Voter fraud, shady deals and all kinds of other chicanery are probably as old as politics itself, and probably no party in America has a monopoly on the practice, but when you consider recent history it's hard not to point a finger. The Democrats are still crying that George Bush stole the election in 2000, but what happened there was so obvious that anyone except a mindless liberal knows who really was trying to steal it.
In 1948 Lyndon Johnson was in a very tight race for a Senate seat from Texas. Both sides were accused of stuffing ballot boxes and the race ended in a dead heat. Then late returns from the little town of Alice in south central Texas miraculously showed up (just like some other ballots in Wisconsin a couple years ago). Two hundred three votes appeared, 202 of them votes for Johnson. What made the ballots even more interesting was that the voters had somehow miraculously lined up in alphabetical order to cast their votes. Sheriff deputies were sent to investigate and found that nearly all of the 202 votes were cast by either dead people, or people who were out of town and hadn't actually voted. A subpoena was issued to confiscate the records, but the night before the deputies returned, the courthouse mysteriously burned down and all the records with it. Johnson won the election by 87 votes.
Fast forward to Florida's Dade County in 2000. Florida had gone for Bush by a little over 2,000 votes, low enough that an automatic recount was initiated. The recount finally centered around three south Florida counties, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach. The controversy developed around "hanging chads" in Miami-Dade where panels inspecting the ballots tried to decide if a ballot with no vote for president was actually intended to be cast for Gore. The ballots were recounted three times, each time coming up with more Gore votes than before. The Democrats then also tried to get all overseas ballots disqualified which would have disallowed military votes which went overwhelmingly for Bush. After the third recount failed to overturn the election, the Supreme Court of the United States finally ruled the election over and Bush won by 574 votes.
Then there was the famous 2008 comedy election in Wisconsin in which Al Franken, a washed up Saturday Night Live comedian, really did steal an election. Having lost by over 700 votes, uncounted ballots began mysteriously appearing in the trunks of Democrat polling officers' cars all over the state. Funny again that none of these late forgotten ballots went for the Republican candidate. Franken finally had a 200 vote lead and the Wisconsin judge, a liberal Democrat appointee, certified Franken the winner. That truly was a stolen election.
But voter fraud in 2008 didn't stop with Franken. Obama's community organizing group, ACORN, drove unregistered, homeless people to polling stations in several counties in several states to cast their votes multiple times. This was the organization from which the man who promised to be the most transparent president in history gained all of the experience that "qualified" him to be president.
And now they're at it again. This last weekend in Yuma, Arizona, the Yuma Recorder's office was checking 3,000 last minute voter registrations turned in by Mi Familia Vota, a SEIU partner organization, and found 65% of them to be fraudulent due to the registrants not being citizens, or having false addresses or signatures. At the same time a judge threw out 6,000 registrations turned in by the same organization in Colorado.
This illustrates precisely why John Adams said, "We have created a government for a religious and moral people. It will work for none else." A religious and moral people will have the self-discipline to be honest and not cheat in an election. This is what the Tea Party activists and other conservatives are wanting the country to get back to; the Godly values and honest living of our Founders. For that liberals call us extremists and every other low-down name in the book.
What a sad commentary on the Democrat way of life, a life characterized by lying, scheming, stealing and voter fraud. What a legacy to leave their children. And what a challenge for us to remain forever vigilant so that we will remain forever free.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Counting Your Chickens
It's a little hard for me to really get a feel for the political atmosphere in the States right now from over here in Kenya. I get a lot of political e-mails and I'm seeing a lot of predictions of a Democrat disaster and Republican takeover of Congress in this coming election. Obama's popularity is tanking as people are fed up with his socialist agenda and the continuing recession and high unemployment. A solid majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed, and an even greater number want the Arizona border closed. Democrats are running scared and trying to distance themselves from Obama. It all sounds great and I hope all this is reflected in the election, but I also hope conservatives aren't counting their chickens too soon.
The Republicans need 39 seats to take over the House and ten to take over the Senate. It seems all but certain that they will get the 39 House seats, and some polls are suggesting possible gains of 54 seats or maybe as many as 63, but the best numbers for the Senate right now can only assure a gain of six seats for the Republicans. There are five Senate seats still too close to predict, and if the Republicans could take those, there is a possibility of as many as 52 seats. To tell you the truth, none of these numbers give me great comfort.
Getting control of the House and replacing Pelosi as Speaker will be in itself a great victory, but if Republicans only gain 39 seats, they will only be able to throw a wrench into Obama's agenda, and without control of the Senate they won't be able to put a stop to anything. If they don't take at the very least all of those 54 or 63 potential gains in the House, it won't be indicative of a great conservative resurgence in the country as much as it will mean the independent middle-of-the-roaders are tired of Obama's view of change and have turned against him. It will mean that liberalism is still strong and it's not going to be easy to bring America back from the brink of destruction. The independents are often easily swayed back and forth.
Polls show Obama's popularity down around 41 to 45%, but his polls have been at that level since last March and they aren't dropping any lower. There are a lot of mindless socialists out there who still support big government and the welfare state. Polls also show so much dissatisfaction with the current leadership in Congress that you would think Harry Reid would already have been blown out of the water in the Nevada Senate race, yet numbers show him in a statistical dead heat with his opponent, Sharron Angle. Other races are similarly tight, all of which suggests to me this election isn't a done deal.
I hope I'm wrong and I'm praying it turns into a Republican landslide, but my feeling is that in order for a Republican victory to have a real impact, they need to take a hundred seats in the House and no less than ten in the Senate. That would be a total rejection of Obama and give the Republicans a solid hold on power, the ability to start repealing Obama's agenda and a mandate to hold him accountable to the Constitution.
The question then will be, what will the Republicans do? Under Newt Gingrich's leadership in the 90's the Republican majority forced Clinton to give up tax and spend in favor of Reaganomics and produced four years of budget surpluses. But even after his repudiation in the 94 congressional elections when everybody thought Clinton was toast, he came back and managed to take credit for the economic recovery and rode it to reelection. I'm not sure Obama is as savvy as Clinton was, but if Republicans aren't careful they could throw away the next presidential election if Obama can repackage himself and ride an economic recovery to victory.
The battle for America's founding Christian values does not stop with just getting control of Congress and overturning Obamacare. The conservative movement is in a life-long battle against the liberal, socialist, anti-Christian and anti-God ideas of the left. Whether we win this election or not, the struggle has to continue. Freedom is never free. Whether the fight is on a battlefield or in the political arena we must be constantly vigilant if we are to remain free.
That means, keep talking up conservative values, keep debating the issues, and keep pointing out to people the greatness of America and why we don't want to or need to change it. Encourage all your conservative and Republican friends not to sit idly by, not to assume this is in the bag, and not to count their chickens before they hatch, but to get involved. We have already voted and sent in our absentee ballots. Now it's up to you. On November 2, by all means go to your polling station and participate in the constitutional process and VOTE!
The Republicans need 39 seats to take over the House and ten to take over the Senate. It seems all but certain that they will get the 39 House seats, and some polls are suggesting possible gains of 54 seats or maybe as many as 63, but the best numbers for the Senate right now can only assure a gain of six seats for the Republicans. There are five Senate seats still too close to predict, and if the Republicans could take those, there is a possibility of as many as 52 seats. To tell you the truth, none of these numbers give me great comfort.
Getting control of the House and replacing Pelosi as Speaker will be in itself a great victory, but if Republicans only gain 39 seats, they will only be able to throw a wrench into Obama's agenda, and without control of the Senate they won't be able to put a stop to anything. If they don't take at the very least all of those 54 or 63 potential gains in the House, it won't be indicative of a great conservative resurgence in the country as much as it will mean the independent middle-of-the-roaders are tired of Obama's view of change and have turned against him. It will mean that liberalism is still strong and it's not going to be easy to bring America back from the brink of destruction. The independents are often easily swayed back and forth.
Polls show Obama's popularity down around 41 to 45%, but his polls have been at that level since last March and they aren't dropping any lower. There are a lot of mindless socialists out there who still support big government and the welfare state. Polls also show so much dissatisfaction with the current leadership in Congress that you would think Harry Reid would already have been blown out of the water in the Nevada Senate race, yet numbers show him in a statistical dead heat with his opponent, Sharron Angle. Other races are similarly tight, all of which suggests to me this election isn't a done deal.
I hope I'm wrong and I'm praying it turns into a Republican landslide, but my feeling is that in order for a Republican victory to have a real impact, they need to take a hundred seats in the House and no less than ten in the Senate. That would be a total rejection of Obama and give the Republicans a solid hold on power, the ability to start repealing Obama's agenda and a mandate to hold him accountable to the Constitution.
The question then will be, what will the Republicans do? Under Newt Gingrich's leadership in the 90's the Republican majority forced Clinton to give up tax and spend in favor of Reaganomics and produced four years of budget surpluses. But even after his repudiation in the 94 congressional elections when everybody thought Clinton was toast, he came back and managed to take credit for the economic recovery and rode it to reelection. I'm not sure Obama is as savvy as Clinton was, but if Republicans aren't careful they could throw away the next presidential election if Obama can repackage himself and ride an economic recovery to victory.
The battle for America's founding Christian values does not stop with just getting control of Congress and overturning Obamacare. The conservative movement is in a life-long battle against the liberal, socialist, anti-Christian and anti-God ideas of the left. Whether we win this election or not, the struggle has to continue. Freedom is never free. Whether the fight is on a battlefield or in the political arena we must be constantly vigilant if we are to remain free.
