The First Amendment Defended: The Freedom Of Religion

An excerpt from a debate from our very own Chris Dumford and a co-worker. Here is the position as presented to Chris:

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

Chris,

It's perfectly reasonable to interpret those words as an intent for the separation of church and state. There's no getting around that subsequent interpretation by the supreme court carries the weight of the highest law in the land, and congress may ratify an amendment to overturn the court's interpretation. The supreme court is very very powerful as we know and is made more powerful by the current partisan political climate of the era within which we've live. As much as we are a nation of laws and not men, we all suffer from decisions made by people with whom we don't agree.

...no ammendment to the Constitution is without some historical precident. The background to the 1st ammendment is not separation FROM religion, it is in regard to the Federal Government establishing a state church and licensing pastors. This argument was originally taken up be the Virginia Legislature in 1773 as a result of Virginia prosecuting Baptist pastors for preaching without a license. At that time, only Presbyterian and Episcopal pastors were permitted to preach due to the requirement that that they be licenced by the colony of Virginia (and other colonies). James madison took up the fight to allow New Light Preachers (I.e. Baptists) to be permitted to preach without a license, which by the way, they lost their argument. At the time, the great awakening was occurring and preachers such as George Whitefield were preaching especially in New England without a licence. Rhode Island had opened up the colony to non licensed ministers such as John Clarke and Roger Williams, both of which received charters to establish churches from the King of England and to preach without a license (I have personally seen John Clarke's charter). The argument was in regard to anarchy reigning among the people if preachers were permitted to preach without state control. During the Constitutional convention, the anti-Federalists were arguing that a state religion controlled by the Federal Government was not in keeping with a free people (a position held by Jefferson and Madison). The Federalists saw that religion should be controlled by Government. In the end, an agreement was reached following ratification of the Constitution in order to bring the anti-federalists on board, the first ten ammendments would be introduced and ratified to control the power of the Federal Government. Notice that the concept of the divine right of Kings was the established thought at the time. This belief was based on the premise that God had divinely ordained Kings and as such, they stood in the stead of the people in regard to their relationship to God. In other words, it was the belief that Kings could determine how people would be saved and that Kings could indeed determine doctrine and faith. The argument of Jefferson and Madison to the Virginia Legislature prior to the American Revolution was that of the Doctrine of Preisthood of the believer, that is that every man answered to God on his own behalf, and that no man could intervene on anothers behalf. You will see this in jefferson's resonse to the Danbury Baptist Conference. He clearly states that the relationship between God and man was personal (implied, could not be legislated by the Government). The histoical context of the first ammendment clearly did not advocate a secularized government.

On October 7, 1801, a letter was delivered by the Danbury Baptist Church to Jefferson as a result of rumors that Jefferson's administration intended on establishing Presbyterianism as the official state religion (similar to England and Episcopalianism). Here is the Letter which clearly indicates that their understanding at the time was that religion could indeed coexist and partner with government, including the state governments. Notice that they refer to the ancient charter (Magna Carta) and that they recocognize that the understanding is currently that religion can and in at least some cases still was the object of legislation. The reference to destroying the laws of the state was in regard to the different states laws establishing churches and licensing of pastors. here is the letter:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association.

Nehh Dodge

Ephram Robbins The Committee

Stephen S. Nelson

The response by Jefferson which included the phrase separation of church and state was directly in context to the establishment of a state church, not in separting Federal Government from religion. Here is his response (remember it is in context to the matter at hand, no more or no less):

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld the Federal Government's advocating religion as a whole. State motto's refer to God (i.e. state of Ohio), state monumnets have references to God, The motto of the United States is "In God we Trust". Historically, the idea of purging God out of the public forum would have been reprehensible to our fore fathers. It was not until 1963 when the Supreme Court removed public prayer from schools that they reversed almost 200 years of precedent.

It is my opinion, that the reason we are in this debate today is that those who are attempting to redefine the intent of our forefathers in establishing the first ammendment, is because there is no teaching today on theology and the influence of theology on our forefather's thinking. Instead, we see secular writers, legislators and judges trying to rule on precedents that they do not understand because they are bowing to the current culture of the populace at large. Thus, we now have judical anarchy. Judges have divorced themselves from the law, especially the intent of the law and nor rule however they want. As a result, the Supreme court no longer interprets law, they make law!

Lastly, when Laws are made or interpreted that either openly violate the Constitution or redefine the intent of the Constitution, we no longer have a body of laws. This is where we are today!

...

Notice the language of the 1st Ammendment.

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

According to your argument, this can be interpreted as separation of church and state. Thus the "State" is duty bound to remove all expression of religous nature from the public forum and any state sponsored organization or property is not permitted to have any religious expression. Here is why your understanding does not hold water (nor in my opinion does that of the Supreme Court):

The 1st ammendment goes on to say: "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

2. Notice that the rest of the praseology of the 1st ammendment is a continuation of the initial phrase which you have undelined. If the underlined phrase is intended to separate the State from religion, then it applies to the entire 1st ammendment, not just the portion which you are inclined to underline. Thus, if the intent of the writers of the Constitution is to be interpreted as separation from religion, then also it frees Congress to spearate themselves from freedom of the press, freedom of speech and allows them to react adversely to free assembly. In essence, Conrgress should purge all such actions from the public forum since we cannot apply one set of standards to one portion of a sentence, and not to all of it. Thus, the current Supreme Court ruling of 1963, should have been argued as an inrepretation against the entire 1st Ammendment, not just a portion of it!

