Friday, April 29, 2011

The Democrat Caused Pension Bomb About to Destroy Our States

It is the Democrats, and their blind submission to the Unions that sent our States into massive budget deficits. Thank God the States are waking up, realizing they cannot continue to pay out the billions in pensions and healthcare plans:
A few weeks ago I wrote that unions have driven every state budget into a hole from which it isn’t likely the states can easily dig themselves out. I did not at that time reference the Pew report on the pensions mess and I want to revisit it here.

On April 5, I said, “The worst mess that states are in is because government unions have been handed luxurious and unsustainable pensions and healthcare plans by those very Democrat politicians that unions have paid off to do so. Again all at the expense of the suffering taxpayers.” The Pew report shores this up thoroughly.

In fact, the Pew report from early April 2010 even understates the problem, not because of any bias but because the stats that they used were taken from stats assembled in 2008 because that was the last year where full records had been compiled. Further, we must remember that these stats also came before the market crash ushered in during the age of Obama.

As LaborUnionReport.com notes, “For example, we know that New Jersey’s pension is now underfunded by $54 billion dollars, as opposed to the $34.4 billion when Pew published its report.” (For more data click here)

All this has occurred because government unions have given millions to Democrats so that Democrats can write union-friendly laws and give union members outsized and unearned benefits with payscales higher than anyone’s in the private sector. Then, when Democrats follow through with their union payoffs, unions give even more to the politicians for even more favors. It is a never-ending circle of favors and payoffs to each other in an incestuous system of which the voters have no influence.

As Pew said, “Far too many states are not responsibly managing the bill for their employees’ retirement.” That is an understatement.

Jeff Dunetz said it well drilling the argument down to Wisconsin: “Unions have been claiming that Wisconsin was trying to break the unions. What this pension data shows is that it is the Unions who will be breaking the states.” His point works in every state.

This is a destructive, anti-American cycle that needs to be stopped. Remember, government unions never existed until about 1958. So they have not always been around. In fact, even the left’s patron saint, FDR, was wholly against government unions.

Government unions have been a destructive and failed experiment. They need now to be eliminated.

Does the Liberal Left Really Believe In ‘Democracy’?

Discerning Citizen has posted an excellent piece on the dangers of liberalism to our Constitutional Republic--err, well, actually we haven't been a Republic in years. Our country has morphed into--what Thomas Jefferson feared--an Oligarchy.
I’ve never been able to figure out the liberal left. They say they support democracy, yet they are the biggest proponents of new bureaucracies that dilute the power of the people over their government. Enter Obama’s IPAB, or the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a new bureaucracy created in the Obamacare bill to regulate Medicare payments.

According to critics, IPAB will have the power to cut off treatments in the interest of Medicare cost-cutting, hence the label “death panel”. Supporters say the role of the board will only be to reduce Medicare costs by regulating payments. According to the New York Times, IPAB “cannot make recommendations to ‘ration health care,’ raise revenues or increase beneficiaries’ premiums, deductibles or co-payments. This increases the likelihood that the board will try to save money by trimming Medicare payments to health care providers.”

Even if IPAB really can’t restrict health care (which I doubt, considering it has the power to cut payments), just the mere fact that it regulates payments means it will likely drive many doctors out of the system. The more they cut payments to control costs, the less profitable it is for doctors to see Medicare patients. What does the government do then? Pass a law requiring doctors to be a part of Medicare? And what happens when doctors exit medicine altogether because they don’t want to be forced to see Medicare patients at a loss? Is government going to pass a new law requiring people to become doctors?

This is a perfect example of how a government “solution” just creates more problems that demand more government “solutions”. It’s a never ending cycle of increased regulation that piles on year after year until the private sector is virtually frozen and unable to function. We would all be better off if the government would just stop meddling with health care. The private sector can provide all the health care that will ever be demanded, whereas the resources of the government will always be limited by its ability to tax, borrow, and inflate.