That means, keep talking up conservative values, keep debating the issues, and keep pointing out to people the greatness of America and why we don't want to or need to change it. Encourage all your conservative and Republican friends not to sit idly by, not to assume this is in the bag, and not to count their chickens before they hatch, but to get involved. We have already voted and sent in our absentee ballots. Now it's up to you. On November 2, by all means go to your polling station and participate in the constitutional process and VOTE!
Friday, October 22, 2010
Do We Have a Godless President?
For the third time in a month Obama has quoted the Declaration of Independence and left out "endowed by our Creator." After the first incident at a hispanic caucus many of the president's defenders brushed it off saying it was a paraphrase or slip of the tongue. But then at a fundraiser in New York City he repeated his performance, and this last week at a fundraiser in Maryland he did the same. It can no longer be denied that the president's denial of the Creator is deliberate.
Obama claims to be a Christian, but everywhere he goes and everything he says belies the claim. He has publicly said he prefers Islam, he had to be corrected in an interview when he referred to his "Muslim faith," he covers up Christian symbols when he speaks at universities, he cancels Christian days of prayer but honors Muslim clerics in the White House during Ramadan, but his supporters, including the lapdog sold out liberal media, still insist he's a Christian, and even many conservative pundits seem to be unwilling to face this inconvenient truth. They'll say he's a socialist, a communist, or a Marxist, but not a Muslim. Could they be right?
The president's "Christian faith" was gained from twenty years of sitting under the ministry of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his liberation theology. Liberation theology is an aberrant doctrine that interprets Christ's Sermon on the Mount about the poor to mean liberty from unjust economic, social, or political conditions. The movement began within the Catholic church in Latin America in the 1950's and 60's and grew into an international movement and took on the Marxist principles of class struggle and conflict between the poor and the hierarchy. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, stated in the 1980's that it is a flawed theology that teaches "Marxist myths."
Liberation theology has been used in the African-American community by such stalwart preachers as Jesse Jackson to stir up class envy and demand socialist reparations for the white man's past "racist crimes." This is the theology that would allow Wright to preach his hatred and shamelessly curse America rather than teach the love of Christ. This is where Obama, raised as a Muslim in Indonesia memorizing much of the Koran, learned his Christianity as an adult.
It would be no wonder that he would be afraid to show that kind of belief publicly, but denying the Creator in the Declaration of Independence is indicative of a far greater problem. The president has also publicly stated (with the endorsement of that great theologian Oprah Winfrey) that there are many ways to heaven and Christianity is only one. That, of course, is in direct contradiction to a very basic Christian doctrine that Jesus is the only way (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), but it exposes an even greater lack of understanding by the president not only of Christianity, but also of Islam.
One of the great criticisms of Christianity is that it is intolerant of other religions, but the same people that condemn Christians for this belief, overlook the fact that Islam is even more intolerant than Christianity. In practice, Christianity does insist that Jesus is the only way of salvation, but it tolerates all other religions because one's faith is a free choice to be made by every individual. Islam, on the other hand, teaches that allah is the only way to heaven and ultimately Islam will kill you if you don't submit. And who do they say is less tolerant?
When the president's track record is considered, his refusal to acknowledge the Creator in the Declaration indicates more than anything else his unbelief in the Creator. And it's not just the Christian God he doesn't believe in. He doesn't believe in allah either. His bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia and quoting the Koran notwithstanding, if he truly believed in allah he would at some point have to confess his belief. No, I think the only god the president really believes in is the Marxist, humanist god, man. No matter what he says, Obama's actions betray a man who has no submissive spirit to nor belief in the true God that America was founded upon, Jesus Christ. In other words, he is godless.
Obama claims to be a Christian, but everywhere he goes and everything he says belies the claim. He has publicly said he prefers Islam, he had to be corrected in an interview when he referred to his "Muslim faith," he covers up Christian symbols when he speaks at universities, he cancels Christian days of prayer but honors Muslim clerics in the White House during Ramadan, but his supporters, including the lapdog sold out liberal media, still insist he's a Christian, and even many conservative pundits seem to be unwilling to face this inconvenient truth. They'll say he's a socialist, a communist, or a Marxist, but not a Muslim. Could they be right?
The president's "Christian faith" was gained from twenty years of sitting under the ministry of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his liberation theology. Liberation theology is an aberrant doctrine that interprets Christ's Sermon on the Mount about the poor to mean liberty from unjust economic, social, or political conditions. The movement began within the Catholic church in Latin America in the 1950's and 60's and grew into an international movement and took on the Marxist principles of class struggle and conflict between the poor and the hierarchy. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, stated in the 1980's that it is a flawed theology that teaches "Marxist myths."
Liberation theology has been used in the African-American community by such stalwart preachers as Jesse Jackson to stir up class envy and demand socialist reparations for the white man's past "racist crimes." This is the theology that would allow Wright to preach his hatred and shamelessly curse America rather than teach the love of Christ. This is where Obama, raised as a Muslim in Indonesia memorizing much of the Koran, learned his Christianity as an adult.
It would be no wonder that he would be afraid to show that kind of belief publicly, but denying the Creator in the Declaration of Independence is indicative of a far greater problem. The president has also publicly stated (with the endorsement of that great theologian Oprah Winfrey) that there are many ways to heaven and Christianity is only one. That, of course, is in direct contradiction to a very basic Christian doctrine that Jesus is the only way (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), but it exposes an even greater lack of understanding by the president not only of Christianity, but also of Islam.
One of the great criticisms of Christianity is that it is intolerant of other religions, but the same people that condemn Christians for this belief, overlook the fact that Islam is even more intolerant than Christianity. In practice, Christianity does insist that Jesus is the only way of salvation, but it tolerates all other religions because one's faith is a free choice to be made by every individual. Islam, on the other hand, teaches that allah is the only way to heaven and ultimately Islam will kill you if you don't submit. And who do they say is less tolerant?
When the president's track record is considered, his refusal to acknowledge the Creator in the Declaration indicates more than anything else his unbelief in the Creator. And it's not just the Christian God he doesn't believe in. He doesn't believe in allah either. His bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia and quoting the Koran notwithstanding, if he truly believed in allah he would at some point have to confess his belief. No, I think the only god the president really believes in is the Marxist, humanist god, man. No matter what he says, Obama's actions betray a man who has no submissive spirit to nor belief in the true God that America was founded upon, Jesus Christ. In other words, he is godless.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
An Effective Energy Policy
A few months ago the president told Republicans to put their money where their mouth is because next year he's going to tackle the deficit. Now we are again hearing of his plans for next year. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine for its October 15, 2010 issue, the president said the following:
One of my top priorities next year is to have an energy policy that begins to address all facets of our overreliance on fossil fuels. We may end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive omnibus legislation. But we're going to stay on this because it is good for our economy, it's good for our national security, and, ultimately, it's good for our environment.
I'm getting a little tired of hearing about what he intends to do "next year" when we have an economic disaster all around us right now, but actually, this statement is scary. What is it he intends to do "in chunks?" Is he going to try and do something by executive order because he can't get Congress to pass a comprehensive omnibus bill?
In August 1977 the Carter Administration created the Department of Energy in order to lessen America's dependence on foreign oil. According to Carter the world was going to run out of fossil fuels in less than a hundred years so we needed to come up with alternative forms of energy. The Department of Energy has proceeded to spend over a trillion dollars since its inception and has yet to produce one useful alternative fuel. But standards have been passed to reduce carbon emissions and make the air cleaner. I'll concede those might have been good standards to set, but we didn't need to spend a trillion dollars just to set standards, and the end result has been to drive the price of automobiles sky high, making life more difficult for many people economically.
The DOE has been a spectacular failure. It's purpose was to reduce imports of foreign oil, but thirty-three years after its inception we are importing more foreign oil by far than when we began. According to the DOE's own report the United States imported 57% of it's crude and refined oil in 2008. It seems to me that the real threat to our nation is not our reliance on fossil fuels, but our reliance on OPEC nations to provide the fossil fuels.
Obama says reducing our reliance on oil will be good for the economy. How? We've already wasted a trillion dollars trying for nothing. His and the Democrat's refusal to allow oil companies to drill for our own oil on our own land is costing thousands of jobs in many different sectors and driving the cost of our fuel higher, hurting everyone economically.
Obama says reducing our reliance on oil is good for our national security. How? By refusing to let us drill for our own oil we have necessarily become more reliant on foreign oil produced by OPEC nations that are hostile to us and routinely jack up the prices for no other reason than to punish Americans and make our lives difficult. Until we have a reliable alternate source the only way to increase our security is to drill for our own oil and stop importing it.
Obama says reducing our reliance on oil is good for our environment. How is oil bad for our environment in the first place? Air pollution? We've cleaned it up. Forests? Spotted owls? Oil companies have gone to great lengths to protect the environment everywhere they've been allowed to drill, but nothing will satisfy environmentalists until we're all living in the Garden of Eden. Fat chance that's going to happen.
Can you imagine what our economy would be like if we had no DOE and a trillion dollars back in the Treasury? How about no Great Society, no welfare state, and seven or eight trillion more dollars back in the Treasury? How about George Bush and only a 450 billion dollar deficit instead of Obama's 1.85 trillion? These gargantuan wastes of our tax dollars all came about under liberal, Democrat controlled administrations. People who have no clue how to live within their means have destroyed America's wealth and have us facing trillion dollar deficits until 2020 by the White House's own projections. We won't survive that.
The answer for an effective energy policy is to get the government out of it. The free enterprise system where individuals have liberty to experiment, explore and create uninhibited by government intrusion has always produced more jobs, more products, and a more robust economy. Reaganomics worked, and Bill Clinton knows it!