I think that sums it up folks. Unless we understand the Constitution and the historical precedents behind it, how do we ever determine how and why we need to change it or interpret it differently? As Chris points out, pop-culture has infected our view of the Constitution. But, pop-culture is ever changing - would you want your laws and your government based on a culture that changes over and over? If the answer is "yes", then honestly what's the point of law? The Constitution is rock-solid and actually works...if you dare to follow it that is.

Let's Get Colonial!

In 1774, after much oppression from the British Government, Parliament decided to tighten the vice even further by passing a series of Acts known as the Intolerable Acts. These Acts paved the way for colonial outrage and eventually the Revolution that happened just a year later. What exactly led to the implementation of these Acts and how did the Americans respond?

The concepts of exploration and colonization were surely wrapped in a struggle for power and control. But, we also know these actions happened because of the desire to obtain certain goods. Gold, spices, fabrics, etc. were a strong secondary focus of these exploration efforts. One of these goods was tea. By 1698, the British Parliament had given the East India Company a complete monopoly on tea importation. Fearing open-market competition, Great Britain required the colonists to only purchase their tea from Great Britain. This legislation was passed in 1721. As time went on, taxes were raised on tea and tea importation. This in turn caused a recession of the tea market (go figure). Therefore, to help raise revenue for Parliament, they passed tax laws on tea sold in the colonies. This tax was known as the Townshend Act of 1767. The colonists fought over the idea that Britain could tax them without giving them any representation in Parliament. This was voiced the loudest by the Whigs so said that Parliament had no right to do anything outside of what the Constitution mandated. (Hmmm...sound familiar). Parliament, however, served up a hefty "screw you" and said that they have this ability in "all cases whatsoever." (Hmmm...also sounds familiar).

The Whigs met these acts with oppositions and boycotts. Many merchants organized agreements that they would not import tea from Britain. By 1770, the Townshend Act was repealed in all manner except for its taxation of tea. The British Prime Minister, Lord North, asserted that this is still showing that the British have the right and the power to tax the Americans. The colonists celebrated the reduction in taxes and British tea was once again common place in the market. (imagine that - reduce taxes and business picks back up). However, with the ascendancy of King George the III, the tax on tea under the Townshend Act was reinstituted. Lord North was warned that this might cause colonial resistance again, but he stubbornly pressed for this legislation. This, along with other methods of oppression imposed on the colonies, led to the iconic revolt in Boston's harbor.

When the Dartmouth arrived in Boston Harbor, a Whig, Samuel Adams, called a meeting in which thousands attended. They resolved to have the Dartmouth sent back to England without collecting any of the tea tax; as well as assigning 25 men to stand guard by the ship to make sure it wasn't unloaded. Governor Hutchinson declared that the Dartmouth would not leave until the tax was paid. Then, on December 16th, 1773, about 7,000 men gathered outside the Old South Meeting House demanding that Governor Hutchinson release the ships without paying the tax. He again refused and Samuel Adams declared that these meetings could do nothing further to "save the country." Some believe this was a pre-established slogan to initiate the tea party. Adams could not keep control over the meeting and many headed out to Boston Harbor. That evening, many boarded the ship and began to dump the tea into Boston Harbor. Britain was outraged and decided to punish the colonies with the Intolerable Acts.

The Intolerable Acts consisted of these facets:

1. The Boston Port Act - The port of Boston was closed until the East India Company was reimbursed for all the tea lost at sea

2. The Massachusetts Government Act - The Massachusetts government was brought under complete control of the British Government. Any positions in the government were to be appointed by the King.

3. The Administration of Justice Act - This allows the Massachusetts Governor to move the trials of royal officials to other colonies or even to England. This was thought to allow British soldiers the opportunity to harass Americans and then escape justice.

4. The Quartering Act - This Act gave the British soldiers the legal right to be quartered in the homes of the colonists without their consent. (Note the 3rd Amendment to the US Constitution.)

5. The Quebec Act - This Act took away colonial settled land and gave it to Quebec.

These Acts were the spark that lit the fuse on the American Revolution. The colonists had had enough. They knew they wanted freedom and remaining under the rule of the King wasn't going to supply such freedom. The colonists understood that as Government expands, liberty contracts. They knew that their freedom was being strangled by massive Government regulations on their lives. Ultimately, they knew that you cannot be diplomatic with a tyrant. They rose up and fought off the greatest military power of the day.

Right now, we have tyrants running our Government. They are imposing massive Government regulation by means of health care, the environment and global warming, taxes, etc. Our freedoms are voted away each day by those we voted into office. As long as we have the right to vote, we have the ability to produce revolution again. However, if the day comes that we cannot change Government with the ballot box, rest assured we will change it then with the cartridge box.

Catch the fire of freedom!

