The Crusades Were a Good Thing

This link will take you to story where the Muslim population in a section of London is attempting to impose Islamic law on the other 85% of the neighborhood. A lot of people have said that it could never happen here in the United States and yet the Democrats elected a President who, if he isn’t actually a stealth Muslim, has those leanings. No US President before him ever bowed to an Islamic leader, Barrack Hussein Obama did.

This link will take you to a related story regarding a stable, consistent and inexpensive supply of oil right next door in Canada. You are probably not aware of another story where Saudi Arabia warned the current administration about the dangers of attempting to become “energy independent”. It appeared for only one day in the press and was quickly scrubbed from the internet. The fact that the story about the Canadian pipeline appeared in the same article hold significant relevance to back up those who smell an odor of decaying seafood coming from the east.

How many times have we heard or read something about Islam being the religion of peace and that there is little difference between Christianity and Islam except for the terms? If this were even close to being correct? Why is it that every time a Muslim converts they have to be disappeared in order to continue living? Why is it when someone, either inadvertently or deliberately insults Islam’s prophet Mohamed riots erupt across the globe, but when the same happens to Jesus about the worst that happens is a letter to the editor? Could it not be that Christianity and Islam are polar opposites?

Consider the London story. Here is the list of demands from the Islamic group, MAC; reject democracy- not have non-Muslim friends- not celebrate non-Muslim festivals including Christmas and Easter- not join the police or armed forces- not vote for lawmakers, or stand for election- demand the release of “all Muslim prisoners in the hands of the disbelievers”- reject integration with non-Islamic society- abide by shari’a and not any “man-made law”. Sounds delightful, doesn’t it? And yet, according to the liberals, this way of life and this type of leadership is preferable to the horrors that would be perpetrated upon this nation if we elected a Republican.

You know what is particularly funny about all this? It would never happen in France.

Loons

There is a website with the title Loonwatch. Ostensibly it purposes to exist to reveal and warn the world of the dangers posed by those distrustful of Muslims. Check it out for yourself via this link. The title says it all, those people who broadcast any of the dangers posed by militant Islam are in themselves a danger. Really? Let’s explore that.

A couple of years ago I proposed a very dangerous idea. That idea got this blog in its earlier incarnation a top listing as a dangerous loon, a mantle I wore proudly by the way. The idea was this, in order to put a halt to the danger of another 911, the US would put out a warning to every Islamic government in the world that another attack of that type would be immediately answered by turning the city of Mecca into a nuclear wasteland. Nowhere in the article did I indicate that such an attack should be carried out, and in fact I was very careful to say that the threat alone would most likely be sufficient, due to the incredible importance that city has to the Muslim religion, but that wasn’t enough for the Islamic apologists at Loonwatch. Who cares about the historical record? The strategy did work however for Reagan during the cold war, or should we start rebuilding that Berlin wall?

It seems any criticism of the religion must be hate-based at worst and ill-informed at best. Really? I’m sure that is a great comfort to all those families who had relatives working in the World Trade Center towers, not to mention all those enjoying a pleasant day out until the suicide bomber showed up. I have yet to hear of an evangelical Christian, a Taoist, a Buddhist or even a Jew committing such an act. Of course, these could be incredibly rare acts of violence by what some have called the Religion of Peace, couldn’t they? This site link, contains a vast amount of damning evidence, far too much to be brushed aside except by those who agree with the militant agenda. However, just as there are villains and heroes in Judaism and Christianity and all of the other world faiths, so also are there in Islam. It is just that Islam contains such a large number of villains willing to murder innocents in the name of their prophet. The last estimate on that number is roughly 1.8 million. The size of American’s combined military active personnel is about 1,477,896 troops, or about half a million less than the jihadists.

Now Loonwatch would like to point out that the number of Islamic terrorists is only 6% of the Muslim population, but when that percentage is on the high side of two million, I doubt any reasonable person would consider that a good thing.