The answer to our security is to drill our own oil and stop buying from Muslim OPEC nations that are using oil as a weapon against us. Oil money is the only reason most of the Middle East nations survive. If we didn't buy their oil their power and influence in the world would decline. The threat of terrorists trying to overthrow America by building victory mosques and infiltrating our society with sharia law would cease. When their oil economies collapse Muslim nations will be on their knees begging us for help rather than trying to destroy us. Furthermore, until the president secures the border with Mexico there is nothing he can say about security that can be taken seriously.
The answer to the environment is to stop kowtowing to the environmentalists who have hijacked our nation. If oil companies were allowed to drill in shallow waters in the Gulf rather than where it is 5,000 feet deep the recent oil crisis could have been ended in days instead of months. When a community's progress can be delayed or stopped to save a snail darter or a spotted owl, or a pipeline can be ended in order to save the pristine Alaskan wilderness where no one lives in a thousand square miles and nobody goes to visit anyway, environmentalists have gotten too much power. If they were really concerned about the environment they should have gone to Washington on October 2, and cleaned up the mess left by the socialist One Nation March. Until they stop driving cars and flying in airplanes they can't be taken seriously either.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm glad the energy policy is Obama's plan for next year. By then conservatives will have control of Congress and be able to stop this foolishness. But that will only happen if we do one thing:
GET OUT AND VOTE. November 2 is coming.
One of my top priorities next year is to have an energy policy that begins to address all facets of our overreliance on fossil fuels. We may end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive omnibus legislation. But we're going to stay on this because it is good for our economy, it's good for our national security, and, ultimately, it's good for our environment.
I'm getting a little tired of hearing about what he intends to do "next year" when we have an economic disaster all around us right now, but actually, this statement is scary. What is it he intends to do "in chunks?" Is he going to try and do something by executive order because he can't get Congress to pass a comprehensive omnibus bill?
In August 1977 the Carter Administration created the Department of Energy in order to lessen America's dependence on foreign oil. According to Carter the world was going to run out of fossil fuels in less than a hundred years so we needed to come up with alternative forms of energy. The Department of Energy has proceeded to spend over a trillion dollars since its inception and has yet to produce one useful alternative fuel. But standards have been passed to reduce carbon emissions and make the air cleaner. I'll concede those might have been good standards to set, but we didn't need to spend a trillion dollars just to set standards, and the end result has been to drive the price of automobiles sky high, making life more difficult for many people economically.
The DOE has been a spectacular failure. It's purpose was to reduce imports of foreign oil, but thirty-three years after its inception we are importing more foreign oil by far than when we began. According to the DOE's own report the United States imported 57% of it's crude and refined oil in 2008. It seems to me that the real threat to our nation is not our reliance on fossil fuels, but our reliance on OPEC nations to provide the fossil fuels.
Obama says reducing our reliance on oil will be good for the economy. How? We've already wasted a trillion dollars trying for nothing. His and the Democrat's refusal to allow oil companies to drill for our own oil on our own land is costing thousands of jobs in many different sectors and driving the cost of our fuel higher, hurting everyone economically.
Obama says reducing our reliance on oil is good for our national security. How? By refusing to let us drill for our own oil we have necessarily become more reliant on foreign oil produced by OPEC nations that are hostile to us and routinely jack up the prices for no other reason than to punish Americans and make our lives difficult. Until we have a reliable alternate source the only way to increase our security is to drill for our own oil and stop importing it.
Obama says reducing our reliance on oil is good for our environment. How is oil bad for our environment in the first place? Air pollution? We've cleaned it up. Forests? Spotted owls? Oil companies have gone to great lengths to protect the environment everywhere they've been allowed to drill, but nothing will satisfy environmentalists until we're all living in the Garden of Eden. Fat chance that's going to happen.
Can you imagine what our economy would be like if we had no DOE and a trillion dollars back in the Treasury? How about no Great Society, no welfare state, and seven or eight trillion more dollars back in the Treasury? How about George Bush and only a 450 billion dollar deficit instead of Obama's 1.85 trillion? These gargantuan wastes of our tax dollars all came about under liberal, Democrat controlled administrations. People who have no clue how to live within their means have destroyed America's wealth and have us facing trillion dollar deficits until 2020 by the White House's own projections. We won't survive that.
The answer for an effective energy policy is to get the government out of it. The free enterprise system where individuals have liberty to experiment, explore and create uninhibited by government intrusion has always produced more jobs, more products, and a more robust economy. Reaganomics worked, and Bill Clinton knows it!
The answer to our security is to drill our own oil and stop buying from Muslim OPEC nations that are using oil as a weapon against us. Oil money is the only reason most of the Middle East nations survive. If we didn't buy their oil their power and influence in the world would decline. The threat of terrorists trying to overthrow America by building victory mosques and infiltrating our society with sharia law would cease. When their oil economies collapse Muslim nations will be on their knees begging us for help rather than trying to destroy us. Furthermore, until the president secures the border with Mexico there is nothing he can say about security that can be taken seriously.
The answer to the environment is to stop kowtowing to the environmentalists who have hijacked our nation. If oil companies were allowed to drill in shallow waters in the Gulf rather than where it is 5,000 feet deep the recent oil crisis could have been ended in days instead of months. When a community's progress can be delayed or stopped to save a snail darter or a spotted owl, or a pipeline can be ended in order to save the pristine Alaskan wilderness where no one lives in a thousand square miles and nobody goes to visit anyway, environmentalists have gotten too much power. If they were really concerned about the environment they should have gone to Washington on October 2, and cleaned up the mess left by the socialist One Nation March. Until they stop driving cars and flying in airplanes they can't be taken seriously either.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'm glad the energy policy is Obama's plan for next year. By then conservatives will have control of Congress and be able to stop this foolishness. But that will only happen if we do one thing:
GET OUT AND VOTE. November 2 is coming.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Endowed by Whom?
Last week in a speech to the Hispanic caucus President Obama regurgitated a worn out liberal mantra about "shared values," values that he said British, French, Dutch and Spanish, as well as Mexicans and American Indians "all hold so dear." It was a rather bold statement considering that between liberals and conservatives most Americans can't even agree what those "shared values" are. According to the president it was "faith and fidelity" to those unnamed values that "made us all Americans." After some cheers from the crowd he went on to quote from the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident," he said, "that all men are created equal." He paused, face turned to the right staring at his TelePrompTer, and blinked his eyes several times. Then he continued, "Endowed with certain inalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Hard core Obama defenders are saying it was no big deal, he was just paraphrasing. If it had been almost any other president that would be believable, but considering Obama's concerted effort to deny or cover up everything Christian in America it is hardly a plausible argument that he just casually overlooked "that they are endowed by their Creator" when quoting from one of the two most important documents in our history. It is particularly revealing when you consider the manner in which he edited the statement. When he reached "equal," he stopped for several seconds, apparently to figure out how to cut the phrase out. It appeared that he actually had to think about what he would say because, as we all know, he is helpless to speak intelligently without a TelePrompTer.
But even if his defenders are correct and it was just a paraphrase, no denial of a Christian Creator intended, it is a bad defense. An endowment is a gift given by someone with the ability to give. You cannot have an endowment without a benefactor. To say we are endowed without saying whom we are endowed by leaves the question unanswered: "Who endowed us with these unalienable rights?" Nature? Nature is simply the material world and its phenomena. Nature carries on in cycles the same way it has for millennia, but it only acts the way God created it to act. Nature can endow nothing. Neither are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gifts from a non-caring deist god. Deism is a humanist philosophy that denies any godly influence in life at all. A deist god would not endow man with anything. And regardless of what the president has said, Islam had no influence on our unalienable rights either. The pagan moon god, allah, the one Mohammed chose for his religion, had nothing to do with our endowed liberties.
The truth is that Thomas Jefferson and fifty-five other signers of the Declaration of Independence agreed that we are endowed by our "Creator." It is God Himself who gives us these rights. It was the Christian God that Jefferson was speaking of and all the signers consented to. It was the God of Creation as told in Genesis chapter one, and reiterated in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:13-18.
The values that Americans share with our Founders are not the values of big government, high taxes, out-of-control spending, abortion on demand, gay rights, class envy, welfare state, illegal alien amnesty and Christian denial that the Liberal Left preaches. The values we share with the signers of the Declaration of Independence are limited government, balanced budgets, no taxation without representation, pro-biblical values such as life and marriage, the right to work to earn your own living, controlled legal immigration with protected borders and a Christian heritage. Furthermore, these are not necessarily values we shared with the French, Spanish, Mexicans or American Indians.
We were, in fact, founded as a Christian nation on shared biblical Christian values, and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. Those who deny this, people like our historically ignorant president, have no clue as to what our "values" even are. It is time we replaced the liberal anti-Christian elitists in Washington with conservatives who know and understand where America came from and what America is about.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident," he said, "that all men are created equal." He paused, face turned to the right staring at his TelePrompTer, and blinked his eyes several times. Then he continued, "Endowed with certain inalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Hard core Obama defenders are saying it was no big deal, he was just paraphrasing. If it had been almost any other president that would be believable, but considering Obama's concerted effort to deny or cover up everything Christian in America it is hardly a plausible argument that he just casually overlooked "that they are endowed by their Creator" when quoting from one of the two most important documents in our history. It is particularly revealing when you consider the manner in which he edited the statement. When he reached "equal," he stopped for several seconds, apparently to figure out how to cut the phrase out. It appeared that he actually had to think about what he would say because, as we all know, he is helpless to speak intelligently without a TelePrompTer.