See How They Voted

Here is a great resource documenting the voting record of the House on Health Care. I wonder just how many of those that voted "yes" are truly representing their constituents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-rv/special/politics/votes/house/healthcare/index.html

Another Backhand to America

Another nail in the coffin of freedom and liberty was fastened tight as the Senate approved their version of the health bill. CNN.com reports that Congress will be enjoying their holiday break after this "exhausting" work. Yeah, it can take a lot out of you to strip the American people of freedom and to increase their taxes. You guys do deserve a break -- a break from office altogether. I'm telling you, folks--Americans will only take so much until they begin to fight back. Congress isn't representing America right now. They are representing their own self-desires and political careers. Typical Democrat ploy - offer a handout to get more votes. This handout is supposed to be a measure of compassion...but, those that take these handouts are still there to take the next one. These handouts just keep people poor. And, the sad part is, many impoverished people can't resist. Thus the representation we have in Congress. If you teach people that they are to rely on the Government and then they hear the Government promising handouts, what do you think the outcome is going to be?

Come on 2010! Let's take back Congress and let's impeach Obama for blatantly ignoring his Presidential Oath to "...preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States..." You certainly aren't preserving it by bypassing it to get health care passed. You certainly aren't protecting it by pretending it doesn't exist. And, you certainly aren't defending it because that would require you to vote against your own plans. Don't be fooled by this impostor. He will talk to you as if he is the smartest guys in the world because he thinks you are too stupid to catch on that he's a phony.

Let's hope the Supreme Court will bat this one down as unconstitutional...and that's a big hope...

The Revolution Has Begun

Democrat switches to Republican because of health care and other legislative acts...

Click sentence above to watch short news conference with Rep. Parker Griffiths, now R-AL. Hopefully, the American people will back him. This could be a political suicide, depending on who makes up his constituents. However, when it comes to doing what's right, one's political agenda must be put aside.

Paul Revere is mounting his horse!

Smoking or Non? A Revisit

I recently had a client tell me how happy they were about smoking being banned in restaurants in their state. Not being paid to engage in political discussions at work, I refrained from the opportunity. However, it has been on my mind since. In 2006, the state of Ohio had a smoking ban issue on the ballot. When I was at UC, this is what I wrote (portions may be modified for current accuracies). The content still rings true.

Could someone answer my question? Why is the crowd that is pro-choice and so tolerant of alternate lifestyles so adamantly intolerant of a person’s choice to use tobacco? It has become vogue to smoke in public places. Let me say firstly, I do not smoke and will never smoke. However, being one that enjoys personal freedoms, I think it is my duty to fight for the smokers on this cause—because the issue is not grounded in smoking, but in freedom. This issue carries two major themes: personal health and personal comfort.

Concerning personal health, I think it is important that we understand what cigarette smoke is capable of. Smoke of any kind, if inhaled, is putting a substance into the body that the body isn’t designed to handle, at least in large quantities. Cigarette smoke from tobacco contains tar that can clog the lungs, thus rendering the smoker breathless. Ok, great. We all learned this in D.A.R.E. But, what the Life-style Police are trying to push on us is the idea that 1^st and 2^nd hand smoke is causing a death epidemic. Firstly, can someone site me the statistics of how many people died last year of 2^nd hand smoke? Secondly, let’s be medically correct. People die of cancer, etc. not smoking, unless you smoke enough at once to asphyxiate yourself. I’m not trying to split hairs here. Yes, smoking may give rise to greater risk of health issues or even death, but so does red meat, alcohol, sun bathing, and so on. Just ban them all! The lack of logical consistency with this position proves a political agenda is being advanced.

Turning our attention to personal comfort let me set up a scenario. I walk into a restaurant that is privately owned. The restaurant caters to smokers and non-smokers. Not being a smoker, I opt for non-smoking. The experience is going great until I have to use a miner’s helmet with a lamp to see through the smoke just to see what I’m eating. Naturally, I become very annoyed and my attitude rapidly gravitates southward. Now, those that want smoking bans would expect me to sign petitions and vote for issues providing such a ban. However, I understand that the restaurant is privately owned, and I voluntarily entered. The owners should continue to have the freedom to cater to smokers and/or non-smokers. I may not like to eat pancakes with a dusting of cigarette ash, so the solution is simple, find a new pancake shop (Capitalism, it works every time it’s tried). This may be a shock to you, but there is no right to eat at a restaurant, nor is it written down that I must eat out. If I don’t like smoke, then I find some non-smoking diner or I stay home and eat. Even if I think smoking is wrong, I have no Constitutional authority to tell someone else it is wrong, nor to pass legislation regarding the same. It’s that simple. People have this idea that if they, as an individual, are offended then your choice should not be tolerated. Essentially, a smoking-ban is an attack on the freedom of private property. If a private establishment wishes to operate in a non-smoking environment, then fine! I'm happy with that as a non-smoker. However, the establishment has set that rule -- not forced into it by the government. What's the government going to force businesses into next? Furthermore, what will be the point of private property if the government is controlling all of it? --to which our Liberal friends would say, "Amen, brother!" "That's what we are trying to achieve. No private property; no freedom; no liberty-just the big daddy of government ruling over all." Well, if they were honest, that's what they'd say.

But, to show I am a reasonable person, I am willing to strike a happy medium. If the smoking police will abandon their push for legislation to ban choice, I’ll abandon my push for legislation that everyone must attend church with me 3-times a week.

