Friday, April 30, 2010

Sarah Palin Joins Immigration Debate

Sarah Palin weighs in on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signing the Arizona Law giving greater authority to State and local authorities to apprehend illegal aliens.

Sean Hannity begins by pointing the out the Arizona law duplicates Federal Law and strengthens the Federal version by incorporating State resources to apprehend illegal aliens. Then Palin explains that the Arizona law does not subvert the U.S. Constitution according to the 10th Amendment. Hence the protesting in the streets are the result of the irresponsible MSM promoting racial profiling and racism is inciting Mexican Americans to rove in anger in street protests. Could it be some of these Mexican Americans are actually Mexican illegal aliens? Hmmm…

JRH 4/30/10 (Hat Tip: RealClearPolitics)

My Thoughts on Voight’s Open Letter to America

John R. Houk
© April 30, 2010

On April 11, 2010 actor Jon Voight appeared on the FOX News Channel’s named after its host - Huckabee. A YouTube post captured Voight reading an open letter to the American people.

The essence of the letter is a powerful message that I am certain the Left and the Obama Administration would find appalling. Essentially the letter was a portrait of Obama’s Alinsky Socialist/Marxist training. This training was to utilize aggressive grassroots community organizing to terminate America’s Capitalistic paradigm by transforming America into an Alinsky version of a Socialist/Marxist society.

The open letter insinuates Obama’s agenda is to gut the Founding Fathers’ American Revolutionary experiment in personal Liberty and replace it with a diluted America that internationally ceases to be a Super Power and nationally embrace the European vision of a Socialistic-Democracy based on a multicultural egalitarian diversity. My thinking is this means Liberty and Freedom becomes State Managed forcing a State definition of what is an incitement to violence which could harm the common good. Thus the common good becomes an excuse to stifle Free Speech and hinder a cultural heritage that might threaten the State’s version of maintaining a peaceful coexistence.

This would be an existence in which citizens could be liable to criminal prosecution for thoughts, speech, religion or creeds that the State defines as a threat to diverse multiculturalism and the peaceful coexistence of the common good.

In humble opinion Voight’s open letter to the American people is a warning that Obama’s “Change” is a cultural transformation in which the State is ordained by the people to a State which the people are managed by the State.

Certainly my Slanted Right vision might be extrapolating more than what Jon Voight was attempting to get across; nonetheless this is the agenda I believe President Barack Hussein Obama intends for a “Changed” America.

JRH 4/30/10 (Hat Tip: Resist Net)

Thursday, April 29, 2010

South Park, Free Speech and Islam

John R. Houk
© April 29, 2010

I am all about Free Speech. And therefore I find it abhorrent the amount of bowing that occurs in the West and increasingly in the United States of America to the intolerance of Islam. The primary reason for this bowing in dhimmitude to Islam is Muslims might will be offended at any depictions or criticism of Mohammed and Allah.

I am NO fan of the cartoon South Park. South Park goes out of its way to be offensive; indeed I might say that South Park is an equal opportunity offender. Comedy Central censored South Park because one of their episodes depicted Mohammed in an unflattering way. In fact I am certain any depiction of Mohammed (I have not actually seen any of the clips) on South Park was meant to be offensive. That is the genre of the comedy from Matt Stone and Trey Parker has found a market for.

It has almost become cliché when pro-Free Speech Conservatives mention that no Muslims are rallying to support Christians who are abhorred by what someone calls art in the notorious Piss Christ depiction. I actually heard a liberal apologist claim that the Piss Christ depiction is cool under Free Speech because Christians will not pour into the streets to bust a few irreverent Leftists and modern artists in the head for such abhorrence. You know what? The last Super Power nation which has a Christian majority - as opposed to other religions and atheists - believes in Liberty even if the Liberty is offensive. Certainly a Muslim minority can step up to the plate and utilize Free Speech to denounce South Park style irreverence rather step up to threaten violence and murder because they were offended in America? Also businesses and corporations should not have to worry about the threats in order to secure the American tradition of Free Speech.

With my presentation of two-cent thoughts on Free Speech, let me introduce Robert Spencer’s imminently eloquent thoughts on Free Speech.

JRH 4/29/10

The Last Question We Ever Ask?

Norma Zager has some thoughts on Western (including if not particularly America) complacence toward despotic systems that propagandize freer-democratic institutions of the West to accept evil ideologies as good.

There is little specificity of who or what the evil ideology is; however what comes to mind as possible culprits is Islamofascism and/or the Obama agenda.

Zager uses a handful of German students who called themselves the White Rose Society that managed to print six pamphlets condemning Adolf Hitler and the German Nazi Movement. The White Rose Society began to meet its demise in early 1943 with the execution of the three members of the White Rose.

JRH 4/29/10

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

PA-12: Critz vs. Burns

John R. Houk
© April 28, 2010

Marine veteran yet the enemy of Marines, Jack Murtha passed away before his public life could be nailed as a corrupt politician in Congress. Now an ex-aid to Murtha has been chosen by the Dems to take Murtha’s Congressional District in Pennsylvania. The Special Election is slated to take place May 18 which will be followed by another election race in November 2010.

The GOP has selected Tim Burns to run against the pre-May 18 favorite Democrat Mark Critz. The surprise is that Burns is running strong in the polls against the Dem Critz.

Here is the Dem hypocrisy. Critz is marketing himself as a pro-gun anti-Obamacare Conservative candidate yet the truth is he supported the same anti-troop and pork barrel junk that the deceased Murtha supported. Critz is getting big money from the Dem Party including über-Leftists like Nancy Pelosi and VP Biden’s fund raising skills.

Burns is running as the authentic Conservative receiving less dough from the GOP. Burns needs the financial support of Conservatives who are also outside of Pennsylvania Congressional District 12. After all Critz is receiving such support on the national basis to keep the GOP from whittling down the Dem majority in the House.

Below is the Newt Gingrich endorsement sent out by Human Events.