Today, when a member of an organization commits a crime, even if that person is holding a position of power in the Democrat Party, indictments are handed down and sentences given. We have all read the recent news stories to that effect. But is the killing of innocents a crime by Islamic standards? Well, that depends on how the term innocent is applied. There are quite a few condemnations issued against the killing of even unbelievers, if they qualify as innocent. The problem is the qualification, especially when fatwas are issued by assorted religious leaders who have their own agendas. Remember that 1.8 million number. Check out this link, it details the reasons why noncombatant women and children are considered valid targets in a holy war, and this is important, the jihadists consider themselves in a holy war against the non-Muslim world.

So, we have nearly 2 million religious fanatics willing to slaughter innocents in the name of their prophet and we have the remaining 94% perfectly happy to let them do it. Was that a misinterpretation of the deafening silence each time a terrorist attack is carried out? The innocents and their families are still waiting for an answer.

Blatant Uneducated Bigotry

Usually my columns generate zero comments, but the one on Christianity being illegal in America brought two, both from the same individual and both ranting, yes, ranting against the children of Abraham, ie: the Jews.

Because this is such a divisive subject that is rarely, if ever, discussed in an adult fashion, I am going to go through the first comment, clause by clause and see if this can be done.

(1)”What you need to understand, and understand quickly is that all attacks on Christianity is from Jewish funded and run organizations”

All attacks? Jewish funded and run? Not hardly. It is true that many people with a Jewish heritage not just have distaste for what they view as their persecutors, after all Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Some have even gone far enough to embrace atheism, but to assign every attack against the worship of Jesus is narrow minded at best. Throughout history Christians have been persecuted by people and governments consisting of nearly every race imaginable. I highly doubt those African tribesmen were Jewish and not even the most virulent, undereducated skinhead would call what is going on in Libya against that country’s Christian minority Jewish funded and run.

(2) “.......ADL,SPLC, and in particular ACLU....these are always labeled "left wing", or "liberal"..............this is a ploy by the Jew run media....Your enemy mocks how dumb Americans are, they have manipulated the bible and ancient Christian beliefs through the Scofield scam,

Wrong again. Firstly, a search through FTC public records will show that a great number of the names associated with the boards of so-called Jewish organizations are not what would be considered typically Jewish, Smith, McDonald, Muhammad, and so on. As for the main stream media’s use of the words, left wing and liberal, the terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General; those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization. History will show you that the revolutionary government in France was as antagonistic against Jewry as it was against the royals.

As for Cyrus Scofield, I think that’s who is referenced here; he was in no way of Jewish descent, and wound up as a Southern Presbyterian minister, quite the opposite of a liberal. The assumed scam is this, from the Wikipedia page:

“Scofield's correspondence Bible study course was the basis for his Reference Bible, an annotated, and widely circulated, study Bible first published in 1909 by Oxford University Press. Scofield's notes teach dispensationalism, a theology that was in part conceived in the early nineteenth century by the Anglo-Irish clergyman John Nelson Darby, who like Scofield had also been trained as a lawyer. Dispensationalism emphasizes the distinctions between the New Testament Church and ancient Israel of the Old Testament. Scofield believed that between creation and the final judgment there were seven distinct eras of God's dealing with man and that these eras were a framework around which the message of the Bible could be explained. It was largely through the influence of Scofield's notes that dispensationalism and premillennialism became influential among fundamentalist Christians in the United States.”

Not really the stuff of midnight mass conspiracies.

 (3) “they push for massive influx of third world immigrants through the ADL,

Umm, no. The beginning of our immigration problems actually has its genesis through the Democrat led administration of Woodrow Wilson who began the class warfare against profitable business. Wilson was in no way a fan of the Jew, but even he could not ignore the Henry Ford diatribe, “The International Jew, the World’s Foremost Problem”, a pamphlet proven to be completely and utterly erroneous from cover to cover.