One of the scariest parts of this – and something people from both parties seem to agree on – is that the decisions of the IPAB panel will largely be beyond the authority of Congress or the judiciary to review. Essentially, this unelected panel will have the power to make decisions impacting your health care and you will have little recourse against them. Representative Allyson Schwartz, a Pennsylvania Democrat, had the following to say about IPAB:

"It’s our constitutional duty, as members of Congress, to take responsibility for Medicare and not turn decisions over to a board. Abdicating this responsibility, whether to insurance companies or to an unelected commission, undermines our ability to represent our constituents, including seniors and the disabled."

Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan agreed, saying we should not “delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people appointed by the president.”

When the government takes it upon itself to govern over more areas of our lives, new bureaucracies have to be created to manage the increased governmental workload. These bureaucracies, by their very nature, are insulated from the people because the officials that run them are not elected by the people. Folks, this stuff is scary. What recourse do you have if some bureaucrat makes a decision that destroys your business or your health care? Who are you going to call? You could call your Congressman or Senator, but what are they going to do about it? They can’t just fire the offending official or override their decision.

The liberal left always says they believe in democracy, yet they’re the ones who are always pushing to create a more authoritarian government. It is not democracy or republicanism (which I prefer over democracy) to continually delegate the people’s business to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats working in some office far away in Washington.

The more we allow this to happen, the more the power of the people over the government is eroded.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Sound Bite For the Day: Left Begins to Acknowledge Media Bias On Obama Libya

Obama is spending millions of our money on Libya, and he gets a pass. If Bush spent that money, libs would be foaming at the mouth with hatred. Liberals, especially in the media, are the biggest hypocrites alive, and I did not vote for George Bush.
“If this were George Bush saying he was sending drones into Libya this morning a lot of us would be saying ‘Oh no you don’t, oh no you don’t, that’s taking it one step too far, that’s really making it an ‘American’ war.’ But now that Barack Obama’s doing it, does that make it any better? I don’t think so.”


The Devil Put On His Snow Shoes: Massachusetts Dems Vote to Limit Unions’ Collective Bargaining

In an almost hilarious twist, Democrats--of all people--vote to limit collective bargaining; in Massachusetts. The people the Unions helped elect voted to curb their benefits. Such measures is what entitlement programs bring. Remember, 47% of Americans pay no taxes. Instead of raising taxes on the wealthy, isn't there any entitlement programs for that 47% that could be cut?
The first time, it was the “Scott heard around the world.” Back then, it might have been a fluke–like a snowstorm in July. This time, however, it is almost unbelievable when Massachusetts’ liberal, Democrat-controlled legislature votes overwhelmingly to strip unions of most of their right to bargain collectively over health care, striking their union benefactors in a Wisconsin-style smack down.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

While the Democrats’ plan gives unions a little breathing to discuss the changes with municipalities, ultimately, the municipalities would have the right to unilaterally impose their changes.

So, given the fact that their bought-and-paid-for political party (in one of the most liberal states in the nation) has just stuck them with a shiv, what are union bosses going to do?

Though unions plan a lobbying blitz, as Moe Lane notes, you likely won’t see the hysterical reaction like in Wisconsin.


“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Marilynne Robinson on Christian Liberalism

From the Acton Institute. The conference was at Princeton University.
Earlier this month, prize-winning novelist Marilynne Robinson delivered the 2011 Kuyper Prize Lecture at the Kuyper Center conference, “Calvinism and Culture.”
In this lecture, Robinson explores and reframes our historical understanding of the Reformed tradition and its relationship to “Christian liberalism.” She says,
"Contrary to entrenched assumption, contrary to the conventional associations made with the words Calvinist and Puritan, and despite the fact that certain fairly austere communities can claim a heritage in Reformed culture and history, Calvinism is uniquely the fons et origo of Christian liberalism in the modern period, that is, in the period since the Reformation. And this liberalism has had its origins largely in the Old Testament. This is a bold statement, very much against the grain of historical consensus. Though I acknowledge that it may be indefensible in any number of particulars, I will argue that in a general sense it is not only true, but a clarification of history important to contemporary culture and to that shaken and diminishing community, liberal Protestantism."
She traces this idea of Christian liberalism to the Reformation ideas about generosity and responsibility. She notes, "But in Renaissance French, libéral, libéralité, meant “generous, generosity.” And of course the word occurs in the English Puritan translations, the Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva Bible, which were followed in their use of the term by the 1611 Authorized Version. The word occurs in contexts that urge an ethics of non-judgmental, non-exclusive generosity."
The point here does not apply to non-exclusivity of doctrine (which is how it is typically understood, and applied as she notes in the context of figures like Adolf von Harnack). The point is rather that Christian liberalism, as informed by the Reformed reception of the biblical witness, is that it is focused on a vision of social life and culture. As Robinson says, “All this is of interest because the verses I have quoted and the word liberal itself, supported by the meaning the verses give to it, are central to American social thought from its beginning."
The audio of Robinson’s lecture is available in MP3 format here.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Islamic Law Comes To Dearborn

