution is easy to praise while there is no conflict. The real test is what happens when constitutional law collides with what a Muslim believes Allah requires. Classical Islam already answers that question: human law yields to divine law.

That is why questions about ultimate allegiance are legitimate.

The same political culture that instantly frames scrutiny of Omar’s immigration record or El-Sayed’s associations as hostility toward Muslims, immigrants, or minorities has spent years treating open contempt for Christians, white men, native-born Americans, and the historic American nation as ordinary background noise.

One standard for favored identities. Another for everyone else.

Equal citizenship does not require Americans to pretend every religion makes the same claims about law, government, and public order. And it certainly does not require us to shut up when those differences matter.

If a candidate says his faith places him under Sharia as a sacred obligation, voters are entitled to ask what happens when that obligation conflicts with the Constitution and the laws he swears to uphold.

Ask the question. Make him answer it plainly. Then judge the answer.

[Joel Webbon @JoelWebbon]

You don’t need to ban Sharia Law, you need to ban Muslim immigrants from entering the country.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

Obama has run this play for years. Center race, immigrant status, or minority identity. Cast the target as a vulnerable victim. Then treat scrutiny itself as persecution.

He’s doing it with Omar. He demands outrage before the facts are in, dismisses the citizenship questions as “unsubstantiated,” and airbrushes the record. There is a federal investigation into alleged false statements on her immigration paperwork. There was a court-authorized search. Public records contain a documented birth-year discrepancy. None of that proves fraud. It does mean there are legitimate questions to investigate. Obama is telling the country there aren’t.

If Trump is abusing federal power to punish political speech, expose it and stop it. If Omar lied to obtain citizenship, prosecute it. Her race, sex, religion, immigrant story, and party affiliation do not alter the standard. The law either applies or it doesn’t.

Spare the selective outrage. The same political culture that treats pressure on women, Muslims, immigrants, or racial minorities as a five-alarm emergency has spent years treating open contempt for Christians, white men, and native-born Americans as ordinary background noise.

That double standard is the problem.

Equal justice means one rule for everyone. Not one rule for politically favored identities and another for everyone else.

[Barack Obama @BarackObama]

It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say. But that’s exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

To understand why this is so appalling, it’s important to know the facts. Congresswoman Omar came to this country with her father when she was 12 years old. Five years later, her father became a naturalized citizen. If Ilhan had been 18 at the time, she would have had to apply for citizenship separately. But because she was 17, she became a naturalized citizen automatically.

Congresswoman Omar went on to graduate from college, work as a community organizer, become the first Somali-American legislator elected to public office in the U.S., and win a seat in Congress. There, she has been one of the Trump Administration’s fiercest critics, which has led the president to repeatedly single her out as someone who he believes does not belong in this country.

Now the Administration is actively trying to deport Congresswoman Omar, seemingly based solely on the unsubstantiated theory that she was actually 18 when her father was naturalized, and therefore is not a citizen. Federal agents have raided her home, confiscated personal records, and seized her phone — all to try and uncover a nonexistent smoking gun from 20 years ago that will somehow make their case.

Think about that. The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law-abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the president. And it’s not the first time this has happened. Under President Trump, the Justice Department has repeatedly gone after those he considers his political enemies — from the Attorney General of New York, to the former head of the FBI, to members of the Federal Reserve.

In those cases, the prosecutions either stalled or were dismissed for having no basis in law, and the same is likely to happen in this case. But not before Congresswoman Omar’s life has been turned upside down, her legal bills have piled up, and she’s been forced to spend time fighting unsubstantiated charges instead of serving the people of Minnesota.

The fact that any president, or any administration, is willing to engage in such transparent efforts to intimidate someone should outrage all Americans, regardless of how they feel about Congresswoman Omar’s political views. Because if this becomes the new normal, there’s no reason to believe it will stop with her — or that future presidents, in either party, won’t do the same.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

Obama has run this play for years. Center race, immigrant status, or minority identity. Cast the target as a vulnerable victim. Then treat scrutiny itself as persecution.

He’s doing it with Omar. He demands outrage before the facts are in, dismisses the citizenship questions as “unsubstantiated,” and airbrushes the record. There is a federal investigation into alleged false statements on her immigration paperwork. There was a court-authorized search. Public records contain a documented birth-year discrepancy. None of that proves fraud. It does mean there are legitimate questions to investigate. Obama is telling the country there aren’t.

If Trump is abusing federal power to punish political speech, expose it and stop it. If Omar lied to obtain citizenship, prosecute it. Her race, sex, religion, immigrant story, and party affiliation do not alter the standard. The law either applies or it doesn’t.

Spare the selective outrage. The same political culture that treats pressure on women, Muslims, immigrants, or racial minorities as a five-alarm emergency has spent years treating open contempt for Christians, white men, and native-born Americans as ordinary background noise.

That double standard is the problem.

Equal justice means one rule for everyone. Not one rule for politically favored identities and another for everyone else.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

To the Rulers of Alaska: https://t.co/cahOQkALT6

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

Alaska legalized abortion in 1970, three years before Roe. Its Medicaid pays for it, and no statute sets a limit on when a child may be killed. Before leaving the state, I sent the Governor and all 60 legislators an open letter. The fault began with the men in our churches.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

I leave Alaska tomorrow. Today I set an open letter before the Governor and all 60 legislators: their office belongs to God, the disorder began with the men in our churches, and the state pays to shed innocent blood. Christ offers them mercy. Kiss the Son.

https://t.co/AbTVdZOUxP

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

This is just caricature.

Christian Nationalism does not mean church and state are one institution. Scripture distinguishes their jurisdictions while placing both under Christ. Scripture condemns lying, so if particular men are lying, prove it. And biblical male headship is not “repressing women” any more than Ephesians 5 or Titus 2 is Islam.