JRH 4/28/10

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Rep. Andre Carson Walks Down the steps of Cannon

What?! Democrats and Leftists lie to sway public opinion? Could this be true in America? You're darn toot'in partner. Lying propaganda is the primary tool of the Left to attempt to get popular support.

JRH 4/27/10

A Pattern of Leftist Human Rights Hypocrisy

John R. Houk
© April 27, 2010

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) former Chairman Parvez Ahmed is still being pushed by the MSM to have a seat on Jacksonville, FL Human Rights Commission. As asserted on a previous post on this situation MSM media support for Ahmed’s seat on the Jacksonville HRC is ludicrous because of Ahmed’s past connection to radical Islam.

It’s kind of like ignoring President Barack Hussein Obama’s past Communist roots and associations – Examples HERE and HERE. Oops! That’s right; the MSM whitewashed that connection as well.

It’s kind of like depending on the U.N. to place pressure on repressive nations’ human rights record while allowing repressive nations membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council – HERE and HERE. Darn! That’s happening too.

Let’s see, maybe it’s like Mexican drug lords and illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican/American border while Left Wing Americans are more concerned about the illegal foreigner’s civil rights than the security and civil rights of American citizens. Son of gun! That happens all the time also.

Hmm … It’s like America recognizing that Arabs that call themselves Palestinians are a people that have had a history of nationhood as well as believing this pseudo-history makes so-called Palestinians an oppressed people at the hands of Israel. O yeah, America does that too. American Presidential Administrations have jumped on the European bandwagon that would force Israel into a status of threatened existence by granting nationhood to a people on Israel’s historical Land and to a people who desires the utter extermination of Jews and Israel.

Okay. It’s unfortunate that a Jew/Israel hating Islamic terrorist supporting person like Parvez Ahmed should gain a seat on the Jacksonville HRC. It would fit the pattern of Left Wing thinking as pushed by the MSM.

JRH 4/27/10
The two-pronged threat to America

Sent By: ACT for America
Sent: Apr 26, 2010 at 12:16 PM

This past weekend, the Florida Times-Union newspaper ran another story about the controversy surrounding the nomination of former CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) National Chairman Parvez Ahmed to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

In the article, the reporter wrote “The controversy centers on Ahmed’s ties to CAIR, which detractors claim has been linked to Hamas… Supporters of CAIR say the claims are unfounded.”

Note the use of the word “CLAIM.” In other words, according to the reporter, “detractors” are “claiming” that CAIR is tied to Hamas.

But this is not a “claim.” The Justice Department has laid out the case that CAIR is both linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and is a Hamas front group in America.

[Paul Sperry, co-author of Muslim Mafia, will be a featured speaker at our National Conference and Legislative Briefing. For more information or to register, click here]

Guy Rodgers, ACT! for America Executive Director, discussed this Justice Department information extensively with the reporter, and provided her substantiating documents.

“Her bias was evident when, in one question, she referred to my ‘core belief’ that CAIR is a front group for Hamas,” Rodgers says. “I immediately objected to her bias and reminded her that this is not my ‘belief,’ but this is a fact that has been established by the Justice Department, which is why the FBI severed its working relationship with CAIR. So what the reporter ended up writing was not due to ignorance.”

The enabling of the Islamist agenda is taking place in the media, in government, in academia, and even within the defense, national security and law enforcement communities.

As reported recently by Steven Emerson, the Obama administration has placed a very controversial figure, Dalia Mogahed, in a key position shaping the White House Mideast message.

The core mission of ACT! for America has always been combating the threat of radical Islam and the political correctness that aids and abets it.

Whether that enabling is due to naivete, ignorance, bias, ideology, or willful blindness, the consequence is the same—the threat of radical Islam is increased.

Many more Americans need to awaken to this reality—and one way to do so is to join us at the National Conference and Legislative Briefing in June. Register at the “Patriot” level by this Friday and receive an added benefit at no additional charge—a private breakfast reception with Brigitte Gabriel.

A Pattern of Leftist Human Rights Hypocrisy
John R. Houk
© April 27, 2010
The two-pronged threat to America
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Monday, April 26, 2010

ENDA, Homosexuality and U.S. Military

John R. Houk
© April 26, 2010

Since most of America is spoon fed pro-homosexual slanted news from the MSM I thought it valuable for to read a perspective on homosexual activism that presents a reality that Americans should become aware of.

First will be a Liberty Council e-newsletter which will be followed by a clearer picture of overtly homosexual Lt. Dan Choi. Part of the homosexual agenda is to force the U.S. Military to accept immoral homosexuality into the discipline of the military band of brothers and sisters.

As to Choi, it is unbelievable that the military chain of command does not discharge this man for breaking the law and regulations of homosexuality in Military Service.


JRH 4/26/10

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Homosexual War on Christianity Marches On

John R. Houk
© April 25, 2010

Homosexual activism and Secular Humanist activism has worked hard over the last half-century or so to marginalize Christianity for society acceptance of the immoral alternate lifestyle of Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender (LGBT). The agenda has been so successful that homosexual hate laws have been passed specifying as hate crimes acts that are already criminalized under the rule of law. And now there is pending legislation Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA – H.R. 3017) that elevates LGBT immorality to a legal status which would force people who believe homosexuality is indeed immoral to be forced to employ them or accept them as equals to race, religion, creed and gender.

The scenario most used by Christians is Churches and Ministries could be forced into a situation of extending equal employment opportunities to LGBT alternate lifestyle individuals. Here is a situation in which Julea Ward participating in an academic Master’s program at Eastern Michigan University was expelled from a counseling program for refusing to argue in favor of the homosexual lifestyle.

This is the future of Christianity UNLESS Christians begin to take a moral stand in the face of the MSM and Hollywood claiming an anti-homosexual agenda is hate and bigotry. That is a lot of public arm twisting to elevate unnatural homosexuality to a status of normalcy.

JRH 4/25/10
Lawmakers want university explanation for expulsion of Christian
Plan demands accountability over honoring students' beliefs

By Bob Unruh
Posted: April 24, 2010 10:35 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Lawmakers in Michigan are preparing to call on the carpet leaders of taxpayer-supported universities across the state after top officials at Eastern Michigan University expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.