Big Peace breaks the news on the latest Islamic nightmare.
Dearborn, Michigan has become a Sharia enclave, much like those populating many European countries. The city of Dearborn, Michigan denied a permit Wednesday for Qur’an-burning Pastor Terry Jones’ planned protest outside the Islamic Center of America on Good Friday.

Islamic supremacists were handed a victory for their violent intimidation and threats. City spokeswoman Mary Laundroche said that Jones’ permit had been denied for “public safety reasons.” In other words, they’re afraid Muslims will riot. And so the rights of free Americans have to be curtailed.

Terry Jones burned a Qur’an. So what? What happened to the freedom of assembly, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of expression? Terry Jones is prohibited from rallying in Michigan for fear of Islamic violence. Is that how far down the Sharia rabbit hole we have gone? Why is it that any time American law comes into conflict with Islamic law, it is American law that has to give way?

How dare they prohibit this march? Nazis marched in Skokie. Americans better stand up to this enforced Sharia. The idea that Muslims in America would get violent because of Jones speaks volumes about Muslims in America, does it not? Why don’t we don’t see Muslims taking to the streets every time there is an honor killing, or a church bombing, or an act of jihad, jihad piracy, forced marriage, or child slavery? Where are they?

Dearborn is trying to charge Jones for the extra police protection that his rally will require. But he is not the one responsible for that; the Muslims who might get violent are. If Jones had burned a Bible, no one would be threatening violence against him. Dearborn should charge the Muslims for the extra police, not Jones.

Once again Dearborn shows itself to be a pro-Sharia city that oppresses Christians. Who can forget the Christians who were arrested for passing out leaflets at a Muslim festival last July? Or the lawsuit that challenges the official cooperation by the city of Dearborn, Michigan with Islamic interests, and makes a stunning allegation: that under the recognized “Shariah” law in the city, there have been “honor killing” murders that have been “covered up”?

Wednesday’s court filing against Constitutional freedoms “equates the actions of zealots in Afghanistan with Muslim Americans in Dearborn.” I pulled that quote from Muslim Brotherhood-tied CAIR. Indeed.

As for Jones, I don’t like book burning, but so what? I have repeatedly stated my position on this. Jones does a grave disservice to the cause of spreading awareness about Islamic teachings and the threat that Sharia poses to our way of life. The burning of books is wrong in principle: the antidote to bad speech is not censorship or book-burning, but more speech. Open discussion. Give-and-take. And the truth will out. There is no justification for burning books.

Nonetheless, if Americans are free and not under Sharia, then Jones can burn any book he wants, and his church and people of like mind can hold any demonstration they want. His freedom and rights should be protected. Islamic supremacists should not be allowed a victory for their violent intimidation — if these people want to stage a protest, they’re free to do so.

This is another challenge to the U.S. to stand up for free speech and free expression. Popular speech needs no protection. As such all Americans should support the right of the church to have done this, even if they dislike what they’re doing.

Many people have said that Jones’s actions will endanger American troops in Afghanistan. This warning is just another terror tactic. It is based on the assumption that the Taliban and others in Afghanistan are fighting us because we are doing things they don’t like, and so if we stop doing those things, they will stop fighting us. But actually they are fighting us because of imperatives within the Islamic faith. They will never like us unless we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. If we stop doing things they dislike, where will we draw the line? How far will Sharia advance in the U.S., with Americans afraid to stop its advance for fear of offending Muslims and stirring them up to violence? The Muslim Students Association is already pushing for halal cafeterias, segregated dorms, segregated gym facilities on campus. This is incompatible with American freedom. We have to draw the line.