The Battle of the Bulge

By Chris Dumford

On this day, December 16, 1944, Three German armies, freshly reinforced and brought up to full strength, comprising the last of Hitler's reserves, burst out of the Ardennes through the US 1st Army with the view toward splitting the allied forces in two. Their strategic goal was the city of Antwerp. The Germans believed that they could divide the British and Canadian armies in the north, from the American forces in the south and force the western allies to sue for peace. The Germans were aware that the Ardennes was a weak point in the Allied lines and their plans were designed to fully exploit those weaknesses. The Ardennes were held by three American infantry divisions and 2 armored divisions. Of the three infantry divisions, the 99th and 106th infantry divisions were brand new divisions who had never seen combat and were still working up and training, and the 28th division was sent to the so-called quiet sector to rest and rebuild after being mauled in a long series of engagements from Normandy through France. The 7th Armored and 9th Armored divisions were also in the process of being rebuilt. As a result, the Ardennes was considered to be a weak point in the Allies lines, as the divisional frontages were too long for the divisions to adequately hold, and there were too few reserves. This was necessary because the major Allied doctrine was to concentrate forces in the north and south, and utilize the Ardennes as a rest and recuperation area.

The Battle of the Bulge was the largest battle ever fought by the US army. Over a million men would ultimately be committed to the battle. The brand new 106th infantry division (the golden lions) was attacked by the 6th SS Panzer Army and cut off in a small mountain range called the Snee Eiffel and two out of three regiments surrendered without putting up much of a fight. This resulted in a huge hole in the American lines. As the Americans retreated, they made a stand at several towns including Clerveaux in the north. The 110th Regimental combat team of the 28th division took a stand in Clerveaux against 2 German Armored divisions. The Germans broke into the American lines after surrounding the town and German tanks ranged up and down the American lines firing right into individual fox holes. The 7th armored division sacrificed intself to hold the town of St. Vith (the famous battle of the goose egg), while several battalions of US engineers (326th and 327th Engineers) from the 28th division fought sacrificial rear guard actions to hold the center of the American line near Bastogne and slow down the German advance.

The 101st Airborne division was trucked into the town of Bastogne which was a major road junction. They were ordered to hold at all costs. They were surrounded and attacked by the by the German 5th Panzer army and only the support of the remnants of the 9th armored division prevented them from being overrun.

In the north, 84 American prisoners were massacred by German SS General Joachim Pieper at Malmedy. Pieper ultimately ran out of fuel near Stoumont and had to abandon his vehicles and march back to the German lines on foot (after the war he was executed following the Nuremburg trials for this act). The German 2nd Panzer Division made it as far as Celles, just short of the Meuse River before running out of fuel. The American 2nd Armored division (under famous General Harmar), counter attacked the German 2nd Panzer division and largely destroyed the division, ending the German's hopes of splitting the Allied lines.

Eisenhower took measures to insure that the Germans would not cross the Meuse. British General Montgomery moved a British army corps to cover the Meuse river crossings, the US 2nd armored division was thrown forward against the German advanced units at Celles, and Patton's 3rd army was moved out of its lines in the Huertgen Forest and redirected from the south and ordered to advance north, through the German 7th army covering the southern flank of the German advance. On the day after Christmas, the US 4th armored division from Patton's 3rd army broke through to Bastogne and relieved the 101st airborne division. By January 23rd, the Germans were pushed back to their original start lines, thus ending the greatest battle in American History. 19,246 Americans would be killed and over 47,000 would be wounded. German casualties would number close to 100,000.

NEVER FORGET!

There's Got To Be More Taxes To Raise Around Here Somewhere. Oh, Here's One!

From Rushlimbaugh.com via http://www.cnsnews.com/

news/article/58099, Nancy Pelosi finds much merit in a transaction tax. This tax would be issued on all stock transactions on a global basis. And for it to work, according to Pelosi, it has to be on a global basis. Like Pelosi said, there will be many that will just move their transactions overseas -- like companies did with their employment because they can't afford to pay our own workers because they are too busy paying legal fees to make sure they are in compliance and altering their facilities to be more "green." So, to fix this problem, Pelosi says we'll just make it a global tax. According to the article, she estimates that this will bring in 150 billion in additional revenue. No it won't! You'll drive down the incentive to even buy or sell stocks. This is just another success punishment that will rape and pillage the exchange markets; much like the Capital Gains tax is doing right now. Furthermore, she says that this additional revenue will increase stimulus spending. Ok, here we go:

In concept, this is completely asinine. Let's tax the market to drive up stimulus spending. What's the point?! Why drive up stimulus spending if you are going to drive down those who are financially supporting it?! But, more so, "stimulus spending" is a pseudo concept made up by the federal government into making you think that the government is going to get us out of this mess. They got us into it but now can get us out?! When the government spends money, there is no stimulus. That money comes from somewhere, or really, someone and is finite. In other words, they'll just raise taxes more, which takes more money out of our pockets, which takes more money out of the economy.

But, let's not get too carried away and actually think Pelosi wants our economy to thrive. You see, a thriving economy is politically dangerous for the Left. The Left preys on the economic downturns and turns them into government opportunities. Come on! Don't patronize us! If you want to get the economy moving again, how about some stimulus giving?! Give back the taxes we've paid in! Economies do not work from the Government down. They work from the people up. If the people have more to spend, demand increases. Increased demand requires increased supply; which requires increased jobs to meet that supply; which brings unemployment down; which actually puts more people on payrolls from which more taxes are being paid anyway.

The sad part is, these people keep getting reelected each year.