As WND reported, trouble began for master's-program student Julea Ward when she refused to accept a client whose issue concerned a homosexual relationship.

The school expelled her from the counseling program March 12, 2009, for refusing to abrogate her own personal religious beliefs and support the homosexual lifestyle.

Since then, Ward has brought a lawsuit through the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.

Now members of the Michigan Senate have approved legislation that includes a provision calling on university counseling programs to evaluate and affirm how they can accommodate the religious beliefs of students.

"Sec. 486. It is the intent of the legislature that each public university shall submit a report to the house and senate appropriations committees by October 15, 2010, on the university's efforts to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of students enrolled in counseling degree programs at the university," says the provision, added to pending legislation and approved by the state Senate.

State Rep. Tom McMillin told WND the case was "extremely alarming," and there was growing support for an effort to penalize universities that don't accomodate religious beliefs.

"This is a state-taxpayer-supported university," he said. "She's got a court case. Hopefully that will be resolved."

He said an effort to cut funding by 5 percent failed only because of federal mandates about education funding. But he said Senate members agreed with the demand for an accounting of how students' beliefs are accommodated.

The plan has been adopted by the Senate and now moves to the House, where McMillin said he believes there is concern over the issue.

Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan said there is a valid point to the legislation since, among other things, taxpayers would be on the hook for damages should those be determined in Ward's case.
She has described her case in her own words:

Glenn's organization reported that Ward, a Southfield public-school teacher, was seeking her graduate degree in counseling. She was assigned to an individual who wanted help with his homosexual relationship.

Ward told her supervisor – before there was a meeting with the client – that because of her beliefs, she could not counsel in affirmation of the homosexual relationship but could work with any other issue that arose.

The AFA of Michigan reported she followed her supervisor's instructions to refer the man to another counselor. But she immediately was investigated by an academic committee and later expelled, even though she had a 3.91 GPA and was only months away from graduation.

Ward had explained in detail to school officials she was not discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation.

"I told Dr. Callaway and restated in the informal hearing, that I would counsel individuals engaged in homosexual behavior regarding any issue unrelated to that behavior. The only thing I am unwilling to do is validate or affirm homosexual behavior, due to my religious beliefs," she told a school committee investigating her.

She continued, "The Bible teaches that God ordained sexual relationships between men and women and not between persons of the same sex. … While people may struggle with homosexual inclinations and behavior, I believe (and the Bible teaches) that people should strive to cultivate sexual desires for persons of the opposite sex. I am morally obligated to adhere to these fundamental teachings of the Christian faith. ... It would be a violation of my religious beliefs to be required to affirm or validate homosexual conduct."

Irene Ametrano, one of Eastern's counseling-faculty members, tried to poke holes in Ward's beliefs, saying, "Homosexuality, I think it's pretty well established is not a choice, but you see it as a choice."

And Perry Francis, another counseling-faculty member, joined in, demanding from to know from Ward whether anyone is "more righteous than another before God."

Gary Marx, another professor, implied she should not be a counselor.

"I guess what I am trying to figure is how someone with such strong religious beliefs would enter a profession that would cause you to go against those beliefs," he said.

"The arrogance, disdain, and intolerance with which Eastern Michigan academics treated Julea Ward should be punished and prevented from happening on any other campus, but unfortunately, it'll be Michigan taxpayers who are left holding the bag for the legal liability and possible financial damages that result from EMU's egregious violation of her civil rights," Glenn wrote in a statement.

"The Legislature should act to take taxpayers off the hook and make university employees who violate students' civil rights individually responsible for their own legal defense," Glenn said, "specifically by prohibiting the use of state tax dollars to pay attorney's fees and damages for employees found by a court of law to have violated such rights."

According to a column posted by David French of the Alliance Defense Fund, the lawsuit is over the fact that Eastern expelled Ward "not because she harmed anyone but simply because she was unwilling to express support for things she did not believe."

The most recent court ruling in the case allowed it to move forward, rejecting claims from the university that the case should be dismissed because of "qualified immunity."

Instead, the court ruled, "Ward has sufficiently plead and come forward with evidence that the EMU defendants' act of dismissing Ward violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights so clearly established that a reasonable official in their position would have clearly understood that they were under an affirmative duty to refrain from such conduct."

Wrote French, "To be clear, this does not mean that the individual defendants in the case are personally liable, merely that they may be held liable later in the case. But this is still quite significant. It sends an unmistakable signal to university administrators that they do not have a free hand in dealing with students, that students' First Amendment rights are 'clearly established,' and there can be much more at stake in any given case than injunctive relief (which is significant, but has no personal impact on university officials)."

School officials have told WND they don't comment on pending litigation.

The judge said there are "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably followed professional ethical guidelines.

Homosexual War on Christianity Marches On
John R. Houk
© April 25, 2010
Lawmakers want university explanation for expulsion of Christian
Bob Unruh is a news editor for
Copyright 1997-2010 All Rights Reserved. Inc

Robert Anthony Crusade/Another Way

Conservative Rock-n-Roll tribute to the Tea Party Movement.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Palin Defends Graham: Islam is Evil

John R. Houk
© April 24, 2010

Sarah Palin steps up to defend Franklin Graham. I was going to her Facebook page to get the direct quote, but as of this writing Facebook seems to be down. So here is Governor Palin wrote in defense of Graham from Politico’s Ben Smith:

"Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. Yes, thing have changed."

Greg Sargent of Who Runs Gov’s blog The Plum Line writes that Palin also said (and he paraphrased), “Graham’s remarks were directed only at radical and violent Jihadists”. Sargent then provides these quoted Palin words (I assume from the Facebook page):

His comments in 2001 were aimed at those who are so radical that they would kill innocent people and subjugate women in the name of religion. Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame.

From this Palin quote Sargent asserts she is mistaken in believing Graham’s Islam is evil words were only directed toward radical Islam:

Actually, no, his comments weren’t aimed only at those radical enough to kill and subjugate women. They were directed at all of Islam.