I will tell you this: Islamic law (Sharia) cannot, must not, and will not have its way over our free speech. That is worth fighting for, worth dying for.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Washington mosque: Women are inferior, you can hit them (video)

Prayer and Action, posted a video which depicts the truth Mohammed believed about women. That women are inferior to men is exactly what Mohammed taught. If Muslims could they would abolish the Constitution and mandate Sharia Law. Discard the liberal claim this isn't true Islam. True muslims follow Mohammed's teachings. Those muslims are not radicals!

Tabari IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

Tabari I:280 "Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid."

Here is the video and article:
In the small city of Sammamish, WA is an Islamic worship center that most people wouldn’t even recognize as a mosque or anything other than a residential house in just another normal neighborhood.  But what is being taught about Islam at the Sammamish Mosque should be brought to attention, not just in this small community, but on the national stage.

When I decided to research this mosque I was ready to find the ordinary and mundane, although as a self-taught student of Islam, I was prepared to find some things of concern and perhaps the truly hair-curling. What I discovered was a bit of both: a very ordinary and normal life of faith surrounding the dusty core of a 7th century barbarism, dusted off and polished up for a new life in the Pacific Northwest. This strange mix was all captured on camera and helpfully uploaded to the internet by Imam Wassim Fayed, a Sammamish Mosque trustee who holds regular workshops at the center. He is also one of the founding members of the Sammamish Muslim Association.

The two-hour video is a “Daawah Workshop” given by Imam Fayed on proselytizing to non-Muslims including instructions on the best ways to explain the “misconceptions in Islam.” In this video clip, which comes about 15 minutes into the workshop, we are instructed when giving da’wah to tell the truth to non-Muslims. That sounds good, right?



…when Imam Fayed said to lie about Islam and that it is permitted to hit your wife, no one objected. Not one man in that room full of Western educated men, many of whom (we learn from the video) are employed at one of the biggest computer software companies in the world, ever protested or objected to this kind of behavior being condoned in the United States in the 21st century.

Not. One.

This type of citizen reporting needs to take place all over the U.S., in every mosque. Expose them all.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Discerning Citizen And My Response To A Brief on American Creation

Jon Rowe and James Hanley have written a post attempting to minimize--if not blow out of the water--the Christian Nation Thesis. However, Discerning Citizen wrote a post in 2009 showing the correct interpretation of a particular quote in question from the Treaty of Tripoli. Here is the actual quote in the Treaty of Tripoli:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Now here is the quote by Rowe and Hanley:
[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion [and] has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims].
Notice these men eliminated the semi-colon in the quote in question and added a word in it's place. Discerning Citizen explains this poor scholarship by ignoring the entire thought and context: "And using it like one [attacking Christian Establishment] is disingenuous at best (or just ignorant), lying by omission at worst. If taken as a complete sentence, it certainly gives the impression that the treaty is declaring that Christianity, in no shape or form, had any influence on the Founding of our nation."

DC continues, "Note that there is no period after the word “religion”, only a semicolon. This means that the thought expressed by the article continues beyond the oft-quoted opening statement. To properly understand the complete intended meaning of the drafter, the entire article must be taken as a whole. The most important phrase, in my opinion, and the one that most colors the meaning of the article as a whole, is the one that concludes the article:
. . . no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Why emphasize we are a Christian Nation to people who aren't Christians, and have been attacked by Christians [catholics] for centuries? As DC writes, "Why highlight your differences when you’re trying to make peace, right?  The key phrase is “pretext arising from religious opinions”. This refers to conflicts deriving from differing religious views." In other words, by signing, the parties to the treaty are agreeing not to start any holy wars." The context is about keeping the peace; that we are not the kind of Christians [catholics] that want war with you.

Not only did Rowe and Hanley butcher the quote in question, three months earlier on March 4th, 1797, the man who signed the Treaty of Tripoli wrote we were politically a Christian Nation:
I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect. [bold face mine]
--Inaugural Address, In the City of Philadelphia, Saturday, March 4, 1797.