But even if his defenders are correct and it was just a paraphrase, no denial of a Christian Creator intended, it is a bad defense. An endowment is a gift given by someone with the ability to give. You cannot have an endowment without a benefactor. To say we are endowed without saying whom we are endowed by leaves the question unanswered: "Who endowed us with these unalienable rights?" Nature? Nature is simply the material world and its phenomena. Nature carries on in cycles the same way it has for millennia, but it only acts the way God created it to act. Nature can endow nothing. Neither are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gifts from a non-caring deist god. Deism is a humanist philosophy that denies any godly influence in life at all. A deist god would not endow man with anything. And regardless of what the president has said, Islam had no influence on our unalienable rights either. The pagan moon god, allah, the one Mohammed chose for his religion, had nothing to do with our endowed liberties.
The truth is that Thomas Jefferson and fifty-five other signers of the Declaration of Independence agreed that we are endowed by our "Creator." It is God Himself who gives us these rights. It was the Christian God that Jefferson was speaking of and all the signers consented to. It was the God of Creation as told in Genesis chapter one, and reiterated in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:13-18.
The values that Americans share with our Founders are not the values of big government, high taxes, out-of-control spending, abortion on demand, gay rights, class envy, welfare state, illegal alien amnesty and Christian denial that the Liberal Left preaches. The values we share with the signers of the Declaration of Independence are limited government, balanced budgets, no taxation without representation, pro-biblical values such as life and marriage, the right to work to earn your own living, controlled legal immigration with protected borders and a Christian heritage. Furthermore, these are not necessarily values we shared with the French, Spanish, Mexicans or American Indians.
We were, in fact, founded as a Christian nation on shared biblical Christian values, and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. Those who deny this, people like our historically ignorant president, have no clue as to what our "values" even are. It is time we replaced the liberal anti-Christian elitists in Washington with conservatives who know and understand where America came from and what America is about.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Star Spangled Banner
I've been thinking a lot lately about National Anthems. I believe we are right now in the crisis moment of our existence as a free people. The unbelievable spending of this government over the last almost two years is only the beginning. The open denial of our Christian heritage by our admittedly Muslim loving president (he said he favors Islam over Christianity in one of his books) is a threat to our very way of life. The health care bill passed by Congress threatens our status as a free nation and makes our future as a socialist state a dangerous reality. At the global warming conference in Copenhagen last December the president was ready to sign a treaty to create a government (yes, it used the word government) to oversee the compliance of all signing nations. In other words, had we signed, we would have given up our national sovereignty.
If that should ever happen I wonder if we'll still be able to sing our National Anthem. What's interesting is how many people wouldn't even care. I've heard plenty of people complain over the years about how our anthem is about war and fighting and it shouldn't be our anthem. People that think that way have never taken the time to learn what our anthem is about, what it stands for, or how it compares with anthems around the world. Our anthem is unique in both its focus and its conclusion.
The French national anthem, The Marsellaise, is one of the most rousing anthems with a very quick paced, march-like melody full of excitement. It was adopted in 1795 during the French Revolution and was a call of all patriots of France to throw off the tyranny of ferocious soldiers that were about to slit the throats of their sons and wives. The refrain is a call to arms for citizens to form battalions and march on to shed the blood of their enemies.
The German anthem is actually the Austrian Hymn, written by Franz Joseph Haydn in the 18th century. A poem was written a hundred years later and the tune and words were adopted in 1922. "Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles," it said. "Germany, Germany over all." It was a very inflammatory song and fit Hitler's philosophy of an Aryan master race to a T. After WW2 the first two verses were deleted and now the Germans sing the third verse which speaks of unity, justice and freedom, and a pledge of fortune for the Fatherland to flourish. The hymn itself is very beautiful and is often sung in churches with the words "Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken."
The Austrian Hymn had also been the tune for the Austrian anthem, but in 1946 the Austrians chose a quieter love of country song that avoided any mention of politics or patriotism.
The Dutch anthem, "Het Wilhelmus," is the oldest national anthem in the world. It was written in 1568 and depicts deposed Prince William encouraging the oppressed people of the Netherlands to rise up against Spanish rule. It stemmed from the period of Dutch heroism and the struggle of the Dutch people to be free. The music is very majestic and hymn-like, but goes on for 15 stanzas in which Wilhelm tells his story appealing to God for help, and declares loyalty to the fatherland.
Each of the countries of the United Kingdom have their own anthem, but the British anthem is God Save the Queen (or King). The words come from Henry VIII's time but the melody was first performed in 1607. It was not officially recognized as the anthem of Great Britain until 1745. Who wrote it is a mystery. Several names are mentioned, but it is also claimed to be a French folk song. It was known in several countries around Europe and is also the tune of the anthem of Liechtenstein. The words are not about the country but about the Queen and loyalty to the monarch. "God save our gracious Queen, Long live our noble Queen, God save the Queen. Send her victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign over us, God save the Queen.
"Lupang Hiniram," the Philippine anthem, means "Chosen Land." It has a very lively tune, somewhat like the French anthem. It was composed in 1898 during the Philippine revolution against Spain. The first line, "Bayong magiliw," means "beloved country." It calls the Philippines the Pearl of the Orient, and declares that the people will never surrender their chosen land. It tells of of seas and mountains, air and blue skies, and ends with a dedication of willingness to die for the land.
In Japan the anthem is called "Kimigayo." It means "May You Reign Forever." The words of the song which are rarely sung speak of Japan reigning for 10,000 years and closes saying may Japan reign and flourish. The words were written over a thousand years ago, but the music was composed in the 1800's. It is written in a somber minor key, but the harmony is very stately. Musically it is very beautiful and thoughtful. It seemed to me the perfect music to cause one to reminisce about a tragic past such as being the only nation ever to have suffered a nuclear attack, although the anthem is older than WW2, and I'm in no way apologizing for the events that happened in 1945.
The Kenyan anthem is called "Ee Mungu Nguvu Yetu." It is translated, "O God of all creation," but literally it says, "O God our strength." It speaks of unity and peace and being blessed within their borders. The tune is not musically beautiful and tends to ramble about until it comes to a sudden end.
"O Canada" has a very nice, hymn-odic melody and speaks about the land and the people on guard for Canada. The anthem of Israel is all about the city of Zion. Serbia's anthem is actually a prayer called "God of Justice." It is an appeal for God's deliverance for an oppressed people. The Swiss anthem is a Psalm that speaks of God dwelling in their land. The anthem of the no longer existing USSR was a very bold, dramatic, and lengthy melody about the Soviet Union being victorious.
There is a common thread in most of the world's anthems. They are all about the country, the motherland, the fatherland, loyalty to the land. Everything is the land. The UK is different in that it is all loyalty to the monarchy. Many of them are appeals from enslaved people looking for hope and freedom, and others are very bloody indeed writing about conquering people or shedding blood, some as the French anthem, in fairly graphic details.
How does The Star Spangled Banner differ from all of these? To really understand it you need to know the context in which it was written, which is why I think some people don't appreciate it. In 1814 the United States was a free nation, but had gone to war with England because of British interference with our ships on the high seas. The English invaded the United States, capturing Washington, DC, and were attempting to make a drive into the heartland, but they had to get by Baltimore first, and at the gates of Baltimore was Fort McHenry. On September 13, a lawyer, Francis Scott Key, was on board one of the British men-of-war trying to secure the release of an American prisoner and was detained when the bombardment of Ft. McHenry started.
Throughout the night as the guns roared and rockets flashed through the sky, the outcome was in doubt. In the morning of September 14, the guns fell silent and as the mist cleared off the waters and the fog lifted the Stars and Stripes of the US flag still waved in the breeze. The fort stood and the British began their retreat. Key, witnessing that most dramatic moment, began to write, "Oh, say can you see?"
The US anthem is unique in that it begins with a question about the outcome of a battle that may have decided US independence. It speaks of the proud defense of the fort by our troops who were greatly outnumbered and outgunned, of watching through the night to see if the flag still stood, and then at the dawn's early light learning the great truth that we had prevailed.
The first verse finishes asking another question. Does that flag still wave? It is a question that is as relevant today as it was in 1814. Are we still a free land? Do brave men still defend our shores? It is a challenge to us as Americans to follow the grand tradition of our forefathers who would not bow to tyranny but fought valiantly for our freedom.
The last verse is likewise a challenge to free men to ever stand between their homes and the threat of tyranny. Then it acknowledges that our land was "heaven-rescued." The blessings of victory and peace come from above. Our anthem places our freedom, our very existence on the providence of Almighty God, and "praise(s) the power that hath made and preserved us a nation."
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just." That line gives all the justification we needed for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. They were just causes necessary for the defense of our own homes. The verse finishes with the declaration that as long as our motto is, "In God is our trust," our flag will wave in triumph over the land.
Our anthem is not about the land, neither is it about a leader. It stands unique because it is about our flag, a banner that stands for freedom and a beacon of hope to oppressed people around the world.
This is not something to be ashamed of as the hand-wringing liberals think. Rather, this is something of which to be chest-thumping proud. We live in the greatest nation on earth, not because of the land, not because of the government, but because our God reigns, and He has raised up men and women who built this country by the sweat of their brow, the cost of their blood, and the bend of their knee praising the Power that made us great.
I'm telling you I am proud to be an American and I will never give up the fight for American sovereignty, no matter what false messiah usurps the reins of government and tries to overthrow the Constitution, and I will proudly stand up and salute and sing our National Anthem every time and every place it is played.
The music to the Star Spangled Banner is a great tune, but sometimes it gets butchered by country and pop performers who think they've got to do all kinds of styling to make it better. It's better when they don't do anything but sing it straight. I couldn't care less how great the vocalist is who sings it either. If it's sung too slow it dies. Too much variation distracts attention from the song. It is better sung quick and to the point. One of the best performances I ever heard was on TV on Monday Night Baseball. There was a plumber from Detroit back in the 70's who occasionally would sing the National Anthem before the game. No name recognition, no frills, he just sang and he was great. My favorite version of all time, however, is the link I've added on the blog by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I hope you'll take a moment to look it up and listen to it, and get your patriotism stirred.