Then Sargent paraphrases a Palin comment which I assume is related to the revelation that Graham actually meant all Islam:

That’s news, and I hope it’s widely reported, with Graham’s full quote included in every media account.

Since I am uncertain on Greg Sargent’s views on former Governor Palin, I was having a difficult time deciding if he was criticizing her intelligence or reporting about her support of Graham’s statement about Islam is revealing as to what kind of person Palin is.

Here are my thoughts of Palin’s defense of Graham. First of all Graham is correct! Islam as a theopolitical ideology as directed by its prophet is evil. On the other hand Palin is probably quite aware that a majority Muslims do not follow the purist path of Islam which versions of radical Islam are trying to reform to bring back the Prophet’s Seventh century thinking back to the 21st century. Hmm … That would be a kind of an Islamic Back to the Future thing, would it not?

Although not a single Muslim will dare to expose Mohammed as a heinous wicked man who inspired one of the world’s greatest conquering forces to be maintained by a theopolitical ideology that included conversion by force, humiliation or death for non-converts, pillaging for wealth advancement and the exploitation of women for illicit sexual pleasures (either rape or sex slavery) as well as pedophilia. At best Mohammed was a true spiritual man of inner peace who became deranged by persecution that caused him to flee Mecca followed closely by the rejection of his Prophethood by Jews and Christians.

Palin’s awareness of the Muslim majority quiet attempts to distance themselves from their purist reformers undoubtedly led her to believe Graham’s Islamic denunciation was toward the Islamic purists. When approached about Graham’s wider net of thoughts of Islam, her thoughts were also undoubtedly a, “Who am I to correct the man of God?”

Palin’s public concerns are political and not theological. Last I heard Sarah Palin is of the Pentecostal persuasion which the Left for some reason likes to vilify. Since I am also of the Pentecostal (and Charismatic) persuasion I thus would guess Palin’s personal view is that Islam is inimical toward Christianity hence the so-called religion of peace could enter the realm of evil spiritually. Politically I doubt Palin would ever attach herself to a potential personal concern about Islam. The Left would twist personal thoughts of an evil Islam into a character assassination. Ask Franklin Graham.

Here is an example of an off the target remark:

Imagine if a leading American imam decried Christianity as an "evil" religion and then was invited to participate at a National Day of Prayer event at the Pentagon. How would conservative pundits, shouting heads, bloggers and politicians react?

This is the opening salvo of a David Corn article on Politics Daily.

Corn’s article and many similar denunciations of Graham and Palin in the belief that Islam is evil should be aware that the Saudi government provides literature support to most Mosques in America. A 95 page PDF article entitled, “SAUDI PUBLICATIONS ON HATE IDEOLOGY INVADE AMERICAN MOSQUES” demonstrates the venom of Muslim Clerics and Imams in America. Here is just a small sample of a large compendium of examples:

The prominent Saudi religious leader Sheik al-‘Athimein, in a fatwa found distributed in several cities in the United States [Document No. 52], refers to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, another fanatic medieval source and disciple of Ibn Taymiya. Using these rulings, the Saudi embassy instructs Muslims not to congratulate Christians at Christmas time, by for example uttering the words “Happy Holiday.” In fact, this abominable activity is “a practice more loathsome to God…than imbibing liquor, or murder, or fornication.” This implies that a Muslim wishing a Christian “Happy Holidays” on Christmas is an apostate and should be put to death. If Christians, continues the Saudi embassy source, greet Muslims on the occasion of Christian holy days, Muslims are to remain silent since all such festivities are either fabrications abhorrent to God, or have been superceded by the coming of Islam. No holiday banquets, no exchange of gifts, and none of the traditions of Western culture are permitted to Muslims living among unbelievers according to the Saudi publications. Such behavior on the part of Muslims has the added danger of instilling greater self-confidence in the hearts of the infidels and making them proud of their false religion [Document No. 52].

The apparent intent of the Saudi embassy document is to frighten Muslims in America into living lives aloof and alienated from the rest of society. Again the implication is that common politeness shown by the Muslim to a non-Muslim could be tantamount to infidelity or apostasy and deserve death.

Wake-up Mr. David Corn: Islam in America is not pleased with Christianity in America.

UPDATE: At the end of this writing Facebook finally came up or at least I was able to access it. Here is Sarah Palin’s exact Facebook wording:

My, have things changed. I was honored to have Rev. Franklin Graham speak at my Governor’s Prayer Breakfasts. His good work in Alaska’s Native villages and his charitable efforts all over the world stem from his servant’s heart. In my years of knowing him, I’ve never found his tempered and biblically-based comments to be offensive – in fact his words have been encouraging and full of real hope.

It’s truly a sad day when such a fine patriotic man, whose son is serving on his fourth deployment in Afghanistan to protect our freedom of speech and religion, is dis-invited from speaking at the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service. His comments in 2001 were aimed at those who are so radical that they would kill innocent people and subjugate women in the name of religion.

Are we really so hyper-politically correct that we can’t abide a Christian minister who expresses his views on matters of faith? What a shame. Yes, things have changed.

- Sarah Palin

JRH 4/24/10

Friday, April 23, 2010

Graham Correct – CAIR Wrong

John R. Houk
© April 23, 2010

Unindicted co-conspirator Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) influences Pentagon to rescind Franklin Graham’s invitation as lead speaker for National Day of Prayer military event.

CAIR’s national Executive Director Niwad Awad said this:

Promoting one's own religious beliefs is something to be defended and encouraged, but other faiths should not be attacked or misrepresented in the process.”

Awad also is quoted as saying Graham’s invitation by the Pentagon would have sent “entirely the wrong message” at a time troops are in Muslim nations.

I wonder what message the Pentagon is sending troops in Muslim nations fighting Islamic terrorists when they find out CAIR has connections to the virulent terrorist organization Hamas? Do you think the troops might be upset a Christian minister was uninvited because he believes Islam is evil and that CAIR was cause of the rescension?