Repost of Last Year's PC Christmas, But Some Updates

Before the Christmas shopping season begins on December 24, I need to make sure that my seasonal festivities are complete with decorations that are politically correct. After all, in this day in age when being offended is an abridgement of Constitutional rights, I want to be positive my decorations are not categorized as Right-wing-Evangelical-Republican dogma. To that end, I’ve made some slight modifications which should keep the loud minority happy.

The first thing people see is the outside of my house. Since I don’t want to offend anybody, I can’t put up colored Christmas lights. And be it far from me to put up all white lights. Next I need up put up a light-up Santa and maybe a reindeer display. Santa is too Christmasy, so I have to think of someone else that just gives away stuff for free and only cares about you once a year. Therefore, I’ve chosen a light-up Democrat Congressperson; but I’ll have to rig up some sort of backbone to keep it erect—former Arkansas Governors need not apply. Now the reindeer are going to be trouble. PETA wouldn’t be too pleased by seeing reindeer whipped and pulling a sleigh, so I think I’ll just have our Santa stand-in read excerpts from Al Gore's new Global Warming book. The only normal decoration that I wouldn’t have to change would be the icicle lights since the sickle was apart of the Soviet flag (pun intended). Finally, the last thing I needed was a nativity scene. I didn’t want to portray normalcy as a man and woman being married, so I had to find two guy statues to play Jesus’ parents. All the animals of course had to be donkeys. And, I couldn't allow a baby Jesus to portray His birth, so I left the manger empty to show that pro-choice was acceptable. I've also included a viewing tax to help pay the legal fees for the civil union. Hey, it doesn't matter if you agree with it!--you're paying anyway!

Let’s move inside the house. The first thing I need is a Christmas tree. To keep the environmentalists at bay, I couldn't just go cut a tree down. By doing so, I might cause the Alaskan Snow Owl to have to take up residency in a K-Mart sign—which might prove there is still a necessity for K-Mart. I thought about getting a plastic tree, but plastic is made from oil, and if I buy a plastic tree, I’ll just be supporting the evil capitalistic gains of Big Oil. So, I figured I needed to find a seasonal plant. The only thing I could find that would be acceptable to the PC crowd was their highly-prized marijuana plant--brownies and doritos sold separately. Since hanging ornaments would offend the anti-capital punishment crowd, I just turned them loose on the floor around the plant - free again to go knock off other neighboring ornaments. The real difficulty was choosing an acceptable plant topper. Stars are pointed and therefore not OSHA approved. And, angels are associated with a higher power (formerly God) by which we talk to Him by a moment of silence (formerly prayer). Since nothing would do, I had to leave the plant topless—a top qualification on the Clinton intern application form. Next, I had to hang the stockings but I considered stockings might be offensive to people with large feet, so this Christmas will remain stockingless—another qualification on the Clinton intern application form.

Lest you take me seriously, I just wanted to portray the kind of Christmas we’d be enjoying if the PC crowd had its way. But thanks be to God that the gift He gave is not just for those who were good all year, but is given for the whole world, regardless of how good or bad you think you are. Merry Christmas.

I know! Let's Let The Enemy Join Us!

According to Fox News, the military is trying a new tactic in the fight on terror. The idea is to have Taliban bribed into quiting the fight and taking refuge within the coalition. And why not? These people are completely trustworthy, I'm sure this will prove successful. Successful for the Taliban that is. They will use this opportunity to implant terrorist cells within the coalition and and destroy us (Ft. Hood ring a bell?!) The wisdom on this move is lacking. These terrorists are on a mission according to their religion. To give in to the coalition, in their mind, is to give into Christianity - which is something that they cannot bring themselves to do. The only thing the Taliban understands is getting the snot bombed out of them. You can't negotiate with these people. You can't be diplomatic. I'm sure this is another one of Obama's brilliant ideas. This guy needs to be impeached!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577426,00.html

Science Couldn't Be Wrong!

Just when the majority of the media would crucify you if you didn't accept global warming, this just in! The data supporting Global Warming has just been proven to be junk science; according to the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/). I do not wish to rehash what the Times has already reported, but merely to make a few observations.

Firstly, let's remember something that is absolutely vital and fundamental to any science. Science follows a certain process known as the scientific method. This method is to make an observation, make hypotheses, test and repeat those tests on the hypotheses, draw a conclusion, submit conclusion for peer review, revision of theory (if necessary), further peer review, and finally, accept/reject the hypotheses. Now, without being present "millions" of years ago, how can scientist test the historic change in the Earth's climate? They weren't there to observe it, nor can they test it. But, never mind that - when a "science" has a political agenda, there is no need to follow any scientific methods. People may argue, "Well, we have these rocks here and based on the properties in the rocks and the radiometric dating, I can conclude that the earth was much cooler 2 million years ago." Sorry, all you can conclude is that it is a rock and its present properties/location. You never observed the entire life of the rock. You can speculate all you want and that's fine - but don't shove it on me as fact!

Secondly, let's talk about this business of peer review. Let me create a scenario: If I have a drunk person and he only associates with other drunks, how often will he get good advice to stop drinking? The same holds true for peer review. If you are submitting your "findings" to those who desperately want Global Warming to be real, what outcome will you get? Do you think you are getting honest academic review of your work? Think again. It is amazing that results are only accepted by these dishonest scientists are the desired results. In other words, they reject anything that would seem to disprove their theory.