We need to take back our country before the godless liberals ruin it forever.
If that should ever happen I wonder if we'll still be able to sing our National Anthem. What's interesting is how many people wouldn't even care. I've heard plenty of people complain over the years about how our anthem is about war and fighting and it shouldn't be our anthem. People that think that way have never taken the time to learn what our anthem is about, what it stands for, or how it compares with anthems around the world. Our anthem is unique in both its focus and its conclusion.
The French national anthem, The Marsellaise, is one of the most rousing anthems with a very quick paced, march-like melody full of excitement. It was adopted in 1795 during the French Revolution and was a call of all patriots of France to throw off the tyranny of ferocious soldiers that were about to slit the throats of their sons and wives. The refrain is a call to arms for citizens to form battalions and march on to shed the blood of their enemies.
The German anthem is actually the Austrian Hymn, written by Franz Joseph Haydn in the 18th century. A poem was written a hundred years later and the tune and words were adopted in 1922. "Deutchland, Deutchland uber alles," it said. "Germany, Germany over all." It was a very inflammatory song and fit Hitler's philosophy of an Aryan master race to a T. After WW2 the first two verses were deleted and now the Germans sing the third verse which speaks of unity, justice and freedom, and a pledge of fortune for the Fatherland to flourish. The hymn itself is very beautiful and is often sung in churches with the words "Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken."
The Austrian Hymn had also been the tune for the Austrian anthem, but in 1946 the Austrians chose a quieter love of country song that avoided any mention of politics or patriotism.
The Dutch anthem, "Het Wilhelmus," is the oldest national anthem in the world. It was written in 1568 and depicts deposed Prince William encouraging the oppressed people of the Netherlands to rise up against Spanish rule. It stemmed from the period of Dutch heroism and the struggle of the Dutch people to be free. The music is very majestic and hymn-like, but goes on for 15 stanzas in which Wilhelm tells his story appealing to God for help, and declares loyalty to the fatherland.
Each of the countries of the United Kingdom have their own anthem, but the British anthem is God Save the Queen (or King). The words come from Henry VIII's time but the melody was first performed in 1607. It was not officially recognized as the anthem of Great Britain until 1745. Who wrote it is a mystery. Several names are mentioned, but it is also claimed to be a French folk song. It was known in several countries around Europe and is also the tune of the anthem of Liechtenstein. The words are not about the country but about the Queen and loyalty to the monarch. "God save our gracious Queen, Long live our noble Queen, God save the Queen. Send her victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign over us, God save the Queen.
"Lupang Hiniram," the Philippine anthem, means "Chosen Land." It has a very lively tune, somewhat like the French anthem. It was composed in 1898 during the Philippine revolution against Spain. The first line, "Bayong magiliw," means "beloved country." It calls the Philippines the Pearl of the Orient, and declares that the people will never surrender their chosen land. It tells of of seas and mountains, air and blue skies, and ends with a dedication of willingness to die for the land.
In Japan the anthem is called "Kimigayo." It means "May You Reign Forever." The words of the song which are rarely sung speak of Japan reigning for 10,000 years and closes saying may Japan reign and flourish. The words were written over a thousand years ago, but the music was composed in the 1800's. It is written in a somber minor key, but the harmony is very stately. Musically it is very beautiful and thoughtful. It seemed to me the perfect music to cause one to reminisce about a tragic past such as being the only nation ever to have suffered a nuclear attack, although the anthem is older than WW2, and I'm in no way apologizing for the events that happened in 1945.
The Kenyan anthem is called "Ee Mungu Nguvu Yetu." It is translated, "O God of all creation," but literally it says, "O God our strength." It speaks of unity and peace and being blessed within their borders. The tune is not musically beautiful and tends to ramble about until it comes to a sudden end.
"O Canada" has a very nice, hymn-odic melody and speaks about the land and the people on guard for Canada. The anthem of Israel is all about the city of Zion. Serbia's anthem is actually a prayer called "God of Justice." It is an appeal for God's deliverance for an oppressed people. The Swiss anthem is a Psalm that speaks of God dwelling in their land. The anthem of the no longer existing USSR was a very bold, dramatic, and lengthy melody about the Soviet Union being victorious.
There is a common thread in most of the world's anthems. They are all about the country, the motherland, the fatherland, loyalty to the land. Everything is the land. The UK is different in that it is all loyalty to the monarchy. Many of them are appeals from enslaved people looking for hope and freedom, and others are very bloody indeed writing about conquering people or shedding blood, some as the French anthem, in fairly graphic details.
How does The Star Spangled Banner differ from all of these? To really understand it you need to know the context in which it was written, which is why I think some people don't appreciate it. In 1814 the United States was a free nation, but had gone to war with England because of British interference with our ships on the high seas. The English invaded the United States, capturing Washington, DC, and were attempting to make a drive into the heartland, but they had to get by Baltimore first, and at the gates of Baltimore was Fort McHenry. On September 13, a lawyer, Francis Scott Key, was on board one of the British men-of-war trying to secure the release of an American prisoner and was detained when the bombardment of Ft. McHenry started.
Throughout the night as the guns roared and rockets flashed through the sky, the outcome was in doubt. In the morning of September 14, the guns fell silent and as the mist cleared off the waters and the fog lifted the Stars and Stripes of the US flag still waved in the breeze. The fort stood and the British began their retreat. Key, witnessing that most dramatic moment, began to write, "Oh, say can you see?"
The US anthem is unique in that it begins with a question about the outcome of a battle that may have decided US independence. It speaks of the proud defense of the fort by our troops who were greatly outnumbered and outgunned, of watching through the night to see if the flag still stood, and then at the dawn's early light learning the great truth that we had prevailed.
The first verse finishes asking another question. Does that flag still wave? It is a question that is as relevant today as it was in 1814. Are we still a free land? Do brave men still defend our shores? It is a challenge to us as Americans to follow the grand tradition of our forefathers who would not bow to tyranny but fought valiantly for our freedom.
The last verse is likewise a challenge to free men to ever stand between their homes and the threat of tyranny. Then it acknowledges that our land was "heaven-rescued." The blessings of victory and peace come from above. Our anthem places our freedom, our very existence on the providence of Almighty God, and "praise(s) the power that hath made and preserved us a nation."
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just." That line gives all the justification we needed for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. They were just causes necessary for the defense of our own homes. The verse finishes with the declaration that as long as our motto is, "In God is our trust," our flag will wave in triumph over the land.
Our anthem is not about the land, neither is it about a leader. It stands unique because it is about our flag, a banner that stands for freedom and a beacon of hope to oppressed people around the world.
This is not something to be ashamed of as the hand-wringing liberals think. Rather, this is something of which to be chest-thumping proud. We live in the greatest nation on earth, not because of the land, not because of the government, but because our God reigns, and He has raised up men and women who built this country by the sweat of their brow, the cost of their blood, and the bend of their knee praising the Power that made us great.
I'm telling you I am proud to be an American and I will never give up the fight for American sovereignty, no matter what false messiah usurps the reins of government and tries to overthrow the Constitution, and I will proudly stand up and salute and sing our National Anthem every time and every place it is played.
The music to the Star Spangled Banner is a great tune, but sometimes it gets butchered by country and pop performers who think they've got to do all kinds of styling to make it better. It's better when they don't do anything but sing it straight. I couldn't care less how great the vocalist is who sings it either. If it's sung too slow it dies. Too much variation distracts attention from the song. It is better sung quick and to the point. One of the best performances I ever heard was on TV on Monday Night Baseball. There was a plumber from Detroit back in the 70's who occasionally would sing the National Anthem before the game. No name recognition, no frills, he just sang and he was great. My favorite version of all time, however, is the link I've added on the blog by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I hope you'll take a moment to look it up and listen to it, and get your patriotism stirred.
We need to take back our country before the godless liberals ruin it forever.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Remember 9/11
In moments of crisis the memory of sudden, tragic attacks against the United States has fanned the flames of patriotic fervor. "Remember" has become a motto that has stirred Americans to action. It has been the battle cry that has kept the purpose for going to war close to our hearts. It has been the motivation to right the wrongs perpetrated against Americans.
In 1836, 188 Texans gave their lives at a little Spanish Mission in San Antonio, Texas. Overwhelmed by an army 25 times their size, they fought bravely for thirteen days until the end came. When Sam Houston's still outnumbered, rag-tag army caught up with Santa Anna, the battle cry, "Remember the Alamo" was on the lips of each soldier as they quickly defeated the Mexican army.
In 1898, the battleship, USS Maine, sat peacefully in the harbor at Havana, Cuba. In the middle of the night a horrendous explosion ripped a hole in the ship and it sunk in only minutes. As America geared up for war against Spain the battle cry was, "Remember the Maine." Americans remembered and quickly defeated the Spanish at San Juan Hill in Cuba and in the Battle of Manila Bay in the Philippines.
On December 7, 1941, the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor forced America into World War II. The largest war in world history ended almost four years later with the cost of almost half a million American lives. "Remember Pearl Harbor" rang from sea to shining sea as America rose to the test once again and conquered tyranny.