What message is the Pentagon sending to American citizens of whom a huge majority consider themselves Christians (ranging from devout to nominal) think when an Islamic terrorist supporting organization like CAIR nefariously supports the Hamas cause to kill all Jews and obliterate Israel’s existence?

From an Islamic perspective is Christianity evil?

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliyâ' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliyâ', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong¬doers and unjust). (Al-Mâ'idah 5:51)

The Summary portion to the PDF Paper “The Islamic View of Christians: Qur’an and Hadith”:

Quran and Islamic Tradition present a multi-faceted picture of Christians, Christianity and the Christian revelation. Initially, at the start of Muhammad’s mission in AD 610, acceptance rather then rejection characterised Muslim attitudes towards Christianity. Christians are viewed as “People of the Book” (ahl al-kitab), commended for their religious devotion (Sura 5:82), and approved of for their faith in one God and creator. This apparent acceptance is closely linked with the hope which Muhammad cherished earlier, that Jews and Christians would believe in his divine mission. Only after he learned that both Jews and Christians rejected his claim to prophethood, with Christians holding on to the Trinity of God, Jesus’ sonship and his crucifixion, did Muhammad withdraw his earlier support. Thereafter he reasoned that they had deviated from their original revelation and fallen into grave error (2:116; 5:72-73; 4:157-158). This subsequent period is marked by an increase of Quranic utterances, which clearly distance and separate Islam from Christianity, warn Muslims against having close links with Christians, and even condemn them for their disbelief (98:6).

In spite of the sympathies Muslims have for the ‘People of the Book’ and their faith, the dominant voices of Islamic scholarship suggest distancing, disapproval and denial. This is even more fuelled by cultural and moral issues. Devout Muslims who may be members of a Muslim organisation or even be politically active may have more negative feelings towards Christians and distance themselves from Christians or even tell them openly their dislike. …

The answer to the question on the Islamic perspective of the evilness of Christianity is yes. To Islam (I guess not necessarily Muslims) Christianity is evil.

Does Christianity consider Islam evil?

5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:5-7 NKJV)

30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20: 30-31 NKJV)

18 For[a] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add[b] to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[c] his part from the Book[d] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev. 22:18-19 NKJV)

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.[b] 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
(1 John 2:18-23 NKJV)

Biblically, Islam is an evil abomination infested with an anti-Christ spirit.

Actual violent and abominable acts in Church history have been perpetrated on Muslims and perceived Christian heretics by those believing they were acting in the name of Christianity. Regardless of the historical facts, was the violence in line with Jesus Christ and the New Testament Scripture? NO!

The only violence condoned in Scriptures is the wars of defense and law enforcement for the sake of living a peaceable life.

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, (1 Tim. 2:1-6 NKJV)

11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, 12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.
13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
(1 Pet. 2:11-17 NKJV)

The central tenet of Christian Scripture ergo True Christianity:

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matt. 22:36-40 NKJV)

Acts of violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity were committed contrary to the spirit of Christianity. The two Apostles John and James sons of Zebedee asked Jesus if they should call for fire from the Heavens to strike some Samaritans who insulted Jesus.

51 Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, 52 and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”[a]
55 But He turned and rebuked them,[b] and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”[c] And they went to another village.
(Luke 9:51-56 NKJV)

Now contrast this true spirit of Christianity and the true spirit of Islam and one can only the draw the conclusion that Franklin Graham’s position that “Islam is evil” is more accurate than not. The contrast also demonstrates that the rescinding of Franklin Graham as the primary speaker at an event for the military on the National Day of Prayer is an insult to the majority of Christians residing in America.

JRH 4/23/10 (Hat Tip: Newsmax)

Thursday, April 22, 2010


Ben’s Blog has produced yet another post to give us non-Muslims an understanding of Islam as progenerated in the 20th and 21st century by Muslim theo-ideologues. Ben focuses on Syed Abul A'ala Maududi. Apparently Maududi is one of the 20th century theopolitical philosophers that have a huge influence on present day Islam as promoted by such salafist offshoots like the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabis.

Prepare to enlighten your perception of Islam.

JRH 4/22/10

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Ari Bussel: Stand and Speak Out

A movie was made a couple of years ago entitled, The Stoning of Soraya M. The film is based on the true story of an Iranian Shi’ite Muslim wife and mother accused of infidelity by her husband in order to divorce her to marry a younger model – a nubile 14 year old girl.

Here is an Ed Morrissey pre-release review from Hot Air in 2008:

    The Stoning of Soraya M has not yet hit theaters, but believe me, this is one film that will not appear quietly and disappear without notice. I attended a pre-release screening last night, and it reminded me of all the reasons I love film as an art form and as a medium of communication. When it finally makes it to the theaters, people should line up to see this powerful, dramatic, and disturbing representation of a true story.

    The film comes from a book of the same name, written by French-Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam, about the stoning execution of a young wife and mother for the crime of infidelity. Sahebjam discovers this story by accident and had to wait until he gets out of Iran to tell it. The regime in Tehran officially denies that any such executions take place, but at least one videotape of a stoning has been smuggled out of Iran, and many more people have testified to their occurrence.

    Soraya’s husband Ali has tired of Soraya after having four children with her, and wants to marry the 14-year-old daughter of one of his prisoners. He can’t afford two wives, so he demands a divorce from Soraya, who refuses for economic reasons. Instead, Ali conspires with the local mullah — a fraud who has to keep Ali from exposing him — to frame Soraya for infidelity. The “evidence” is laughably transparent, but as Soraya notes in the film, “voices of women do not matter here”.

    Her aunt Zahra, played by Shohreh Aghdashloo, provides the central voice for the film. It’s mostly told in flashback as she explains what happened to the journalist who only came to town because his car broke down. Aghdashloo provides the voice of conscience and reason in a town gone mad, a village where Soraya’s own father calls her an unprintable name and where her sons join in the stoning. Even with most of the film in subtitles, it is easy to follow and heartbreaking and enraging to watch.