Lastly, what does this ultimately mean? For years, we have had our freedoms stripped by way of Government regulations because of the abscess fear of Global Warming. Americans have been preyed upon by "political science." So, now you are being told what kind of car to drive, what time of the day to fill-up your gas tanks; what kind of light bulbs to buy; what kind of washer and drier to buy and so on. Your lives have been taken over by the life-style police in Washington. Do you think Global Warming crowd cares? Of course not. When you are fabricating information, you obviously do not care about truth anyway. So, when it is exposed as a lie, what's their next move? Ignore it and make new lies. The ring leader of this movement is Al Gore. In his new book, he has photoshoped hurricanes on a world map showing the Western Hemisphere. The picture below is of the world with the equator in red. Note which part of South America it runs through (click to enlarge):

Now, note the picture that Al Gore photoshoped below.

See the hurricane at the bottom of the photo? It is sitting right on the equator. Hurricanes cannot happen on the equator! Because of the Coriolis Effect, rotational patterns in water and weather happen differently depending on what side of the equator you are on. This has been famed in which direction your toilet water spins here versus a toilet in Australia. Hurricanes do not form below 5º latitude. Now, the Coriolis Force at the equator is zero. Therefore, a fully developed hurricane could cross the equator and over-power the Coriolis Force, but there hasn't been one in recorded history to do so. So, since Al Gore didn't have any examples of this, he had to make it up and ignore the probabilities against such an occurrence. But, once again, why worry about science when you have an agenda to push.

I would write some more, but I need to go turn on all the lights in my house and leave my sink running.

Hey! He's Hitting Me! I'm Telling Mommy!!

OK, I'm sure you've heard this today in the news. According to Fox News, Navy SEALS have captured a high profile terrorist and are facing criminal charges because of the way they apprehended the terrorist. Fox News reports, "Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges..." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576646,00.html?test=latestnews) Ever since Abu Ghraib no torture torture incident, the Military seems to be frightened by what the media will report. Exactly what did these seals do that was so bad? Did they fly planes into buildings? No. Did they bomb a US Navy ship? No. Did they behead the man for the world to see? No. In the apprehension, the terrorist's lip was bloodied. That's right, folks-his lip was bloodied. So, this big strong terrorist got nothing more than a recess-playground wound and now he wants Constitutional rights. All the while, our heroes will be paraded into court to be mocked. Do you think our Commander-in-Chief will come to the rescue? Don't hold your breath. He can't defend the SEALS because he is too busy putting a band-aide on the terrorist's lip and offering him a warm place to spend the night. Now, what are the implications of this?

Firstly, once again we are granting non-US citizens Constitutional rights. The Constitution is designed to instruct how citizens of America and their Government are to interact with each other. No foreign terrorist has any protection/rights under the Constitution. Perhaps this would be more evident if those running the show would actually read the Constitution rather than worry about what focus groups are saying. Why do we keep extending these rights to people who aren't even citizens of our country? The reason is, Congress and the White House care more about what the world thinks of us than they do about standing up for America. If the world is mad at us, then we are obviously in the wrong and must change. What's the point of having a country then?! It is high time America stood up to the rest of the world and tell them that we believe in Liberty and Freedom and if they don't like it, tough. Go run your own country! The world can keep being angry, while their citizens keep immigrating here. Let's kick the UN out of this country. Let's withdraw our membership and get back to the foundational basics that our nation was founded under. When the fire of freedom ignites, no force on earth is powerful enough to put it out!

Secondly, this is a way that the terrorists can infiltrate American military morale. If our soldiers keep getting hauled off to court for protecting this country, terrorists will champion this opportunity. Not only this, soldiers will now think twice about acting out their duty. You may not realize this, but if you think twice in war, it will be the last thought you ever have. It is easy to sit in Washington and think twice - which is why we lost in Vietnam, by the way.

Libs, If you support the troops, then stand up for them. They've stood up for you and have bled and died for you so you could have the freedom to spew your drivel of a particularly inferior grade. But, once all of the soldiers are in jail, who will be left to defend your freedom of speech?

The Times Gets It, Republicans Don't

Conservative Republicans have devised a way to ensure that if the GOP is to support candidate, the candidate must meet certain criteria. This criteria is spelled out in a check list. The thought is that a candidate must hold to at least 7 positions on the checklist. I admit I haven't seen the check list yet, but if the list involves basic Conservative principles, they should have to agree to all items on the list. There is no "partial-Conservative." If you are a true Conservative, conservatism will dominate your life's actions and choices; as well as what policies you support or not. Now, the New York Times is reporting this story and they make a very interesting observation. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/politics/24repubs.html?_r=1&ref=us) They make the claim that the only way Republicans will take back Congress is if they move the party away from the center and towards Conservatism! It's a sad day for Congressional Republicans when the New York Times gets it and you don't. Now, if this becomes adopted within the party, will they also be in favor of having a citizenship test (check list) for immigrants who are attempting to gain citizenship? By the way, a citizenship test causes the immigrant to learn about our way of Government and our History. Through that study, you get a good idea of our culture. You also understand it isn't your job to come here and make us change to fit your ways. That's called cultural assimilation and it preserves a nation. If you think this is crazy, just ask your average German what they feel about the Turkish people "taking away their jobs."