(4) “they are ATTACKING the MORAL STANDARDS of our society through Hollywood which is run and dominated by Jews!!!

Wrong again, the list of the top ten Hollywood producers is a mixed bag if ever there was. Steven Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, Jeffrey Lurie, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jerry Bruckheimer, Robert (Bob) Johnson, James L. Brooks, Peter Guber, Lorne Michaels, and Quincy Jones. Now is anyone going to claim that Oprah Winfrey, Bob Johnson and Quincy Jones are Jewish? As for moral standards, that is an individual affair. Morality is as personal as worship and no organization, group or government can have any control over someone’s morality if it is not given. No one says you have to watch a single movie or read a single paper, or even turn on the TV if you don’t like what is there. It is all an individual choice. So climb off that horse, it won’t run.

(5) “They control our media news papers,magazines,tv, music industry....wake the hell up and see that you have been duped. Not only that they have been doing this through out history, this is nothing new.......They have infiltrated our educational system, taught you false history, they are attacking free speech rights under the guise of "hate crime"....”

Oh, where to even begin. A very brief search can turn up any number of publications, shows and especially songs masquerading as music with just about as vile an anti-Semitic message as was ever uttered during the Nazi reign of Hitler. If Jewry had such absolute control over those industries, would such be allowed to be published? Highly doubtful. As for the educational system, I spent a couple of years on the Nevada State Assembly Committee on Education. I taught as a substitute teacher during the legislative recess. The problems facing the American educational system are not Jew-instigated, they are bureaucratic and union instigated. Many of the ills of the education system can be laid at the feet of GW Bush and his no child left behind scam. The rest can be attributed to the socialistic unions and the same crowd that claims Israel has no right to exist. Check my other columns regarding that issue.

As for false history, no, in spite of everything the anti-Jew set claims, the Holocaust did happen. There is an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence proving this. It is not false history and even today there are still living eye-witnesses to what went on the in Nazi camps. What most people do not add to this is that it was not just Jews in those camps; many Christians were driven out and killed by the Nazi’s as well, as well as anyone else who did not fit Hitler’s ideal. The Story of Civilization, by husband and wife Will and Ariel Durant, for example is a good read. It’s only about 3000 pages long.

      The hate crime issue would cover far too much ink here. Suffice it to say that the left, which hates the existence of Israel every bit as much as the skinheads, is the one driving that. Check out my column on the first Amendment, it covers all the bases.

Is Christianity illegal in America?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This first part of our Bill Of Rights is also the most controversial and has been used by the left to actually curtail several civil rights of those citizens the left considers dangerous to the “cause”. An example is below:

In Florida, Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and school athletic director Robert Freeman, have been declared enemies of the state by the ACLU because they (gasp) offered a mealtime prayer. Call the authorities. Heaven knows what sort of dangerous activities these two reprobates may cook up next. Better check ‘em for contraband such as pocket new testaments. As any true believer in Chairman Mao can see, the First Amendment clearly states that practicing Christianity in the open is illegal. Or does it?

Let’s examine that pesky amendment, shall we? Line number 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Hmm, seems that all this says is that Congress cannot establish a state religion such as King Henry’s Church of England. I see nothing in this language that can be stretched to intimate that exercising one’s belief in government buildings is prohibited. It says “Congress shall make no law”. Allowing an outstanding graduating senior to talk about how her beliefs affected her educational experience isn’t even in the same universe as “making a law”. Concerning the ACLU on this line, to paraphrase a famous playwright, “Methinks they doth protest waaay too much.”

Line number 2: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Even the Supreme Court skates around this one. That is one of the favorite tactics of the left. They really like to pull out portions of a complete thought and twist the meaning of the original until “stop” means “go” and visa versa. If we drop back into the hated practice of fundamentalism for just a moment, it is easy to see that Ben Franklin, James Madison and the rest of that gang of revolutionaries intended on allowing Frank and Robert to do exactly what they may be jailed for doing. It wasn’t they who offended the constitution, but the ACLU. Of course, trying to get Washington to admit this will be harder than getting back onto the gold standard.