Their scholarship is just bad, and not only from Rowe, and Hanley, but by the secular establishment who promote this as well.

So what of the rest of their post? Most of the quotes are by framers who were retired; hardly representative of the people. Secularists always make it a goal to get one person's personal opinion, perhaps two or three, to speak for all the people. For instance, Rowe and Hanley distort the intention of the VA act for religious freedom. They quote Jefferson, however he wrote what is important is the ratifiers of law, not the drafters of law.

Furthermore, Jefferson leaves no doubt Jesus Christ is the "Lord" signifying the source of their rights. It was common knowledge Jesus Christ is the "holy author of our religion." Key words such as "uninspired" "Lord" and "faith" in context prove Christianity was the religion of Virginia. Interesting to note, Jefferson makes an allusion to Henry's assessment Bill; but he distorts that as well. The Bill did not compel Virginians to support Christian teachers. It was for SECULAR education with the choice to apply your tax to Christian teachers. Here is Jefferson's Christian document:
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical. [bold face mine]
And here is Virginia's Amendment for Religious freedom as Rowe and Hanley quote it:
The bill for establishing religious freedom … met with opposition; but … was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the
hindoo, and infdel of every denomination.
These Virginians rejected the above referred amendment so as to be clear everyone had freedom of conscience, not just Christians--nothing more.

The post also makes the claim that the Founding Fathers believed the "Great Spirit" of the Indians was the same god as the God of the Bible. This was only a diplomatic concession equating our God is the same as theirs, just as the Apostle Paul did in Acts 17:23:
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Here is some more of the post:
The Declaration of independence contains only the barest of theistic references: it claims that our rights come from “the Creator,” refers to “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” and appeals to “the Supreme Judge of the World.” these phrasings are more attuned to enlightenment rationalism than to Christian scripture.
Forget that the Congress prayed to Jesus:
[W]ith their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God.
--Continental Congress, November 1, 1777. National Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress.

I doubt Rowe and Hanley would dare contend our God changed from the Declaration to the Constitution. In fact James Madison's exposition in the Federalist, speaking for the entire people, wrote the principles under the Constitution--fundamentals that do not change--were the same as those under the Articles of Confederation:
We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation.
--Federalist #40

President Adams explained the principles of the DOI are still in effect:
In the progress of forty years since the acknowledgment of our Independence, we have gone through many modifications of internal government, and through all the vicissitudes of peace and war, with other mighty nations. But never, never for a moment have the great principles, consecrated by the Declaration of this day, been renounced or abandoned.
--John Q. Adams, 6th President of the United States, The Hellhound of Slavery, Founder of our Foreign Policy, Our Greatest Diplomat. An address, delivered at the request of the committee of arrangements for celebrating the anniversary of Independence, at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the occasion of reading The Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution is the carrrying out of principles made by the Declaration of Independence:
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government.
--John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York on Tuesday, the 30th of April 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789 (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), p. 53.

The Father of the Revolution reiterated the same concept to the legislature of Massachusetts:
Before the formation of this Constitution, it had been affirmed as a self evident truth, in the declaration of Independence, very deliberately made by the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that, "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." This declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.
--Samuel Adams, TO THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS. JANUARY 17, 1794.
[Independent Chronicle, January 20, 1794; the text is in W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, vol. iii., pp. 324-328, and in the Massachusetts Archives.]

Adams was correct in his understanding the Articles of Confederation were ratified. There were no conventions due to the War, however, the Continental Congress represented the State Legislatures and ratified it March 1, 1781:
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.
--Articles of Confederation

Did our Unalienable Rights change because our God changed? Personal opinions are meaningless. They also quote Jefferson again:
All [the Declaration’s] authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, locke, Sidney, &c.
Did they purposely forget the "&c" which means "and others." Did Jefferson's quote, "contains no actual reference to religious or scriptural authority?"

As if the sentiments of the Church through newspapers, the pulpit, or public proclamations by the other founders did not reference the Bible or religious authority. Moreover, Locke and Sidney both reference the God of the Bible as Nature's God. The Articles of Confederation and Article VI section 3's prohibition against religious tests are products of Federalism (Religion is left to the States).