Back to the topic at hand. The Times also reports of the RNC Chairman, Michael Steele will have a big challenge on his hands. If this check list is approved, Steele, who probably wouldn't meet even 1 of the list items, will have to rescue the "moderate" Republicans and keep them joined together with the Conservatives of the party. "I'll take Obvious Reasons the GOP is in Shambles for $200, Alex." The Republican Party is distancing themselves from Conservatism. It isn't Rush Limbaugh who is splitting the party, it is non-Conservative Republicans driving the wedge deep. And, this is extremely obvious and personified in the current RNC chairman.

I don't want Republicans to take back Congress. I want Conservatism to take back Congress. 2012, here I come!

Of Course, Here We Go Again

Nidal Hasan is figured to plead insane and not guilty. And, with our courts, he'll get away with it. I don't care how insane someone is, the act of murder was still committed. Secondly, if is going to claim insanity, then the Army will have some answering to do about why they continued to employ an insane person. Now, they'll say they never tested Hasan for insanity and had no reason to. Which I say, "Exactly!...because he's NOT INSANE!" He knew exactly what he was doing and as a typical Muslim terrorist, he is being a coward. So, he'll be paraded in front of our drooling media and then set free. Later, he'll blow himself up as a suicide bomber and take out hundreds of innocent people with him. Hmmmm...I take it back, he is insane.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576125,00.html

America and Muslim Terrorism: This Is Nothing New

By Chris Dumford

Muslim Terrorism Is As Old As America Itself.

It is interesting to me that our current administration has so little knowledge of American History and our Nation’s first international crisis. This is borne out by their re-defining of the War on Terror as a man-made disaster, by waffling on commitment of more troops to the Middle East, and by attempting to diplomatically deal with the Terrorists instead of militarily deal with them. America’s first international crisis involved Muslim terrorism overseas. How our early Presidential Administrations dealt with Muslim terrorism is a lesson in how to deal with Muslim terrorism in our modern world.

Following the American Revolution, the US economy, unshackled from English restrictions and heavy taxation began to grow. The result was an increased demand for foreign goods. As a result, the US produced the largest merchant fleet in the world. Much of the domestic demand for goods emanated from goods produced in the Mediterranean rim.

Following the American Revolution, the entire remaining United States Navy was paid off and there was not a single US naval vessel in commission (nor much of a standing army for that matter). The loss of British naval protection in the Mediterranean Sea as a result of the Colonies becoming independent of England resulted in Muslim terrorists exploiting American military weakness by stealing US merchant ships, confiscating the cargoes and enslaving the crews. This was not exclusive to the US. The Dutch and the English were also plagued by this practice, but they chose to simply pay ransoms to curtail the practices, and occasionally to react militarily.

By the 1790's these acts of piracy resulted in several hundred Americans becoming slaves to Tripolitanian, Moroccan and Algerian Muslims. In exchange for the prisoners, these Muslims demanded that huge ransoms be paid from the US treasury. Though the US Government followed through with the yearly ransoms, which increased in amount every year, the various Deys and Padhas often failed to release their prisoners after the ransoms were paid. The primary reason for this travesty was that the Muslims in the region believed westerners to be infidels and according to the Q’uran, they were to be plundered, enslaved or killed if they did not convert to Islam (referred to by American sailors as turning Turk). Several sailors in fact did convert to Islam in order to escape the brutal treatment and torture. Some of this torture included being bound and having the soles of the feet beaten by rods until the flesh was virtually stripped from their feet. The prisoners were often worked until they dropped dead cutting stones for various fortresses. They were starved, allowed to become disease ridden and treated to total humiliation. George Washington, wrote to Thomas Jefferson and the American Consul to Tunis William Eaton that these circumstances existed because of America being perceived by the Muslim nations as a Christian nation (i.e. having a State controlled and legislated official Church). Washington attempted to distance this notion by writing a letter to the various Beys of Tripoli, Morocco and Algeria that America was not a Christian Theocracy but rather a democratic government (in comparison to the European Governments, many of which governed over state churches and were perceived by the Muslims to be in-essence Theocracies), but this failed to convince the Muslim governments who continued to see us as infidels because we did not embrace Sharia Law.

Washington’s solution was to commission a navy to be built. The initial authorization was for 6-frigates, three of which were to be 44-gun frigates, and three to be 36-gun frigates. These were the Constitution, Constellation, United Sates, President, Chesapeake and Congress along with several smaller ships. In addition, 6-subscription frigates were built by citizens of the US and presented to the US Navy including: Essex, Boston, New York, Adams, John Adams (a separate frigate) and Philadelphia. Several of these were laid up in an incomplete state and not completed when a financial agreement was reached with the Tripolitanian governments which included a yearly bribe to be paid out by US tax payers and delivered by the Navy. This agreement did not last long as the Muslim governments were (and are) not known to keep their word to so-called infidels. Under Adams administration, following continued terrorism and failure of the Muslim governments to keep their word the various frigates were completed and the US navy was born. (Much of this occurred due to pressure from the US populace with such cries as "Millions for Defense and not one cent for tribute...").

From 1801 to 1805, the new US navy was deployed in various squadrons bombarding Tripolitanian towns, capturing Tripolitanian ships and rescuing US and foreign (Christian) sailors who were prisoners. These actions included Stephen Decatur’s boarding and burning of the frigate Philadelphia which had grounded on a reef while captained by the rather unfortunate William Bainbridge. The frigate was captured by the Tripolitanians and Bainbridge and his crew became slaves to the Muslims. British Admiral Lord Nelson later called Decatur’s boarding, capturing and burning of the Philadelphia in plain sight of the guns of the Tripolitanian harbor fortresses, “The boldest act of the age…” In addition, another heroic action occurred when a small contingent of Marines led by Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon in concert with a rather dubious Arab army under William Eaton stormed and captured the city of Derna (Subsequently the Marine Corps Anthem contains the lines “To the shores of Tripoli...” as a tribute to O’Bannon and his Marine’s deeds).