If you want to argue against Christian Nationalism, argue against what its serious advocates actually teach. “Islam, liars, oppressed women, beards” is beneath the level of the question.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

That’s better, Peggy. At least now you’re giving specific claims. Some involve real, serious findings against Trump. Others are overstated, especially the Epstein claim. Being named in those files is not proof of wrongdoing.

But I’m not turning this into a Trump defense. None of it changes the issue here: Hasan was lawfully convicted of murdering 13 people. Trump’s sins, whatever they are, do not make Hasan’s execution murder.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

Phil, I’m not trying to defend every man or every claim in these circles. Where there’s sin, error, filthy speech, racial partiality, or foolishness, expose it and correct it. I do the same.

What has bothered me watching this whole fight is seeing serious Christian men start treating broad association, mockery, and the worst screenshots they can find as though that settles substantial arguments. Some of the claims being dismissed here are historically serious, exegetically defensible, and worth actually dealing with. If they’re wrong, refute them from Scripture. If particular men are wrong, name exactly where.

There are also brothers in these circles who aren’t behaving like the people in that collage at all. They’re trying to work through these questions faithfully and publicly. I’m one of them.

That’s why this grieves me more than it angers me. Christ isn’t honored when brothers bite and devour one another, and He isn’t honored when legitimate correction turns into factional contempt. Galatians 5:15 should make all of us careful here.

Judge the doctrine. Judge the fruit. Judge it all by Scripture. Just judge it rightly.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

If Proverbs 26:4 is about the people in those screenshots, fair enough. I wouldn’t waste much time arguing with people throwing around slurs either.

But that wasn’t my criticism. My criticism was using those people as evidence for a sweeping claim about Wolfian/NXR Christian Nationalism. The screenshots establish that those commenters behaved disgracefully. They don’t establish that an entire movement has “self-destructed,” or that their behavior represents its teaching.

That’s the part I was asking you to defend. Proverbs 26:4 doesn’t answer it.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

Calling a lawful execution “murder” just assumes your conclusion. Scripture distinguishes murder from the magistrate bearing the sword against evil (Rom. 13:4).

“Rabid” is mind-reading. You can oppose livestreaming without inventing motives.

And if you’re going to call Trump a thief, racist, and pedophile, prove it. A pile of accusations is not an argument.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

Peter, you’re answering an argument I didn’t make. I never said deceit requires a confession or that patterns don’t matter. I asked you to show a pattern that actually establishes deceit and cowardice, not just repeated error or disagreement.

You posted a stack of threads, but most of what’s visible are arguments that Joel is wrong on theology, history, race, etc. Maybe one of those establishes more. If so, point to the clearest one.

Matthew 7 doesn’t lower the burden of proof, and Galatians 2 is Paul identifying specific conduct. I’m not immunizing Joel from criticism. I’m asking you to prove the charge you chose to make.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

Peter, thanks for actually posting the material. I’ll give you that. But from what you’ve put here, most of this looks like arguments that Joel is wrong on theology, history, race, marriage, etc. That may be worth examining, and I’m willing to do that.

But “wrong” and “deceitful” are not the same charge, and neither one automatically proves “coward.” If one of these threads shows Joel knowingly saying something false, or changing his story to cover himself, point me to the strongest one. That’s the evidence needed for the accusation you made.

I’m not interested in defending Joel from legitimate criticism. I am interested in making sure we don’t turn disagreement or even serious error into a character charge Scripture requires us to prove.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

This kind of post is getting ridiculous.

“Wolfian/NXR Christian Nationalists have self-destructed” is not an argument. It is just a victory speech with no case underneath it. If they have actually collapsed under contradictions, false doctrine, or scandal, then name it and prove it.

Otherwise this is just the same tired routine: announce your opponents are finished, collect agreement from people who already hate them, and pretend something substantive happened.

If the position is false, refute it. If the men sinned, establish it. But repeated declarations of “they’re done” are not evidence.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

Then show it. I’m not saying you’re wrong about Joel. I’m saying “he does this often” is another claim that needs to be demonstrated if you’re using it to justify calling him a liar and a coward.

If the pattern is that clear, post the strongest examples. I’m happy to judge them on the merits. But “search my page” just shifts the burden to everyone else. A serious public charge deserves serious public evidence.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

Peter, that’s a fair correction on the timeline. The original post didn’t mention a trial or conviction. Joel added that afterward, and the first post was loose enough that he created some of this confusion himself.

But “Joel is a liar and a coward” is still a much bigger claim than the evidence proves. Clarifying a badly worded post after people push back doesn’t automatically make someone a liar. And Huckabee still called it an “assassination,” which isn’t what Joel actually said.

So I think both sides need to be accurate here. Joel can be corrected for careless wording without pretending he called for an assassination, and nobody gets a free pass to start throwing around character accusations they can’t prove.

Proverbs 18:17 applies to everybody.

[Ken Duffy @kenduffy]

If we believe male rule is part of God’s order, then we do not get to suspend that conviction when a woman happens to advance our cause.

That is partiality.

I can appreciate a woman speaking truth, opposing abortion, defending the family, or resisting cultural insanity, while still believing she should not hold governing authority over men. A good cause does not sanctify disorder.

Patriarchy is not hostility toward women. It is submission to the order God established. That means applying the same standard when the woman is politically useful to us as when she is fighting against us.

Christians lose credibility when they condemn female rule on one side and quietly celebrate it on the other because they like the policies.

If male headship and male rule are true, then they remain true when obedience costs us something.

“Do not be partial in judgment.”
Leviticus 19:15