Furthermore, Rowe and Hanley foolishly quote an Orthodox Christian fundamentalist, Oliver Ellsworth, in their quest the framers refrained from the "mingling of politics and religion" when Ellsworth is one of the framers who believed we should teach the Bible is schools:
"[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions." [bold face mine]
--Oliver Ellsworth, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1796-1800). Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut.

Both of these men's knowledge of the founding is less than stellar. They even endorse the argument one man's personal letter (Thomas Jefferson) should be made National Policy, when Ellsworth, more of an authority on the Constitution--he helped draft and ratify the Constitution--rejects the modern notion of separation of church and state.   
 
They quote Hugo Black supporting their position, which James Madison directly refutes. First, their quote of Black:
The “establishment clause” of the first Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the federal Government can set up a church. neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
Yet, James Madison, and all the other framers, believed a State could establish whatever religion they wanted:
If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion...Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security [free exercise] should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest. [bold face mine]
--James Madison, June 12, 1788. Elliot's Debates In the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Virginia).



Friday, April 15, 2011

CA Senate bill mandates gay history in schools

California could be the first State to legalize teaching gay history in public schools. If the house passes it, and the Governor signs it; it would be the law of California.
The legislation, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, passed on a 23-14 party line vote. It also would add disabled people to the curriculum...Appealing to colleagues for support, Leno said gay children still struggle routinely with verbal and physical abuse at school, even though society is more accepting than when he was a gay youth in the 1960s.
In what would be one of the most unprecented acts in our history, a State would mandate, the beginning of legalizing the sin of homosexuality; without approving their wisdom, a sin the Founding Fathers of our nation penalized with death! Secularists will always point out the evils they allowed are being corrected, however mandating the death penalty by using the direct words of Leviticus 18 is not just a mistake, and can hardly be support our nation was founded on the Enlightenment, for even the most liberal of the States:
That if any do commit the detestable and abominable vice of Buggery, with man or beast, he or she so offending, shall be adjudged a felon, and shall suffer death, in the case of felony, without the benefit of Clergy.
--A Collection of All Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia 1802, (Richmond:Pleasance and Price, 1803), page 179, ch. C [50], enacted Dec. 10, 1792.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

FDR on Collective Bargaining

It would appear FDR is for government unions that do not have the ability to strike. If that is the case, what would the union be good for? What basis would the union have to fight for a better deal? The government can lower your wages and your pensions, but you can't strike?? What would be the reason for government unions? FDR understood there was a limit to government unions, meaning collective bargaining wasn't a right.
My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. [bold face mine]

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government." successful.

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Very Sincerely Yours,

(FDR) August 16, 1937

Friday, April 8, 2011

GOP Threatens Shutdown Over Planned Parenthood

From American Power, "GOP Threatens Shutdown Over Planned Parenthood"
“I am really stunned, and I am angry as a woman,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, “that we have come to this after weeks of negotiating on numbers, where we have in principle an agreement on numbers, that there are those in the Republican Party in the House who are willing to shut down the government, take people’s paychecks away from them, because they want to deny women access to health care in this country.”

"Health care."

That's a nice rhetorical trick. Planned Parenthood is a death mill. Ground zero for the enormity of progressive pro-abortion evil. And leftists are manning (or womanning) the barricades on this one, since they know that abortion is to social policy as unions are to economics: Lose there and the Democrat-socialist-anti-life-coalition takes a knockout blow, with repercussions all the way up the electoral ladder (think President Barack "Infanticide" Obama).
There is a revolution going on!


Thursday, April 7, 2011

Mike Huckabee on the Jon Stewart Show Talking About David Barton

Jon Stewart showed his knowledge about Separation of Church and State, the Christian Nation Thesis, etc. with Mike Huckabee, calling out David Barton as a theologian instead of an historian. What do the words of the Founding Fathers have to do with theology? If their words happen to be theological, fine.

