No More Apologies for Islam

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Time for a get real moment about radical Islam, and why anyone would support them.

Everywhere they go, they leave nothing but destruction and death behind.

They persecute and murder Christians just because there Christian – just because they’re different, but they whine at anyone who speaks out about their “sacred” practices. As if we have no right or standing to do so.

Oh, and they want exterminate all Jews.

They have this dumb-ass rule about women having to remain completely covered.

You can see it practically everywhere you go – even here in New England. I was witness to the practice just recently. It’s summer – it’s hot – 90 degrees plus with 80% humidity. A Muslim man is taking a walk with his son. They are dressed in shorts, tank tops and flip-flops. Beside them is who I assume to be the man’s wife, covered from head to tow in black. Her headscarf was a Niqab. The only things visible were her eyes.

How completely absurd! The practice of women covering up is supposed to be rooted in some sort of religious “modesty” code or something – that women should only be seen by their husbands. Bullcrap, I say. It’s just another way for Muslim men to manifest power over women, who have virtually no rights.

And don’t tell me the women don’t mind dressing that way, as the males dress down to practically nothing in the hot summer sun. read more

Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Council

Saudi Arabia is a notorious abuser of human rights. Yet its record of religious, racial and anti-women bigotry doesn’t faze the U.N., which just elected it a human-rights watchdog on the world.

Starting Jan. 1, Saudi will serve on the U.N. Human Rights Council with newly elected members Britain and France. Astoundingly, it received 140 thumbs-up from members of the General Assembly, just about 30 votes shy of its Western counterparts.

No one opposed giving Riyadh authority to pass judgment on the West’s record of human rights. Yet as the U.N. was voting, Saudi religious police were killing and raping Christian migrant workers from Africa and Asia as part of a countrywide crackdown on foreigners. read more

Chick-fil-A Hater

The following is a perfect example of the so-called tolerant left that are actually the most intolerant hatemongers. There can be no other viewpoint or diversity of thought. This is not a homosexual vs hetrosexual issue. It is a free speech issue. Does a citizen have the right to speak out or not? To some, evidently not.

Social Justice = Iran

If one were to start a national movement to effect change in America, where might one schedule a conference to discuss the movement’s forward thinking strategy? Obviously, the group supposedly set up to change the United States for the better, would hold a gathering in Tehran, the capital of Iran.

It is a natural fit for those interested in the betterment of the little people, women’s rights and the otherwise disenfranchised. Because, as we all know, Iran is the Mecca of human rights.

Why else would those who educate our children, University professors, travel so far?

Listen closely for the “Money” quote at the very end. “And in the long run, it can lead to the collapse of the government.”

Well, that would be change.

Constitution 101 (8)

Lesson 8: “Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution”

Study Guide

Overview:

Abraham Lincoln’s fidelity to the Declaration of Independence is equally a fidelity to the Constitution. The Constitution takes its moral life from the principles of liberty and equality, and was created to serve those principles. We are divided as a nation today, as in Lincoln’s time, because we have severed the connection between these two documents.

Lincoln’s “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union” contains the central theme of Lincoln’s life and work. Drawing upon biblical language, Lincoln describes the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it. We cannot consider the Constitution independently of the purpose which it was designed to serve.

The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. As the embodiment of the Declaration’s principles, the Constitution created a frame of government with a clear objective. The Constitution is not a collection of compromises, or an empty vessel whose meaning can be redefined to meet the needs of the time; it is the embodiment of an eternal, immutable truth.

Abraham Lincoln defended the Union and sought to defeat the Confederate insurrection because he held that the principles of the Declaration and Constitution were inviolable. In his speeches and in his statecraft, Lincoln wished to demonstrate that self-government is not doomed to either be so strong that it overwhelms the rights of the people or so weak that it is incapable of surviving.

By the Way…The Civil War Started Today

A few moments in history from American Minute:

Less than two months after Lincoln was inaugurated President, the Civil War began APRIL 12, 1861, with Confederate troops in Charleston, South Carolina, firing upon Fort Sumter.