Nine years ago today America was drawn into another conflict. This one from a more nebulous enemy. Muslim terrorists from Al Qaeda flew airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon. "Remember 9/11" was the rallying cry as America went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nine years later, many Americans seem to have forgotten what 9/11 is all about. The president announced today that "America has never been and never will be at war with Islam." President Bush said the same thing. Yet nearly every terrorist organization in the world today, and every terrorist group that has attacked America are Islamic. They have no regional boundaries. They are not defined by countries or governments. They are only defined by a religion.
The president piously spoke of religious freedom in America, implying support for the ground zero mosque, which he has previously publicly supported. But if Islam gets it's ultimate goal and takes over America, there will be no religious freedom. And until our leadership wakes up and defines our enemies for what they are, we will never win the War on Terror. We've won the battle on the ground in Iraq, and we can still win the battle in Afghanistan, but terrorism will never be defeated as long as we refuse to go after the philosophy that drives it.
Now after a long drawn out war with leaders who haven't figured out who they are fighting, many Americans don't remember. It was an Islamic attack on American soil against peaceful American citizens. Never forget it.
Remember 9/11.
In 1836, 188 Texans gave their lives at a little Spanish Mission in San Antonio, Texas. Overwhelmed by an army 25 times their size, they fought bravely for thirteen days until the end came. When Sam Houston's still outnumbered, rag-tag army caught up with Santa Anna, the battle cry, "Remember the Alamo" was on the lips of each soldier as they quickly defeated the Mexican army.
In 1898, the battleship, USS Maine, sat peacefully in the harbor at Havana, Cuba. In the middle of the night a horrendous explosion ripped a hole in the ship and it sunk in only minutes. As America geared up for war against Spain the battle cry was, "Remember the Maine." Americans remembered and quickly defeated the Spanish at San Juan Hill in Cuba and in the Battle of Manila Bay in the Philippines.
On December 7, 1941, the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor forced America into World War II. The largest war in world history ended almost four years later with the cost of almost half a million American lives. "Remember Pearl Harbor" rang from sea to shining sea as America rose to the test once again and conquered tyranny.
Nine years ago today America was drawn into another conflict. This one from a more nebulous enemy. Muslim terrorists from Al Qaeda flew airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon. "Remember 9/11" was the rallying cry as America went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nine years later, many Americans seem to have forgotten what 9/11 is all about. The president announced today that "America has never been and never will be at war with Islam." President Bush said the same thing. Yet nearly every terrorist organization in the world today, and every terrorist group that has attacked America are Islamic. They have no regional boundaries. They are not defined by countries or governments. They are only defined by a religion.
The president piously spoke of religious freedom in America, implying support for the ground zero mosque, which he has previously publicly supported. But if Islam gets it's ultimate goal and takes over America, there will be no religious freedom. And until our leadership wakes up and defines our enemies for what they are, we will never win the War on Terror. We've won the battle on the ground in Iraq, and we can still win the battle in Afghanistan, but terrorism will never be defeated as long as we refuse to go after the philosophy that drives it.
Now after a long drawn out war with leaders who haven't figured out who they are fighting, many Americans don't remember. It was an Islamic attack on American soil against peaceful American citizens. Never forget it.
Remember 9/11.
Monday, September 6, 2010
American Sovereignty
Of the Arizona border President Obama, defending his lack of action to protect America against Mexican drug cartels that are overrunning sovereign United States soil, said that a "nation is not defined by its borders." As he has so many other times, he proved once again his absolute ignorance with that statement. A culture may not be defined by physical borders, but a nation is. If you don't draw a line and say, "This is mine and that is yours," you no longer have sovereignty over any land. If there is no border anybody can claim it. That is exactly what is going on in Arizona right now.
Cultures can easily, and often do, cross borders. There is a large Filipino community in San Diego, California. They keep many of the same traditions, foods, and customs that they brought with them from the Philippines, but they are not a sovereign nation within the United States. Similarly, there is a large Dutch community in Denver, Colorado. Every year they hold a festival to celebrate Dutch products and traditions. They are a culture but not a sovereign nation. This is true in other parts of the world as well. The Kurds of northern Iraq have cultural and relational ties with the Kurds of eastern Turkey, but they are separated by a defined national border.
The same is true of the United States and Mexico. A defined physical border divides the sovereignty of the two nations. Illegal alien drug runners coming over the border and murdering US citizens amounts to an invasion of US sovereign territory. To do nothing about it is more than just dereliction of duty, it's criminal. The president promised to send 1200 National Guard troops to the border. Five months after the promise thirty (that's right 30) troops have received orders. Yet, the government has filed three lawsuits against Arizona to prevent the state from acting in the Federal government's absence.
To make matters worse, the president has now complained to China, to Cuba, and to the United Nations about American civil rights abuses. Let that sink in for a moment. He has complained to the world's worst human rights violators about America abusing civil rights. What does he expect them to do? Invade America? Put sanctions against us? This is nothing but a deplorable failure in leadership. If America is that bad it is the president's job to do something about it, not the United Nations or China or Cuba. He is the elected leader; it is his responsibility. But just as he has refused to take responsibility for all of his other failures, blaming them on George Bush, he now refuses to take responsibility for his country and goes crying to the UN.
It proves more than anything else that this president has absolutely no respect for the nation he is supposed to be governing. He has no respect for our national boundaries, and no concern for the safety of the American people. He has gone to war with Arizona, his Justice Department deliberately trying to prohibit Arizona from protecting its own citizens. He has not only ignored and bypassed the constitution, he has, by ignoring the Arizona border, begun to dismantle the country.
When he announced his campaign for presidency in 2007, Candidate Obama immediately played the race card. How ironic that the nation that fought a civil war to preserve the Union and ultimately end slavery, is now being driven into a new civil war by a black president who was elected by an overwhelmingly non-racist public. (How could anyone say otherwise? He would never have been elected without the white vote.)
If the polls are correct and a huge Republican victory is forthcoming in November, the new majority in Congress needs to investigate this president as vigorously as the Democrats and liberal press have covered for him for the last two years. This president needs to be impeached and the proof of his citizenship needs to be exposed. What the president is doing amounts to treason, unless of course he's not actually an American citizen. Then he needs to be arrested and put in Guantanamo.
The United States of America is a sovereign nation with definable borders. Those borders need to be enforced and protected. Illegal aliens need to be sent home, and so do illegal alien amnesty loving congressmen, no matter what party they belong to.
Cultures can easily, and often do, cross borders. There is a large Filipino community in San Diego, California. They keep many of the same traditions, foods, and customs that they brought with them from the Philippines, but they are not a sovereign nation within the United States. Similarly, there is a large Dutch community in Denver, Colorado. Every year they hold a festival to celebrate Dutch products and traditions. They are a culture but not a sovereign nation. This is true in other parts of the world as well. The Kurds of northern Iraq have cultural and relational ties with the Kurds of eastern Turkey, but they are separated by a defined national border.
The same is true of the United States and Mexico. A defined physical border divides the sovereignty of the two nations. Illegal alien drug runners coming over the border and murdering US citizens amounts to an invasion of US sovereign territory. To do nothing about it is more than just dereliction of duty, it's criminal. The president promised to send 1200 National Guard troops to the border. Five months after the promise thirty (that's right 30) troops have received orders. Yet, the government has filed three lawsuits against Arizona to prevent the state from acting in the Federal government's absence.
To make matters worse, the president has now complained to China, to Cuba, and to the United Nations about American civil rights abuses. Let that sink in for a moment. He has complained to the world's worst human rights violators about America abusing civil rights. What does he expect them to do? Invade America? Put sanctions against us? This is nothing but a deplorable failure in leadership. If America is that bad it is the president's job to do something about it, not the United Nations or China or Cuba. He is the elected leader; it is his responsibility. But just as he has refused to take responsibility for all of his other failures, blaming them on George Bush, he now refuses to take responsibility for his country and goes crying to the UN.
It proves more than anything else that this president has absolutely no respect for the nation he is supposed to be governing. He has no respect for our national boundaries, and no concern for the safety of the American people. He has gone to war with Arizona, his Justice Department deliberately trying to prohibit Arizona from protecting its own citizens. He has not only ignored and bypassed the constitution, he has, by ignoring the Arizona border, begun to dismantle the country.
When he announced his campaign for presidency in 2007, Candidate Obama immediately played the race card. How ironic that the nation that fought a civil war to preserve the Union and ultimately end slavery, is now being driven into a new civil war by a black president who was elected by an overwhelmingly non-racist public. (How could anyone say otherwise? He would never have been elected without the white vote.)
If the polls are correct and a huge Republican victory is forthcoming in November, the new majority in Congress needs to investigate this president as vigorously as the Democrats and liberal press have covered for him for the last two years. This president needs to be impeached and the proof of his citizenship needs to be exposed. What the president is doing amounts to treason, unless of course he's not actually an American citizen. Then he needs to be arrested and put in Guantanamo.
The United States of America is a sovereign nation with definable borders. Those borders need to be enforced and protected. Illegal aliens need to be sent home, and so do illegal alien amnesty loving congressmen, no matter what party they belong to.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Know Your Enemies
Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese warrior philosopher, in his classic, The Art of War, wrote that in order to be victorious you must "know your enemy." You must know his numbers, his weaponry, his strengths and his weaknesses, but more important than mere statistics, you must know him. The king, the general, the leader, whoever he is, must be identified and defined. You must know how he thinks, his resolve, his desperation or his pride. Studying his experience and accomplishments will help you evaluate his ability, anticipate his next move, and form a strategy to lead you to victory.
Alexander the Great was a master at seeing the situation from his enemy's viewpoint and then developing battle plans and weapons to defeat him. His genius was his ability to outmaneuver and outfight armies that were two or three times the size of his own, and in a twelve year quest to conquer the world he never lost a battle.