Huckabee is trying to be President, which has to be taken into account whenever he does an interview. With that being said, Stewart comes across as if Christians; and Barton, are trying to establish Christianity from the Constitution. Because Stewart fails to understand the truth about our founding, he is over-exaggerating the issue. Huckabee should have shown the Founding Fathers established a Christian Nation and called us one:

Here is John Adams stating we are a Christian people, to respect Christianity in public service. If this statement doesn't blow away separation of church and state, nothing will:

[T]hat they may consider what further measures the honor and interest of the Government and its constituents demand; if a resolution to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world; if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources of the American people, on which I have so often hazarded my all and never been deceived; if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of the moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people deeply engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by experience and age; and, with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.

--Inaugural Address, In the City of Philadelphia, Saturday, March 4, 1797
Here is Stewart:
"You spoke right after him at an event, and you called him the greatest historian in America,” Stewart said. “And I don’t know if everybody’s familiar with David Barton, but he doesn’t seem like a historian, he seems almost like a theologian whose thrust is, ‘I want this country to be Christian and go by the Bible.’”
Mr. Stewart, yes, the Founding Fathers said we were a Christian Nation. This is what is so frustrating. The media and politicians have no clue about our founding.

Stewart goes on:
“What makes me uncomfortable about these Texas curriculum changes … is that they’re not looking at it from a historical perspective, they are looking at it as a way to justify their religious beliefs within the context of the country,” Stewart said.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Global Temperature Trend Update: March 2011

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through March, 2011 (the usual temperature trend graph has not been provided at this time).

March 2011 was coolest in more than a decade
--Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

March temperatures (preliminary)
--Global composite temp.: -0.10 C (about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for March.
--Northern Hemisphere: -0.07 C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for March.
--Southern Hemisphere: -0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above/below 30-year average for March.
--Tropics: -0.35 C (about 0.63 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for March.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Alexander Hamilton On Presidential War Powers

Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the greatest military administrator that ever lived, wrote about the extent of the President's War Powers. Barack Obama's controversial action in Libya comes to mind. From Hamilton's statement, I cannot see how any covert action could be taken by the President without consent of Congress:
In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these:-First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.
--Federalist #69 (March 14, 1788)

Monday, April 4, 2011

Roman Catholicism and Unalienable Rights Part I

The blogosphere and the world in general through the media has much to say about human rights or civil rights, and the United Nations claims to be its guardian. Pertaining to the United States, and the men who framed this country, modern intellectuals claim unalienable rights come from Natural Law. As I have previously covered on this blog, the Founding Fathers wrote Natural Law was subservient to the Scriptures from their frequently used appellation "of God and Nature." The mind of man being too depraved to build such a foundation upon.

The Protestant Founding Fathers understood human rights were founded on the Scriptures. What does the Roman Catholic Church have to say about human rights? Modern Catholic apologists: Dave Armstrong (previously an evangelical), Thomas F. Madden, Kevin Knight, and Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University (another former Protestant) defend the Catholic Church mightily. The entire foundation for Roman Catholicism is based on Apostolic Succession. Upon this very doctrine Catholicism will stand or fall.

Before the brutal facts are displayed, let's not forget after Israel's rebirth in 1948, the Catholic Church refused Israel's right to exist for 46 years! Why would they do that? Animosity perhaps against Jerusalem? The fact is, Jerusalem and Rome have been enemies since the days of the Caesars. Catholic Rome claims to be the "Eternal City" and the "Holy City" titles the Bible has given to Jerusalem. Rome also claims to be the "New Jerusalem" putting her in direct conflict with the true city of David. Rome wants to influence Jerusalem and keep her an international city with no nation in control of her.

The Vatican has consistently fought every democratic advance  beginning with England's Magna Carta in 1215. Pope Innnocent denounced it immediately as:
[N]ull and void and excommunicated the English barons who obtained it..and absolved the king of his oath to the barons.
--Judgment Day, Dave Hunt and The Pope and the Council. J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger, London 1869. p. 19. See also R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power. New York 1876, p. 419.

Even though the popes brought in mercenaries to defeat the barons, they eventually lost.
Pope Leo XII reproved Louis XVIII for granting the "liberal" French Constitution, while Pope Gregory XVI denounced the Belgian Constitution of 1832. His outrageous encyclical, Mirari vos, of August 15, 1832 (which was later confirmed by Pope Pius IX in his 1864 Syllabus Errorum), condemned freedom of conscience as an "insane folly" and freedom of the press as a "pestiferous error, which cannot be sufficiently detested."
--Judgment Day, p. 54-55. Dollinger, p. 21. See also Sidney Z. Ehler and John B. Morrall, Church and State Through The Centuries. London, 1945, pp. 299, 314.