The Confederate Army was unstoppable, twice winning battles at Bull Run, Virginia, just twenty miles from Washington, D.C., forcing the Union troops to retreat to the fortifications of the Capitol.

It was not until the Battle of Gettysburg, over two years into the war, that the tide began to turn. President Lincoln confided to Noah Brooks:

“I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.”

In his General Order, November 15, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln wrote:

“The President, Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military and naval service.

The importance for man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the Divine Will demand that Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity.”

I guess Abe wasn’t aware of the ‘Separation of Church & State”.

Could They really Do It?

By David G. Savage

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said last Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be “extraordinary” for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents’ insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, “2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls,” said Edwin Kneedler.

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

But the court’s conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.

End Article

Editor’s comments:

So the Supreme Court seems poised to do the right and constitutional thing. It’s funny how all the Internet outlets, newspapers, TV, et al, classifiy the justices as Conservative or liberal.

The Supreme Court has one job. It’s only job is to determine the constitutionality of the case before it. It is not supposed to write law or somehow fiddle around with the laws that are being decided by the court. Yet Justice Ruth (buzzi) Bader Ginsburg suggests that the court should perform a “salvage job” on the law. The only way that one could perform a “salvage job” on the law would be to rewrite it at the bench.

Somehow this minor inconvenience escapes justice Ginsburg. She must’ve forgotten that the justices are forbidden from writing or creating law from the bench. Either that, or she just doesn’t care. I vote for the latter. But Ginsburg is of course a liberal justice.

As I’ve stated many times in the past, liberals are liberals, first and foremost. What ever their vocation may be, a liberal will always think and act as one without regard to said vocation.

As for Mr. Kneedler’s plea regarding the 2.5 million young people that will may be kicked off their parents insurance if the court strikes down Obamacare, may I remind him, or maybe he doesn’t know, that the Constitution is not a conditional document.

Let’s hope that at least five of the justices will make the right constitutional decision and strike this travesty down in toto.

Look Mama, It’s the Devil!

And Now for the Rest… Of the Story:

Did Paul Harvey’s 1965 Broadcast “If I Were the Devil” Predict America’s Downfall?

by:

Paul Harvey Aurandt (1918–2009), better known as Paul Harvey, was America’s National Commentator. His listening audience was estimated, at its highest, to be around 24 million people a week. “Paul Harvey News was carried on 1,200 radio stations, 400 Armed Forces Network stations and 300 newspapers. His broadcasts and newspaper columns have been reprinted in the Congressional Record more than those of any other commentator.”

One of Paul Harvey’s most popular messages was the Christian classic “The Man and the Birds” based on a verse from the book of Job: “Ask the birds of the sky, and they will tell you” (12:7b).
Paul Harvey didn’t just report the news with his distinctive voice; he would always make the point that the news was reflective of society. You could take the pulse of America’s moral health by reading the daily newspaper.

In 1964, Paul Harvey wrote “If I Were the Devil.” Various versions of the article have appeared over time. I first heard about it from Glenn Beck’s show, but it’s been floating around the internet for some time.[1]
Before Paul Harvey wrote “If I Were the Devil,” the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) explained the steps necessary for radicals to transform a nation without firing a shot:
[T]hey must enter into every civil, cultural and political activity in every nation, patiently leavening them all as thoroughly as yeast leavens bread. . . .[2] [This] would require a ‘long march through the institutions’ — the arts, cinema, theater, schools, colleges, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, and the new electronic medium [of the time], radio.”[3]

The following is the text from an audio version of Paul Harvey’s “If I were the Devil.” you can see that Gramsci was on target and his radical heirs were successful:
“If I were the devil, I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please. Do as you please.’

“To the young, I would whisper, ‘The Bible is a myth.’ I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is ‘square.’ And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to pray after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’

“And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors on how to lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.”

“If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches that war with themselves, and nations that war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.”

“If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, and neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.”

“Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography — soon I could evict God from the courthouse, and then the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.”