Line number 3: or abridging the freedom of speech,

Lately this line is misread to include the word “liberal”, as in “abridging the freedom of liberal speech. Anything the left considers offensive, such as pointing out the dangers in any of Barrack Hussein Obama’s policies, is somehow removed from that protection. Seems to me that if the ACLU wasn’t completely committed to destroying the American culture, they would protect all speech, not just the portion they agree with. Again, wouldn’t a prayer, regardless of where it is voiced be considered speech?

Line number 4: or of the press;

This used to be the favorite line of the ACLU and the rest of the lefties...until Fox News came onto the scene. Now there is a full court press to eliminate that voice. In reading that line, I see no differentiation in those four words. If any of the ACLU geniuses bothered to read history they would see that the press of John Adam’s time was far more virulent in their prose than even the tabloid rags we see today.

Line number 5: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Notice that this line says nothing about the exclusion of certain areas of assembly. As long as it’s peaceable, the people have a right to assemble. Unfortunately, where the left is concerned, this assembly might lead to uncontrolled religious speech.

Line number 6: and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This line has been thrown out completely. Witness the refusal of the Democrat legislators to host fully open town halls. How often have constituents been told that their representative is not available? According to this line, every time Congress has held a closed door meeting, they have violated the Constitution.

I have had some experience with the ACLU in my state of Nevada. About a year ago Clark County’s commissioners were considering action that would have made it more difficult for massage parlors to operate as unlicensed brothels. This was partly due to research I had done on the subject as a State Assemblyman. That research had turned up damning evidence that the massage parlors, especially those advertised as “oriental” were linked to a world wide network involved in the trafficking of underage girls as sexual slaves. Alan Lichtenstein, an officer in the local ACLU had no problem looking into talking with some of the victims of this network...as long as they could pony up $600 an hour. So much for constitutional altruism.

The left loves to disguise their attacks against classic American culture by giving themselves patriotic sounding labels. American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are two examples. This link contains a list of examples illustrating the growing prejudice within our government against all things Christian. link . Simply because the constitution is crystal clear in its protections of expressed faith is no reason to become fanatical, is it?

As a member of the Christian faith, I have to admit to violations of the ACLU’s interpretation of the First Amendment. I attended a bible study in the Nevada State Legislature, a clear example of joining church and state. Many times during meeting of the full Assembly I would say a quick prayer for guidance, and, worst of all, I would sometimes proselytize in my office in answer to a faith-based question from a constituent. According to the Florida Attorney General I should serve jail time for that one.

What I find most interesting is that the anti-Christian groups in America use the First Amendment as a weapon against Christianity when there is no single religion mentioned in the entire constitution, including the appendices. On Wednesday July 6, 2011, Huffington Post blogger and book author Frank Schaeffer was on MSNBC discussing his take on Christianity in America. He started right off criticizing Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry’s personal beliefs, essentially branding them as dangerous and not in tune with the “real America.” According to liberals like Schaeffer, you cannot be a Christian and also be an American. Somehow the idea of belonging to the religion that espouses a belief in a living Jesus somehow invalidates citizenship. Schaeffer went on to claim that people like Bachmann and Perry would create a theocracy and eliminate the constitution as the law of the land. I find that statement particularly interesting in the light of the recent Time editorial proclaiming the Constitution essentially useless and out of date, written by the way, by a colleague of Schaeffer. The Huffington Post continues to try to have it both ways, claiming to believe in the constitution while at the same time attempting to disenfranchise an entire law-abiding segment of the country.

Consistent historical data will show that there is no more constitutionally adherent group than the evangelical Christian, and I think this is one of the things that enflames the hatred of people like Huffington and Schaeffer. The worst enemy a hypocrite can have is an example to the contrary. Why do you think they are so quick to jump to the defense of those accused of the most heinous crimes against innocents? In their mind, the destruction of a stable society in this country is paramount. Also, other religions, especially those that have declared war against America and its people are defended with full fervor, especially if those believers have been convicted of terrorism. What would happen to groups such as the ACLU if hypocrisy became a crime?