Robert E. Lee was another master at evaluating his enemies. He understood the weaknesses of the Union generals that opposed him and through bold, daring attacks, even when he was vastly outnumbered, exploited his enemies' weaknesses and put them to shame. He also saw the potential in one Ulysses S. Grant and once made a comment something to the effect that, "If the North ever finds out what they have in Grant we are in trouble." Lee was right.
Grant also had an uncanny ability to outthink his opponents and unnerve them with daring maneuvers. He also knew and understood Robert E. Lee. He knew "Marse Robert" was as cunning as a fox, that he would be anticipating what Grant was thinking and would be able to quickly maneuver his army to the best position on the battlefield. But Grant understood what Union generals before him did not. No matter how many times Lee whipped him, he had limited resources in men and supplies and could be bled dry. The reason he was victorious so often was that every time he defeated the Army of the Potomac the generals ordered a retreat to re-outfit, giving Lee months at a time to recuperate and rebuild his army. Once Grant engaged him, he held on like a bulldog, never letting Lee get away or have time to rest. The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and the Crater were tactical victories for the Confederates, but Grant continued to pound at Lee until he wore out Lee's army and won the war.
America today is suffering because of leadership that doesn't know its enemies. To be sure, we were much better off with George Bush as president on 9/11 than we would have been with Al Gore. Bush's rapid response against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan no doubt prevented further attacks on our soil. His extension of the war into Iraq has been questioned considerably, but he took out an Al Qaeda strong hold as well as overthrew a maniacal dictator that was a mass murderer and a threat to stability in the entire region.
There are those who call the War on Terror a misnomer. Terror is not a definable enemy they say. You can't fight a war against a generic term. It's a wasted argument. America's first international war after the Revolution was the War of 1812. What kind of an enemy was 1812? I don't think the term makes a difference. What does make a difference is the meaning of the term and the kind of people it represents. President George Bush didn't understand either.
Bush went out of his way to appease the Islamic world community by saying we are not at war with Islam. Yet, every terrorist attack on US soil or US interests around the world in the last twenty years (with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, whose attack was from within, not from without) has been made by Muslims. Bush praised Islam over and over as an honorable religion that does not promote war and atrocities, and that it was only "radical" Muslims that were guilty. It was only Al Qaeda and the Taliban that we were after. Yet most of Al Qaeda's recruits come from Saudi Arabia, Palestinian Muslims rejoiced in the streets over the 9/11 attacks, and not one Muslim nation offered the United States either an apology or its condolences for the atrocities Muslims committed against Americans that day. In fact, it is the "holy Kor-ran" (roll the R) that Obama loves to quote to Muslims around the world that teaches, yea, demands jihad against all infidels including the nation the Iranian ayatollahs have designated the "Great Satan," the United States. Islam is not, in fact, a peaceful religion, neither has it ever been.
Bush went to war with "shock and awe," leading many to believe that the US military would so decimate the enemy that the war would be over in no time. It could have been a relatively short time anyway, but just when the Taliban was on the run and troops had bin-Laden cornered, the war in Afghanistan came to a screeching halt so most of the troops could be moved to Iraq where another brilliant campaign quickly destroyed Saddam Hussein's army. But then there seemed to be a lack of resolve to carry the battle on further. While we sat the Taliban reorganized and came back, Al Qaeda fled to Pakistan and regrouped, and a suicide bomber campaign and multiple beheadings took place in Iraq. At the plea of generals for more troops Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld were unmoved and the war stagnated on both fronts. We came dangerously close to fulfilling Ted Kennedy's prediction that this would be another Vietnam quagmire.
The surge of troops into Iraq in 2007 finally rooted out Al Qaeda and most of its leaders and brought the war basically to an end, allowing the redeployment of troops to Afghanistan. Now, nine years after it started, we are still fighting that end of the war, and suicide bombers are making a comeback again in Iraq. To make matters worse, now we have a president who understands even less than Bush did about fighting to win. He is intent on pulling the troops out on a specific time schedule whether or not the battlefield is secure. You have to wonder whose side he is actually on.
That brings us back to Sun Tzu. His complete statement is not just about knowing your enemy. He wrote that you must "know your enemy and know yourself." We have a president today that nobody really seems to know. He has the left bowing at his feet claiming him to be some sort of messiah. He claims to be a Christian, but every piece of evidence from his Freudian slip of the tongue in an interview where he had to be corrected after he said, "my Muslim faith," to his covering of Christian symbols at Georgetown University before he would speak, to his bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia, to his non-participation in Christian days of prayer, to his honoring Ramadan with a banquet for Muslim leaders, and to his endorsement of the proposed Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero, leaves very little testimony of any kind of Christian belief. A recent poll found that now 24% of Americans think he is a Muslim.
With his Islamic education as a child in Indonesia, Obama never learned basic American history. He speaks of our Founding Fathers and their values, but he knows nothing about them or their values. He claims Islam had a great part in building America when it had no part. He sounds like his Muslim education was all anti-American. You can't help but wonder if his hidden agenda (his administration has been anything but transparent like he promised) is to introduce Sharia Law into America. He doesn't have the experience to be the CEO of a company or even the principal of a school, but an undiscerning public that had soured on Bush's deficits and his unending war was ready for "change." We're getting change alright.
All it took was for Obama to accuse his opponents of racism when he announced his campaign and well meaning people decided to trust him. Almost immediately after his inauguration Obama began to rule like a dictator with the appointment of unconstitutional czars and in one year tripled Bush's debt, and is well on his way to destroying the US economy. This "summer of recovery" is a total fraud. He tells the public we have to tighten our belts. He tells Republicans to put their money where their mouth is because "next year" he's going to tackle the deficit. Yeah, right! His plan? Raise taxes. The one sure thing that always slows down the economy and causes the debt to rise.
I'm reminded of the old comic strip character, Pogo, a possum that lived in the Okefenokee Swamp, who once famously said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Alexander the Great was a master at seeing the situation from his enemy's viewpoint and then developing battle plans and weapons to defeat him. His genius was his ability to outmaneuver and outfight armies that were two or three times the size of his own, and in a twelve year quest to conquer the world he never lost a battle.
Robert E. Lee was another master at evaluating his enemies. He understood the weaknesses of the Union generals that opposed him and through bold, daring attacks, even when he was vastly outnumbered, exploited his enemies' weaknesses and put them to shame. He also saw the potential in one Ulysses S. Grant and once made a comment something to the effect that, "If the North ever finds out what they have in Grant we are in trouble." Lee was right.
Grant also had an uncanny ability to outthink his opponents and unnerve them with daring maneuvers. He also knew and understood Robert E. Lee. He knew "Marse Robert" was as cunning as a fox, that he would be anticipating what Grant was thinking and would be able to quickly maneuver his army to the best position on the battlefield. But Grant understood what Union generals before him did not. No matter how many times Lee whipped him, he had limited resources in men and supplies and could be bled dry. The reason he was victorious so often was that every time he defeated the Army of the Potomac the generals ordered a retreat to re-outfit, giving Lee months at a time to recuperate and rebuild his army. Once Grant engaged him, he held on like a bulldog, never letting Lee get away or have time to rest. The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and the Crater were tactical victories for the Confederates, but Grant continued to pound at Lee until he wore out Lee's army and won the war.
America today is suffering because of leadership that doesn't know its enemies. To be sure, we were much better off with George Bush as president on 9/11 than we would have been with Al Gore. Bush's rapid response against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan no doubt prevented further attacks on our soil. His extension of the war into Iraq has been questioned considerably, but he took out an Al Qaeda strong hold as well as overthrew a maniacal dictator that was a mass murderer and a threat to stability in the entire region.
There are those who call the War on Terror a misnomer. Terror is not a definable enemy they say. You can't fight a war against a generic term. It's a wasted argument. America's first international war after the Revolution was the War of 1812. What kind of an enemy was 1812? I don't think the term makes a difference. What does make a difference is the meaning of the term and the kind of people it represents. President George Bush didn't understand either.
Bush went out of his way to appease the Islamic world community by saying we are not at war with Islam. Yet, every terrorist attack on US soil or US interests around the world in the last twenty years (with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, whose attack was from within, not from without) has been made by Muslims. Bush praised Islam over and over as an honorable religion that does not promote war and atrocities, and that it was only "radical" Muslims that were guilty. It was only Al Qaeda and the Taliban that we were after. Yet most of Al Qaeda's recruits come from Saudi Arabia, Palestinian Muslims rejoiced in the streets over the 9/11 attacks, and not one Muslim nation offered the United States either an apology or its condolences for the atrocities Muslims committed against Americans that day. In fact, it is the "holy Kor-ran" (roll the R) that Obama loves to quote to Muslims around the world that teaches, yea, demands jihad against all infidels including the nation the Iranian ayatollahs have designated the "Great Satan," the United States. Islam is not, in fact, a peaceful religion, neither has it ever been.
Bush went to war with "shock and awe," leading many to believe that the US military would so decimate the enemy that the war would be over in no time. It could have been a relatively short time anyway, but just when the Taliban was on the run and troops had bin-Laden cornered, the war in Afghanistan came to a screeching halt so most of the troops could be moved to Iraq where another brilliant campaign quickly destroyed Saddam Hussein's army. But then there seemed to be a lack of resolve to carry the battle on further. While we sat the Taliban reorganized and came back, Al Qaeda fled to Pakistan and regrouped, and a suicide bomber campaign and multiple beheadings took place in Iraq. At the plea of generals for more troops Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld were unmoved and the war stagnated on both fronts. We came dangerously close to fulfilling Ted Kennedy's prediction that this would be another Vietnam quagmire.