    The performances are universally excellent. Aghdashloo, an Iranian ex-patriate herself, brings Zahra and her defiance and despair to life. Mozhan Marno portrays Soraya beautifully, especially in the execution scene. Jim Caveziel plays the journalist, and while he doesn’t get much screen time, he does well with what he has. Navid Negahban provides a malevolent presence as Ali, while David Diaan’s Ebrahim winds up being perhaps the worst of the villains — a good man who refuses to stop an injustice he knows to be happening.

    After the film, Aghdashloo and producer Stephen McEveety spoke for a while about their experiences making the film. Ms. Aghdashloo was tremendously open and honest about her own experiences, speaking of her flight from Iran and her efforts to get her family out, and her thoughts on the current regime and their barbaric treatment of women. I introduced myself to McEveety, …

Outrageous stuff from the Religion of Peace, don’t you agree?

You need to know this background to understand the outrage of Ari Bussel after attending a recent showing of this film to a predominantly Muslim audience. The movie apparently greeted the mostly American Muslim audience but not in the way Bussel thought it would go.

Read the self-indulgent blindness of Muslims who refuse to believe a Muslim woman can be so easily defamed and stoned to death for a fabricated adultery.

JRH 4/21/10

Mark Levin Endorses Sharron Angle - Conservative Republican

The Tea Party Express is the primary info conduit I use for information about the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party Express is invested in bringing down the current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a Democrat from Nevada. In doing so the Tea Party Express provides information about a Republic candidate Sharron Angle (MSM report designed to disturb Center-Independent voters).

I know there are other Republican candidates that will vie for the Republican nomination which will be decided in Nevada’s primary. I have no idea about those candidates’ qualifications; however Angle’s credentials appear impressive at this time.

JRH 4/21/10

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

The Source of Anti-Government Revealed – Barack Hussein Obama

Gribbit from Ohio expresses his displeasure with the President Barack Hussein Obama socialist transformation of America. After Gribbit’s venom is spiked toward BHO he aptly provides relevant statistics comparing the popularity of the Obama Administration with the GW Bush Administration.

Unfortunately the convenience of cross posting Gribbit’s is forbidden due to anti-copy and paste software on his sight. So go to Gribbit’s article to share his feelings: The Source of Anti-Government Revealed – Barack Hussein Obama.

JRH 4/20/10

Monday, April 19, 2010

CAIR: ACT for America is a Hate-Group

John R. Houk
© April 19, 2010

Not too long ago ACT for America operated a petition program against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which encouraged a Federal investigation because of the group’s affiliation to Islamic terrorist organization Hamas. The Hamas connection was made stronger by linking CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator to the now convicted defendants of the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Typically CAIR is addressing the petition to be investigated by NOT providing corroborating evidence exonerating them self from an Islamic terrorist connection. Rather CAIR has decided to go after ACT for America calling it an anti-Islamic hate-group. Remarkably CAIR has solicited the support of a pedophilia supporting Episcopalian minister to bark at Rep. Sue Myrick for supporting ACT for America as a hate-group.

JRH 4-18-10 (Hat Tip: Occidental Soapbox)

Homophobia Christian Style

John R. Houk
© April 19, 2010

I am what the Left and homosexual activists would call a homophobe. A phobia is usually defined as an unusual and/or irrational fear of something. The effect of this fear would cause a person to shrink in near uncontrollable terror of the person, place, imagined or thing that is the perceived object causing fear.

Leftists and homosexual activists would not describe a homophobe as a person that lives in abject fear of occupying the same space and time of homosexuals. Rather Leftists and homosexual activists would consider a homophobe as quite the opposite of irrational and unusual timidity. Leftist and homosexual activists have propagandized that one with the appellation of homophobe is prone to hatred, violent hatred, racism, bigotry and the intelligence of a medieval peasant (implying a low class uneducated person).

Thus Leftist and homosexual activism has warped the concept of fear-stricken aversion into extremist bigots ready to execute violence on the homosexual aberrant social subset.

Now let’s be honest. There are people who have developed an irrational hate of homosexuals who are prepared to utilize violent actions to inflict suffering upon a homosexual individual to assuage a moment or the lifestyle of irrational hatred. The thing is homosexual rights activists has opened a net to impugn all people who rightly discern that homosexuality is a heinous sin to include violent lunatics with civil moral individuals.

If someone like me accepts the appellation of being a homophobe, I would neither accept the association of abject fear of homosexuals nor the association of violent hatred wishing harm upon homosexuals. If I was to accept the appellation of homophobe it would be a description of one who considers homosexuality a behavior and not an identity; ergo a homosexual is one who lives a lifestyle of perverted and immoral same-sex sin against the eternal nature of the Creator.

Does that make me a racist, bigot and hater? The answer is no. At worst it makes me an irritant to Leftist homosexual apologists and to homosexual activists. I would be an irritant because if anyone would listen to my stand for Christian morality it would be a coffin nail in the homosexual agenda. Indeed, Christian Morality should be exhorted from the valley to the mountain top to toss the homosexual agenda into the coffin of irrelevance and sealed to the last nail.

Now after laying the groundwork of how homophobia should be perceived by Conservatives and Christians let’s enquire into a bit of controversy among family values activists.

Not long ago the Focus on the Family gave the appearance of taking a step back on the immoral implications of a homosexual lifestyle by announcing the Christian Right advocacy organization would not oppose a homosexual appointee to the Supreme Court (SA: Right Wing Watch).

According to AFTAH, Focus on the Family has offered a clarification of the not opposing a homosexual SCOTUS appointee statement:

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ’sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

Here are the Peter LaBarbera thoughts on the wise Focus on the Family wise about face.

JRH 4/19/10

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Gaffney: Iran Could Have Nuke 'Any Day' Now

Frank Gaffney speaks on Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons and Obama’s deficient efforts to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons via a diplomatic and sanctions. Gaffney also speaks about Pakistan nukes and the potential of Islamic terrorists acquiring them and more.