“If I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. What do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would question against extremes and hard work, and Patriotism, and moral conduct.”

 “I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were to devil I’d keep on doing on what he’s doing. Paul Harvey, good day.”

Notes:
1. I’m a little suspicious that the poor quality audio version might be a revised version done by someone else to make it sound like Paul Harvey. [↩]
2. Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion Between Pope John II, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Capitalist West (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 245. [↩]
3. Patrick J. Buchanan, Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s Press/Thomas Dunne Books, 2001), 77. [↩]

Constitution 101 (6)

Lesson 6: “Religion, Morality, and Property”

Study Guide

Overview:

The institutional separation of church and state—a revolutionary accomplishment of the American Founders—does not entail the separation of religion and politics. On the contrary, as the Northwest Ordinance states, “religion, morality and knowledge” are “necessary to good government.”

For America’s Founders, reason and revelation properly understood are complementary. “Almighty God hath created the mind free,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Human beings are fallible, yet despite this fact, they are capable of self-government.

With careful cultivation of one’s soul, attention to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and the uplifting assistance of family, church, and the local community, an individual is able to tame base passions and live worthy of the blessings of liberty. Virtue is vital to good government.

Among the greatest of blessings—and the most important of rights—is religious liberty. Rejecting the low standard of mere “toleration” that existed elsewhere, the Founders enshrined liberty of conscience as a matter of right. It is immoral, they held, for any government to coerce religious belief. Yet they also argued that it is advisable for governments to recognize their reliance upon “Divine Providence,” and to provide for the support and encouragement of religion.

The government of the United States (or any of the fifty states) is not a church, and the church is not a governmental entity. This institutional separation, a clear statement of which is in the First Amendment, is a boon to both religion and politics, for instead of tying man’s religious fate to the future of the state, the establishment of religious liberty frees up religion so that it might flourish. This important point is missed by the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation, repeated numerous times since 1947, of Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.

Constitution 101 (5)

http://www.hillsdale.edu/constitution/week_05_overview.aspx

Lesson 5:“The Separation of Powers: Ensuring Good Government”

Study Guide

Overview
The separation of powers helps to ensure good government at the same time it guards against tyranny. Independent in function but coordinated in the pursuit of justice, the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—must each have enough power to resist the encroachment of the others, and yet not so much that the liberty of the people is lost.

A political regime has three dimensions: the ruling institutions, the rulers, and the way of life of the people. In America, the rulers—the people themselves—and their ruling institutions—staffed by the people’s representatives—aim at securing the Creator-endowed natural rights of all citizens. The Framers did this in two ways. “Vertically” considered, our ruling institutions are defined by federalism, or the division of power between the national, state, and local governments. “Horizontally” considered, the ruling institutions of the federal government itself are separated and co-equal.

In the American regime, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” No one branch is superior to it; all three branches have a duty to abide by it. While each of the three branches plays a unique role in the passage, execution, and interpretation of laws, all of the branches must work together in the governing process.

The legislative branch is closest to the people. It is also the branch in which the danger of majority tyranny lurks. The passions of the people are reflected most in the House of Representatives, where the members are elected for terms of two years. The Senate, with its six year terms, was designed to be a more stable legislative presence than the House.

The defining characteristic of the executive is “energy.” The president can act swiftly and decisively to deal with foreign threats and to enforce the law, and can also provide a check on legislative tyranny through the veto.

Members of the judiciary, the third branch of government, must exercise judgment in particular cases to secure individual rights. Through “judicial review,” the judiciary is given the authority to strike down laws that are contrary to the Constitution. But judicial review is not judicial supremacy; even the Supreme Court must rely upon the other branches once it has rendered judgment.

The checks that each branch can exercise against the encroachment of the others ultimately protect the liberties of the people. The separation of powers promotes justice and good government by having each branch perform its proper function. This institutional design allows the sovereign people to observe and to know which branch is responsible for which actions in order to hold each to account. The sense of mutual responsibility built into the separation of powers is a reflection of the moral and civic responsibility all Americans share.