The surge of troops into Iraq in 2007 finally rooted out Al Qaeda and most of its leaders and brought the war basically to an end, allowing the redeployment of troops to Afghanistan. Now, nine years after it started, we are still fighting that end of the war, and suicide bombers are making a comeback again in Iraq. To make matters worse, now we have a president who understands even less than Bush did about fighting to win. He is intent on pulling the troops out on a specific time schedule whether or not the battlefield is secure. You have to wonder whose side he is actually on.
That brings us back to Sun Tzu. His complete statement is not just about knowing your enemy. He wrote that you must "know your enemy and know yourself." We have a president today that nobody really seems to know. He has the left bowing at his feet claiming him to be some sort of messiah. He claims to be a Christian, but every piece of evidence from his Freudian slip of the tongue in an interview where he had to be corrected after he said, "my Muslim faith," to his covering of Christian symbols at Georgetown University before he would speak, to his bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia, to his non-participation in Christian days of prayer, to his honoring Ramadan with a banquet for Muslim leaders, and to his endorsement of the proposed Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero, leaves very little testimony of any kind of Christian belief. A recent poll found that now 24% of Americans think he is a Muslim.
With his Islamic education as a child in Indonesia, Obama never learned basic American history. He speaks of our Founding Fathers and their values, but he knows nothing about them or their values. He claims Islam had a great part in building America when it had no part. He sounds like his Muslim education was all anti-American. You can't help but wonder if his hidden agenda (his administration has been anything but transparent like he promised) is to introduce Sharia Law into America. He doesn't have the experience to be the CEO of a company or even the principal of a school, but an undiscerning public that had soured on Bush's deficits and his unending war was ready for "change." We're getting change alright.
All it took was for Obama to accuse his opponents of racism when he announced his campaign and well meaning people decided to trust him. Almost immediately after his inauguration Obama began to rule like a dictator with the appointment of unconstitutional czars and in one year tripled Bush's debt, and is well on his way to destroying the US economy. This "summer of recovery" is a total fraud. He tells the public we have to tighten our belts. He tells Republicans to put their money where their mouth is because "next year" he's going to tackle the deficit. Yeah, right! His plan? Raise taxes. The one sure thing that always slows down the economy and causes the debt to rise.
I'm reminded of the old comic strip character, Pogo, a possum that lived in the Okefenokee Swamp, who once famously said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Monday, August 16, 2010
Freedom of Religion
When the Pilgrims set sail for the New World they left religious tyranny looking for religious freedom. Many of the other early settlers came to the American colonies for the same reason. Most of the colonial charters included statements about the Christian faith and the advancement of the Christian religion. Yet most of the colonies set up state religions of their own, and were often just as guilty of religious tyranny as was the King of England. It was the smallest colony, Rhode Island, settled by Baptists, that gave the world its first constitution guaranteeing religious freedom for all faiths.
It was these influences and the Baptist example in Rhode Island that led the Founding Fathers to include Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Keep in mind that the Rhode Island colonists only had in mind the various branches of the Christian faith. The Founders could never have anticipated the diversity of religions we have in America today, yet the example they gave us of religious tolerance has opened its arms to allow every form of religion known in the world in our time. And rightfully so. People are not free if they are not free to choose which religion to belong to, or to reject religion altogether.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is interesting to note that before they guaranteed the freedom of speech and assembly, and the right to address Congress, the Founders thought it necessary to first guarantee freedom of religion. They were as much concerned, if not more, with spiritual freedom as they were with physical freedom. Free speech means nothing if it does not include religious speech. This as much as anything gives testimony to the purpose of the first colonists. They were on a quest for religious liberty.
With the history of Anglican England, Catholic Southern Europe and Protestant Northern Europe behind them, it is easy to understand that many people in the early days of the Republic were uncertain just how far the freedom of religion may have extended. In 1801 the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, was concerned that certain of President Jefferson's policies might be leading to the establishment of a State religion. In his January 1, 1802 reply Jefferson quotes the Establishment Clause and adds, "thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." He closed his letter by writing, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man. . . ."
It is obvious from the content that Jefferson was not advocating Christians staying out of government, nor removing Church influence from public life. This was well understood for 145 years until the Felix Frankfurter Supreme Court turned the phrase, "separation of church and state," on its head to mean exactly the opposite of what Jefferson had intended. For the last fifty years liberal controlled Congresses with the support of left-wing, progressive courts and anti-Christian organizations such as the ACLU, have put up regulation after regulation limiting the ability of churches to carry out their mission, and have harassed those trying to uphold biblical values in the government.
"Separation of Church and State" has become the liberal battle cry in a war to deny religious freedom to Christians. The Constitution does not allow Christians to bring their Christian values into government, they say. Nativity scenes must not be displayed on government property. The Ten Commandments must not be taught in public schools or even be put up in court rooms. Christian children cannot pray in schools. Christian college students are not allowed to hold Christian beliefs if they want to pursue certain degrees. Presidential candidates should not speak at Bible colleges such as Bob Jones University. A president or a congressman cannot exercise free speech if it has the appearance of endorsing any particular religion.
How ironic it is, that the freedom the Founding Fathers guaranteed to adherents of the Christian religion is now being denied to Christians, while the freedom to practice non-Christian religions, a guarantee given by Christians, is undisturbed. How hypocritical that those same people who have been using the separation of church and state argument to deny Christian involvement in government are now saying, "freedom of religion," to endorse a 13-story Muslim mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City. George Bush was excoriated for speaking at Bob Jones, even though he gave them no endorsement, but President Obama endorses a mosque and faces no criticism from the main stream media, Congress, or the ACLU. And it doesn't stop there. The founder of the mosque, Imam Rauf, who blames the United States for 9/11 and refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, is on an all expense paid junket through the Middle East to promote "good will." Expenses paid, by the way, by the US State Department.
Where is the outcry for Separation of Church and State now? What is good for a Christian president ought to be good for a Muslim president.
The fallacy of the liberal argument is that the Constitution says nothing about "Separation of Church and State." What it does say is "Freedom of Religion." It says that the government has no power to establish or restrict the practice of religion. Thanks to the Christian Founders who gave us this liberty, all religions benefit from it. It is time the government get off the back of Christians, stop trying to restrict Christian practice, and give the freedom of religion back to the religion that gave us this freedom in the first place.
It was these influences and the Baptist example in Rhode Island that led the Founding Fathers to include Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Keep in mind that the Rhode Island colonists only had in mind the various branches of the Christian faith. The Founders could never have anticipated the diversity of religions we have in America today, yet the example they gave us of religious tolerance has opened its arms to allow every form of religion known in the world in our time. And rightfully so. People are not free if they are not free to choose which religion to belong to, or to reject religion altogether.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is interesting to note that before they guaranteed the freedom of speech and assembly, and the right to address Congress, the Founders thought it necessary to first guarantee freedom of religion. They were as much concerned, if not more, with spiritual freedom as they were with physical freedom. Free speech means nothing if it does not include religious speech. This as much as anything gives testimony to the purpose of the first colonists. They were on a quest for religious liberty.
With the history of Anglican England, Catholic Southern Europe and Protestant Northern Europe behind them, it is easy to understand that many people in the early days of the Republic were uncertain just how far the freedom of religion may have extended. In 1801 the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, was concerned that certain of President Jefferson's policies might be leading to the establishment of a State religion. In his January 1, 1802 reply Jefferson quotes the Establishment Clause and adds, "thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." He closed his letter by writing, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man. . . ."
It is obvious from the content that Jefferson was not advocating Christians staying out of government, nor removing Church influence from public life. This was well understood for 145 years until the Felix Frankfurter Supreme Court turned the phrase, "separation of church and state," on its head to mean exactly the opposite of what Jefferson had intended. For the last fifty years liberal controlled Congresses with the support of left-wing, progressive courts and anti-Christian organizations such as the ACLU, have put up regulation after regulation limiting the ability of churches to carry out their mission, and have harassed those trying to uphold biblical values in the government.
"Separation of Church and State" has become the liberal battle cry in a war to deny religious freedom to Christians. The Constitution does not allow Christians to bring their Christian values into government, they say. Nativity scenes must not be displayed on government property. The Ten Commandments must not be taught in public schools or even be put up in court rooms. Christian children cannot pray in schools. Christian college students are not allowed to hold Christian beliefs if they want to pursue certain degrees. Presidential candidates should not speak at Bible colleges such as Bob Jones University. A president or a congressman cannot exercise free speech if it has the appearance of endorsing any particular religion.
How ironic it is, that the freedom the Founding Fathers guaranteed to adherents of the Christian religion is now being denied to Christians, while the freedom to practice non-Christian religions, a guarantee given by Christians, is undisturbed. How hypocritical that those same people who have been using the separation of church and state argument to deny Christian involvement in government are now saying, "freedom of religion," to endorse a 13-story Muslim mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City. George Bush was excoriated for speaking at Bob Jones, even though he gave them no endorsement, but President Obama endorses a mosque and faces no criticism from the main stream media, Congress, or the ACLU. And it doesn't stop there. The founder of the mosque, Imam Rauf, who blames the United States for 9/11 and refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, is on an all expense paid junket through the Middle East to promote "good will." Expenses paid, by the way, by the US State Department.
Where is the outcry for Separation of Church and State now? What is good for a Christian president ought to be good for a Muslim president.
The fallacy of the liberal argument is that the Constitution says nothing about "Separation of Church and State." What it does say is "Freedom of Religion." It says that the government has no power to establish or restrict the practice of religion. Thanks to the Christian Founders who gave us this liberty, all religions benefit from it. It is time the government get off the back of Christians, stop trying to restrict Christian practice, and give the freedom of religion back to the religion that gave us this freedom in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)