JRH 4/17/10

Friday, April 16, 2010

Changing of the Guards

Here is an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) publication written by Ali Alfoneh providing a synopsis of the evolution of the power structure (civilian and military) of Iran. This is a very enlightening essay which illustrates the potential volatility of a nuclear armed Iran. In this case volatility equates with global lunacy of the emergence the theopolitical purist radical Shi’ite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

JRH 4/16/10

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Tea Party, GOP and Leftist Propaganda

John R. Houk
© April 15, 2010

I knew there was a bit of jealousy between Tea Party organizations within that movement. Personally I chalked it up to strife over trivial matters relating to perception and agenda. It turns out the trivial is becoming a wedge between Tea Partiers that wish to be aloof from the Republican Party and those that wish to be supportive. AND it turns out the inter-Tea Party strife is being fueled by Leftists who wish to discredit the growing popularity among voters on a grassroots scale.

The Leftist monkey wrench concerning political party affinity seems to be centered on funding and contributions to GOP causes. If you wish some specifics on the Leftist agenda to discredit and confuse the public over the Tea Party agenda then view a Google “Ken Vogel and Tea Party Express Memo” (which I did on 4/15/10). The Liberal, Leftist blogs and pundits go out of their way to criticize the Tea Party Express affinity to the GOP.

I executed the Google because I received this email from the Tea Party Express:

MUST READ: Secret Tea Party Memo is Public

I've got some very big news to share with you that up until now has been a secret.

Today, Ken Vogel, a reporter for broke a fairly big scoop. He managed to obtain a copy of what had been a very secret strategic planning memo I had written in my capacity as Coordinator of the Tea Party Express exactly one year ago.

And so now since the word is out, we wanted to share this strategy memo with you, our supporters. We are very excited to finally be able to share with you the behind-the-scenes strategic thinking that was behind the incredible success of the Tea Party Express.

You see the Tea Party Express wasn't an accident. It was a carefully considered and well-planned project that was designed to en[g]age local tea party groups all across the country to join together to make a difference and help take our country back - while still allowing those local groups to retain their independence and autonomy. And it's been a phenomenal success that has infuriated the Left and many within the media as well.

Keep reading for more details below, but if you simply can't wait, you can read what had been the secret memo for yourself - HERE.

As you'll note when you read the memo, the plan was to find a way to engage in political action to defeat the worst of the tax-spend-bailout Democrats and RINO Republicans in Congress.

And for the past year, YOU - our supporters, have helped us to implement this plan. We have achieved a success far beyond our wildest dreams, and I know from reading your emails and talking to you at the 100+ tea party rallies we've held across this nation how excited you are about all that we have achieved.

We spent over $350,000 to help elect Scott Brown - and employed a national TV advertising campaign when the local advertising inventory sold out, so we could reach voters in the state via a medium that the Democrats had failed to think of using.

We helped to force the retirement of sellout Congressman Bart Stupak, after launching a $250,000 "Defeat Bart Stupak" TV and radio advertising blitz and series of 5 Tea Party Express rallies throughout his rural Michigan district.

We stood up for Doug Hoffman (the Conservative Party candidate) over the RINO Republican, Dede Scozzafava in Upstate New York. We almost beat the establishment of BOTH the Democrat and Republican parties. You see, we here at the Tea Party Express stand for conservatism, and sadly the Republican Party at times needs to be reminded to adhere to its conservative principles.

And, perhaps most notably, we've spent over $500,000 to "Defeat Harry Reid" - more than any other group - and watched as Reid's poll numbers have plunged along the way. You saw the impact we had at the start of this tour when we brought out 20,000 people to the middle of the desert for the "Showdown in Searchlight."

We don't just TALK about doing things, with your help we've taken real ACTION. And we did so without being a part of the political establishment.

So, please, take a few moments and read this memo, now that it's out in the public domain. We've already been putting together new strategies reflective of the current political environment we face, and you are going to be very excited about what we have in store from this point until November 2010 congressional elections!

FIRST: Read the once-secret memo - HERE.

SECOND: After you've done so, please support our efforts to achieve even greater success. Please make a contribution to the Tea Party Express - HERE ( I include the donation link for I enjoy the Tea Party Express and still believe the GOP is better than a 3rd Party)

After reading this memo is when I did the Google search. My first thought was surprise at the bit of criticism of some of the GOP which I believe have good leadership qualities and not so surprised about criticism of some GOP who are actually RINOS. I thought, “Big deal” concerning GOP criticism. There are some GOP that I like and dislike as well as Conservatives I like and dislike. That is merely about politics. The critical agenda for disagreeing Conservatives is to find a consensus of ideas to be a monolith against the Left. Not all Conservatives are going to agree with each other; however there are core concepts and values all Conservatives agree on. Inter-movement jealousy is the monkey wrench American Leftists and Democrats are praying fomenting will keep them in Office in 2010 and 2012.

I read Ken Vogel’s article at Politico. I actually did not think it was an article with an agenda to discredit the Tea Party Movement. It was an article that provided information on Our Country Deserves Better PAC which formed the Tea Party Express. It pointed out the suspicions of other Tea Partiers toward the GOP establishment. And Vogel reported the reality of campaign contributions or funding for candidates and causes. The article was a like a FOX News moment: “We report, you decide.”

The problem for the Tea Party Express is that other Tea Party organizations utilized the Memo to express anger at a political party affinity (in this case – the GOP). AND Lefties used the information to propagandize an image of political corruption upon the Tea Party Express and therefore the entire Tea Party Movement.

Tea Partiers need to get over that which divides and discover the unity of consensus. The Left must be exposed for twisting facts when for the most part it is the various forms of Leftist thought that sets out to deceive the American public.

There is one other comment about Tea Party inter-dissent.

The Tea Party Movement is actually becoming strong enough to ultimately form a third political party of Conservatives. In my political transformation from an unwitting Leftist to a purposeful Conservative I supported at least two other political parties other than the GOP.

Coming from a low income working class family I was taught to be always loyal to the Democratic Party primarily because the Party of Roosevelt saved America from the Great Depression (There are some who would say Roosevelt actually prolonged the Great Depression). In my first eligible Presidential election I voted for Carter because of the deception employed by President Richard Millhouse Nixon via Watergate. In my young book the Republican Party was the party of the rich establishment bent on keeping the less fortunate from rocking the establishment. Yeah I know it was kind of a youthful rebellious thing inherent in most baby boomers at the time.