As a result of this show of overwhelming force, the Muslims finally signed a treaty to stop stealing US ships and imprisoning US crews (without being paid ANY tribute money!).

THIS DID NOT LAST!

As America entered the War of 1812 and much of the navy was blockaded in US ports by the British navy, the Muslim governments in the Mediterranean once again began to prey on US shipping as a result of the US having no military presence in the region. Over 1,000 sailors were once again enslaved. Following the end of the War of 1812, an overwhelming US naval squadron including several new Super-frigates and the new 74-gun Ship-of-the-Line USS Independence sailed for the Mediterranean and were deployed from 1815 to 1816. Except for the capture of two ships, this fleet overawed the Muslims into surrendering by simply appearing in the various ports with guns run out and loaded without firing a shot.

There are several lessons that can be learned from the US Government's first involvement with Muslim terrorists:

1. Muslims cannot be reasoned with, nor expected to keep agreements due to their religious views of so-called Christian infidels. This was played out by both the history of the various Muslim Deys in constantly breaking agreements with the US Government and the history of William Eaton’s army in which they were continually seeking to run away, lying to the Americans, were constantly stealing from the Americans, and generally were useless as a fighting force. This is also the current trend as evidenced by Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his dubious promises made to the International Atomic Commission regarding cessation of his nuclear weapons production.

2. Claiming that America is no longer a Christian nation as Washington attempted to do and as has also our current president in a recent speech, will not change the views of the Muslims toward America as being a nation of infidels.

3. Signs of weakness are only avenues of exploitation to Muslim terrorists.

4. Since they see us as infidels, they have no respect for persons or property, nor are obligated to treat us with honor, but only see us as only inferior enemies.

5. They only understand overwhelming force and any relaxation of this force will only allow them to re-emerge and recommence their acts of terrorism. This is the current understanding of General Petraeus and his recommendation of ramping up the US military presence in Afghanistan.

6. Their hatred of America is not due to our prosperity, nor our culture, nor our involvement in the Middle East militarily, as is evidenced by the fact that in the 1790's the US had no military presence anywhere in the world (including our own territory, excluding two regiments of infantry and several companies of Militia stationed in Cincinnati), nor were we a rich nation by any means (we were in fact what would be referred to today as an emerging nation). In addition, America at that time was much more of a Christian nation than today, and our moral character was much stronger and closer to Muslim moral ideologies than that of today. Thus, our westernized concept that the rise of militant Muslimism is due to our morally declining culture, our military presence in the Middle East, or our economic prosperity as the reason for the current war is not a logical reason for the current Muslim war.

7. Any belief that Muslim terrorists can be left alone and therefore will leave us alone is not reasonable as is evidenced by the US withdrawal from the Mediterranean during the War of 1812. This left a window of opportunity for the Muslims to begin terrorizing us again (see number 5 above).

8. They do not believe in peaceful coexistence but only believe that peace can be achieved when everyone is converted to Islam or destroyed. The only way the US prisoners could escape the brutal treatment of their captors was to convert to Islam. Once they "turned Turk", they then were granted full freedom, and only then.

9. Although on the surface this appears to be a Xenophobic view, history indicates that unless Western culture is willing to make a long term commitment to stamping out Muslim terrorism, and by default, protecting Western ideologies of freedom and democracy, and invest in a long term and overwhelmingly strong military response when threatened by Muslim terrorism, the end result will be a slow and complete stamping out of western culture as we know it. This is evidenced by simply looking at a world map of the 10/40 window and seeing that Western culture has largely been excluded from these areas. Christianity is illegal in almost all of the areas within this window, while Islam is permitted within almost all of the Western World. The result has been historically that Muslim dominated regions do not allow free, peaceful coexistence with Western cultural ideas, while Western regions have allowed and fostered peaceful coexistence. The end result has been that Islam has increasingly encroached upon Western culture (i.e. England and France are prime examples) while Western culture has made little impact on the 10/40 window. Notice that based on the above evidence, the Xenophobia rests square in the laps of the Muslim terrorists, not within the ideology of Western culture.

10. Last, but not least, if anyone thinks that in our enlightened age, the Muslim faith has grown out of such 18th century ideologies (and thus negates what some may see as a rather radical statement above), need only to look at the modern pattern of Muslim terrorism and listen to Muslim Clerics and their messages regarding views of Western infidels and Western culture in order to see that their actions and views have not changed in over 200 years.

Conclusion: Winston Churchill said, "those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it..." Our current administration is waffling on committing troops to Afghanistan and wavering on the prosecution of the war to the fullest extent. We can win this war as proved by the 1801-1805 scenario. Muslim terrorists must be shown overwhelming force with a constant reminder that any time they entertain any evil toward the west, we will come with a vengeance that they cannot even conceive. Only then will they leave us alone and we will then see the Western ideology of peaceful coexistence in which the battlefield is the debating and exchanging of ideology, not ordinance!