Here is a hint, I have read the constitution several times. There is no right to lie.

Homosexual Marriage

Many consider the English language to be a laboratory where experimental terms may be tried out for public use. The word ‘gay’, for example has been removed from its classic meaning of “Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room. Given to social pleasures.”

Now the word only refers to a man who can only be emotionally attracted or sexually attracted to other men. The classic term used to be sodomite. For women who suffer under their own version of that syndrome, the term is far older, lesbian.

There are many who believe that being attracted to members of one’s own sex can be traced back as far as the dawn of time. The debate over whether or not this is a good this has been going on for just about as long. This article, however, is not about the morality of that issue. It is about what is legal, and it is about what the constitution says about homosexual marriage where the law is concerned.

To begin with, let’s look at the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America,

 ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, has an incredible amount to say about what the homosexual community wants to be made law in this country, to be given the same legal status as a church-married man and woman.

Based on the text and the context of the clause, the federal government is prohibited from making a law that forces any church to violate their practices, as long as those practices cause no harm to anyone. Obviously a church that insists on human sacrifice as a sacrament would be outside of those protections. States, because of this amendment’s relation to the 10^th, are also prohibited from making such a law. To put it simply, any church is completely has the constitutional right to refuse to marry a homosexual couple. However, they also have the right to perform said ceremony if they choose to do so. As stated above, Congress does not have the constitutional power to make a law telling churches what they can and cannot do.

States, on the other hand, where civil ceremony is concerned, because of the 10^th Amendment have the right to codify homosexual marriage or not. That amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” For a list of the powers delegated to Congress, check out this link. A careful read will indicate that marriage ceremonies of any type are not something the framers of the Constitution considered of paramount importance.

The issue is polarizing, at best. On one hand some consider even the thought of two people of the same sex being given a marriage license the paramount evil, while others believe it to be a life and death issue. Frankly, as far as our Constitution is concerned, it isn’t worth the time of day.

For those of you on either side of this issue currently grinding your teeth in outrage, get over it and think critically for a second. Remember, this discussion is dealing with the legality of the issue, not the morality. What does it matter if one state choses to recognize the legal union of two men or two women? Does that recognition cheapen a marriage performed in any number of churches, Christian or non-Christian, and if so, how? To move outside of topic for a moment, if my neighbors consist of a homosexual couple and the state I live in happens to legalize homosexual marriage, is my heterosexual marriage of close to 40 years suddenly no longer valid in God’s eyes? I cannot see how. There is a difference between what is personal and what is public.

What it comes down to is this; there is a clear separation of powers in our Constitution. There are things the Congress can do and there are things the States can do. Even more importantly there are things the people can do, and the way our founding documents read, the last has more power than the first two. Where homosexual marriage is concerned, it is up to the people, and if you happen to believe that such a marriage is against your spiritual code and your church decides to recognize homosexual unions, you have a right to leave. This also goes for states. On the other hand, if a state or church choses to not recognize said unions, they have that right and all the rainbow marches and name-calling in the world cannot force them to do so. There is a way to do things and that way is laid out in our law.

Those church groups who are attempting to force Congress to outlaw homosexual marriage are just as wrong as those who are attempting the reverse. Our constitution, as has been shown, has wisely left such decisions to the people and to individual states. It would be good to see the same wisdom and maturity shown in the current debate.

Being Religious does not Remove Free Speech Rights

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Back when the newly freed states were attempting to ratify the constitution, the delegates ran into a wall of opposition due to a lack of adequate guarantees for what are now known as civil liberties. What the Bill of Rights did was add those protections. On September 25, 1789 it was submitted to the states for ratification and adopted, after long and lively debate (including a few fistfights) adopted on December 15, 1791.