Pope Pius IX
The Popes reserved the right to use force to enforce their decrees and they demanded the authorities to imprison any non-catholics who dared to preach or practice their faith. Latin American countries is the story of catholic oppression and lack of any human rights. Prior to Benito Juarez, the catholic church controlled Mexico for 350 years! No other religion was allowed; no freedom of the press, right to assemble, etc. The Pope controlled Mexico.

It is true modern catholics quote Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) to establish their position on human rights. However, Bellarmine isn't as clean as they make him out to be. Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) rewrote the entire Latin Bible, adding phrases, leaving out entire verses, changing titles of the Psalms; you get the picture. Sixtus declared his translation must be held "true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned in all public and private discussions..." Anyone who disobeyed was excommunicated. The clergy realized his bible contradicted the Council of Trent and every textbook after it. Fortunately, Sixtus died and Bellarmine devised the cover up:
On 11 Nov. 1590, Bellarmine returned to Rome...Personally relieved that Sixtus, who had wanted him on the Index [of forbidden books and authors], was dead, he feared for the prestige of the papacy....Bellarmine advised the [new] pope to lie. Some of his admirers have disputed this. Their task is formidable. The options were plain: admit publicly that a pope had erred on a critical matter of the Bible or engage in a cover-up whose outcome was unpredictable. Bellarmine proposed the latter.
--Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Peter de Rosa (Crown Publishers, 1988), pp. 217-219.

Bellarmine and some scholars went to work and in six months corrected the errors. They tried to confiscate all the originals but a few escaped the Catholics, and one copy is in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Bellarmine, who was absolutely obedient to the pope, declared:
[W]hatever the Roman Pontiff commanded must be believed and obeyed no matter how evil or ludicrous.
--Judgment Day, Dave Hunt, Berean Call, 1994, p. 111. See also Vicar of Christ by de Rosa.

Of course Bellarmine could find no support for such an extreme view in the Bible or in common sense. His blind obedience seared his common sense as well, "..anyone, simply by consulting his senses, could know for sure that the earth is motionless." He surely did not take the advice of his friend Galileo..

When Emperor Constantine supposedly became a Christian in A.D. 313 (a sly political maneuver), he gave the Christian church political status along with the pagans, and declared himself its de facto head. He convened the first ecumenical council; the Council of Nicea, in 325, "set its agenda, gave the opening speech, and presided over it as Charlemagne would over the Council of Chalon 500 years later, interested not in the truth of the gospel but in unifying the empire." Constantine headed both the Church and the Pagan Priesthood "to officiate at pagan celebrations, and to endow pagan temples even after he began to build Christian churches."

They honored him as head of the pagan priesthood, Pontifex Maximus, and "Bishop of Bishops" while Constantine called himself Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ). Being a pagan, he meant he was "another Christ" acting in the place of Christ. Ironically, the Greek "anti" is "vicarius" in Latin. Vicar of Christ literally means Antichrist. Catholics have used that moniker for centuries, but they got it from Constantine; a pagan! Today's popes used the titles that Constantine used. The anti-christ will be the new "Constantine" the chief ecumenist, heading the one world religion and revived Roman Empire.

The revived Roman Empire is mentioned in the Bible. This kingdom is mentioned in the Book of Daniel:
Daniel 7:2-3,17,23-24
Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
The fourth kingdom is stronger than the others. Daniel says the kingdom is represented by a beast, and the Book of Revelation says that kingdom did not die, but will be revived:
Revelation 13:1-3
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
From the last sentence in Revelation 13, many Bible interpreters believe the anti-christ will have a deadly wound and rise from the dead. However, Satan cannot create life, but he can make it appear that happened. The beast and its heads represent several things at once; Satan, the Anti-Christ, Kings, Kingdoms, and the revived Roman Empire. The Roman Empire did not die, but was fragmented, which is what the last sentence in chapter 13 is referring to for the reason already given.