The year 1976 was the 200th anniversary the existence of the United States of America. I think it was the last time when the American political spectrum was not so divisive. Regardless of core beliefs there was a huge sense of American Patriotism that year particularly as Independence Day arrived. It was in this climate that a political outsider from the State of Georgia captured the hopeful minds of American voters. GAG! I voted for Jimmy Carter.

By the time 1980 began to arrive I acquired a belief that Carter was a wishy-washy screw-up. There was no other way I was going to vote for anything belonging to the Democratic Party accept the few Dems that were actually center-right hawks standing up against Communism and for a strong military (in my home State of the time that was Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson). The year prior to 1980 I became a “Born Again” Christian of the Charismatic path. Thus the roots of Christian Right politics began to emerge.

On the other hand I was still not far off from the anti-establishment rebelliousness of the teen years. I mention this because in America’s dominant Two-Party system, the Republican opponent to Carter was Ronald Reagan. In my mind Reagan’s anti-Communist rhetoric led me to believe he would be a nuke button pushing maniac that would bring the world to the brink of the end of civilization. I could not bring myself to vote for Ronald Reagan. So I went the third party route.

Thus began my brief flirtation with the Libertarian Party. I became dedicated Laissez Faire economics (even though economics is not my strong suit) and a fan of the Objectivist Ayn Rand. It became apparent that those aspects I liked about the LP and Rand was to be dwarfed with any ideology that had no harmony with Christianity. So before Reagan’s second term even began I became enamored with Reagan Conservatism.

Then after Reagan came the Bush, Sr. – Dukakis election of 1988. In my mind Bush Sr. was connected to the Watergate Cover-up of Nixon. Bush Sr. was a CIA man during the Nixon years. Nonetheless I voted for Bush Sr. because of Ronald Reagan. Still remembering Watergate in 1992 my choices were Bush Sr., Clinton and Perot. I chose the Independent Ross Perot. So did many other Conservatives. It cost Bush Sr. his second term as President and the beginning of Clinton’s Center-Left Administration.

What is the point of my little jot down political memory lane?

The Tea Party Movement’s potential to be a third party rather than an influence on the Republican Party will result in the re-election Barack Hussein Obama.

JRH 4/15/10

Stevens: 'I never left sanity, sanity left me'

Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring. A Justice retiring is ultimately followed by accolades honoring his/her service to the nation. Ann Coulter thankfully steps off the political correct bus to explain Justice Stevens was a hypocritical activist Leftist ideologue. As most Leftists, Stevens took stands based on ideological expediency rather than Constitutional Law or precedent.

JRH 4/15/10

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

‘Under God’ Thoughts

John R. Houk
© March 14, 2010

On my Facebook page I posted a video that I also posted at several of my blogs. The video was comedian Red Skelton providing a serious moment about the Pledge of Allegiance and the words “Under God.” The end of the video indicated Red's displeasure with prayer being taken out of schools.

A Facebook surfer (Nicholas Negelein) took umbrage with the religious connotation in Red’s message and posted this comment:

The pledge of allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy - a Christian Socialist who felt that the two ideas were mutually intertwined - as an expression that the greater good is more important than the individual need. Despite being a Christian, he did not include any words relating to a higher being, intending the pledge as a unification device for ... See Moreall peoples, regardless of faith or lack thereof.

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I responded:

Nicholas then it is a good thing that Congress in a rare moment of Founding Father insight added "Under God."

Nicholas responded:

"If the founding fathers thought anything like a pledge of allegiance were necessary, they would have implemented it, I believe. If they felt it necessary for the word god to be included in the Constitution, they would have included it, I believe.

In a moment of Founding Father insight, the Founding Fathers left any mention of the word god out of the Constitution, because for any religion to be endorsed by the state automatically removes religious freedom from the state.

For the populace to be able to freely practice any religion, the government must be kept free of religion. My Flying Spaghetti Monster must be no more important than your god in the eyes of government, lest my religion become favored and yours discriminated against. It pains me to say this, as it is manifestly obvious which creation myth is true, however I feel that simply because your religion is misguided while mine is the one true religion, you should still be allowed to practice it without interference from the government and without constantly seeing his noodly appendages adorned across the currency of the nation."

As you can guess I found Nicholas’ premises to be flawed. Thus I responded with some brief reality but by no means exhaustive. In fact I suspect Nicholas will again respond with some revisionist history in a not so nice way. I could be mistaken, time will tell. In the mean time the following is the gist of my response.

Nicholas, Actually Founding Fathers’ documents are rife with references to God or Creator. The chief Deist Jefferson worded most of the Declaration of Independence:

"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitled"

"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Then the First Amendment clause that too many Leftists and atheists forget:

“prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion)”

The first clause about not establishing a State Church of the Federal government is modified by the clause that overtly proclaims the Federal government will not interfere in the free exercise of religion. It is evident there is NO reference of separating religion from government but rather keeping government out of religion.

Then there is Amendment 10:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

This Amendment allowed former colonies that became States to continue with State Established Churches until each individual States ultimately discontinued the State established Churches. Indeed, Christianity was a part of public and community life in individuals until a 1947 slim Supreme Court decision (Everson v. Board of Education) ended the right of States to decide for them self what is allowable between taxpayer supported institutions and religion.

Thus it is self-evident the Founding Fathers indeed not only had a great regard for religion but specifically the Christian religion in all its sectarian or denominational practices.

Your flying spaghetti monster has no ethical benefit to the moral good of the people which is to say the citizens of America. The Founding Fathers (including the Deists) thus utilized Christian morality as the foundation for America’s rule of law which does have ethical benefit to the moral good of the people.

Go to the link to read quotes on religion from noted religious and Deist Founding Fathers:

Atheists and Leftists are thus badly mistaken if they believe the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers was to prevent religious activism of people that benefits the government and society at large.

JRH 4/14/10