If you check out the Wikipedia article on the First Amendment, link, you will find several citations as to how debate, including lawsuits has shaped how the amendment is defined today. Does that mean the definition is correct? Not necessarily. Since the late 18^th century the English language has not just evolved, it has mutated to the point where sentence structure, grammar and even the meaning of words needs to be understood in that era’s vernacular in order to know the real intent of the men who ratified and adopted our constitution. So let’s look at amendment number one, clause number one:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

This is the first part of the sentence. That’s right; the first amendment to the US Constitution is a single sentence, written in proper English grammar of the time. Many call it the “establishment clause” because of that word as regarding religion. Nowhere is any specific religion called out and nowhere does it specify where “the free exercise of” may or may not be carried out, yet today it not just considered improper, many consider given any type of religious speech in a government facility, whether it be indoors or out, criminal. I would like to see where in this clause exists any reason for such an interpretation.

Rather than a Bill of Rights, the series of amendments really should be called the List of Restrictions on Government Power. You have to remember, the framers of the constitution were the same men involved in agreeing to and signing the Declaration of Independence. They remembered vividly living under a very oppressive regime with its own state religion, the Church of England. The last thing desired was to have the state dictating what a worshiper did with regard to their religious practice, and yet that is where we are today. In essence, those who use the first amendment to tell someone, “You can’t do that, this is government property,” are saying they approved of what King George did back in the 1700’s.

It is very easy to poke fun at people who freely express their devotion, but it is also very wrong. Those who wish for a law to curtail peaceful religious express are also wishing for the constitution to be violated. Every school or university that has prohibited religious expression has violated this amendment, in spite of what some Supreme Court justices have written. Simply being a life time appointment to wear a black robe does not automatically make one infallible. Read the words. Where does it say that the government can restrict that form of expression in this clause? It does not. Rather, this clause restricts what Congress, the lawmaking body, can do. Also the government cannot prohibit someone, or any number of ones to freely express their religion, whatever it is, wherever they desire to do so, regardless of who is offended. Again, does this clause say anything else? No, it does not.

Now, further on within the body of the constitution, some limits were applied. They had to be to allow for a burgeoning growth in this country. These limits fall within the prevue of state law such as permits for building rental and so on. Those limits, as long as they did not tread on the First Amendment, were lawful and in many ways proper. Our problems as a nation began when political agendas became more important than the documents underlying our nation’s foundation.

Currently there is a debate over whether or not corporations should enjoy the same free speech rights as individuals. The only reason that debate has risen is because corporations tend to favor a pro-business form of government, which the Democrat Party is not. Surprisingly enough, most of the media outlets in favor of denying corporations free speech rights are in and of themselves corporations made up of individuals who shelter behind the free speech clause of the amendment. Not surprising is the fact that they cannot see the glaring hypocrisy in their stance.

What makes that debate germane to this column is that it also includes incorporated churches. Again, we have to go back to the words. Contrary to what some have said, corporate law did exist back in the 18^th century. Our second President, John Adams practiced law and wrote extensively on it. He was also involved in the framing of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If the men involved in the ratification of the Constitution had been concerned about the evils of granting corporations or churches free speech rights there would be mention of it.

By the way, it is the height of arrogance to assume that they had no idea how this country would evolve, or that they were less intelligent than we are today. If you are one who feels that way, attempt to pass the 8^th grade achievement test for the 1800’s, link.

Many say that the United States of America is a Christian country. Sorry, even from the days of the pilgrims that was not exactly accurate. People forget the Indians. When the constitution was ratified, the wording of the establishment clause prohibited this country from having any state religion, regardless of deity even though many of the principles of Christianity are embedded within our law. It is as improper to declare this country Christian as it is to prohibit group prayer in the quad of the local high school. Simply because an individual, or group of individuals, or a corporation of individuals identifies with a religion they still retain the same free speech rights the nonreligious do. It’s in the Constitution.