Search This Blog

Thursday, March 31, 2011

The Truth About Islam and the Palestinian State

The deceit true Muslims bring upon the world is astounding. The fact that people believe these lies is even worse. I say true Muslims because peaceful muslims are not muslims at all. Mohammed called them hypocrites and ordered their death. As the koran clearly states below; to avoid any confusion, a muslim must constantly Jihad for Daral-islam (World domination, or House of Peace). Why aren't peaceful muslims committing terrorist acts? No professing muslim alive has the authority to ignore the clear commands in the koran:
Qur'an 4:88 "What is the matter with you that you are divided about the Hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (causing their disbelief). Would you guide those whom Allah has thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah has thrown aside and led astray, never shall they find the Way."

Qur'an 4:89 "They wish that you would reject Faith, as they have, and thus be on the same footing: Do not be friends with them until they leave their homes in Allah's Cause. But [and this is a hell of a but...] if they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them."

Qur'an 48:11 "The desert Arabs who lagged behind [in fighting] will say to you (Muhammad): 'We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and our families.' We have prepared for them a Blazing Fire!"

Qur'an 4:77 "Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: 'Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?'"

Qur'an 4:78 "Wherever you are, death will find you, even if you are in towers built up strong and high! If some good befalls, they say, 'This is from Allah;' but if evil, they say, 'This is from you (Muhammad).' Say: 'All things are from Allah.' So what is wrong with these people, that they fail to understand these simple words?"

The ancient land of Israel was first populated by the Canaanites. That land was never promised to the Arabs. God destroyed the Canannites Himself, and through using Israel, so they aren't around to ask for the land back anyway. The Israelites took Canaan and lived there for 1500 years. Liberals question God's command to annililate the Canaanites, however they practiced idolatry and sacrificed their babies to Molech; clearly warranting destruction.

Around 70 A.D. the Roman emperor sacked Jerusalem and rebuilt the city as a pagan city dedicated to himself and Jupiter. In 135 Hadrian renamed Jerusalem Provincia Syria-Palestina, after Israel's ancient enemy; the Philistines. Palestina is from Peleshette, meaning "land of Philistia" (the area where they lived), from which we get "Philistines." The Arabs understood Jews were Palestinians and only applied the label to bedouins living there in order to exterminate Israel. In WWII Britain had a volunteer brigade known as "The Palestinian Brigade" made up of entirely Jews. The Arabs fought on Hitler's side with one entire SS division made up of Bosnian Muslims.

There was the Palestinian Symphony Orchestra; a Jewish orchestra, and the Palestinian Post, a jewish newspaper. As late as the 1950's Arabs refused to be called Palestinians, and said if there were such a people, they were Jews:
To the British Peel Commission in 1937, a local Arab leader testified, "There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented..."Professor Philip Hitti, Arab Historian, testified to an Anglo American Committee of Inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history--absolutely not!" To the UN Security Council on May 31,  1956, Ahmed Shukairy declared, "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria."
--Judgment Day, Dave Hunt, Bend, Oregon, 2005, p. 76.

Shukairy was the founding chairman of the PLO in 1964, and coined the slogan, "[W]e'll drive the jews into the sea." He wasn't even Palestinian! He was born in Cairo, like Arafat. Not one muslim has a right to that land, yet the world is pushing for an Arab State in order to destroy Israel. The Jews are the Palestinians!

The entire basis for the conflict in the Middle East revolves around the land. Arabs claim the land is theirs through Ishmael, Abraham's first son. However, the Bible says Isaac was the son of promise. Moreover, Arabs cannot be descended from Canaanites. His father Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees, and his mother Hagar was Egyptian. They weren't related to Canaanites, nor did Ishmael's descendants live in Canaan. As a matter of history, Ishmael isn't the progenitor of Arabs. Abraham never journeyed to Mecca, but even if he did, there were Arabs already there by 2000 B.C.

How could the descendants of Ishmael, who didn't even live in Palestine claim descent from the original Palestinians (Canaanites) who were there before Ishmael was born? They can't. Yet the world believes these muslim fantasies

If Palestine is so important to Arabs, why isn't it mentioned in the koran? The Hebrew word for Palestine is pelensheth or philistia; land of the philistines. Emperor Hadrian renamed the land Palestine to mock the Jews after their arch enemy, the Philistines. The Philistines weren't even the original inhabitants as Muslims claim. They came from across the Mediterranean Sea and displaced the Canaanites.

Arab Palestinians living there today can claim neither ethnic, linguistic, nor historical relationship to the philistines, nor can they justify on any basis whatsoever calling themselves Palestinians.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Was Founding Father William Livingston Orthodox?

William Livingston was the most valuable Governor of any State during the Revolution. He was indispensible in winning the War. His religious beliefs are tricky to understand, given academia forgets he changed his views from the 1750's, to when he was Governor of New Jersey, and Signer of the Constitution.

Livingston moved from New York to New Jersey in 1770. From then on, he was an active member of the Presbyterian Church, the most Orthodox sect in Christianity. However in 1753, his writings could appear less Orthodox than later in life. His disdain for Creeds targeted the Clergy, not the Scriptures:
"[T]he Use of Creeds, which is the construction of the Clergy upon the Scriptures." p. 390
Moreover, by 1770, Livingston was an active Presbyterian. His Presbyterian daughter, Sarah married John Jay April 28, 1774, and he could never have been a trustee of Princeton if he walked out of Communion; as George Washington did.
In recognition of his prominence in Presbyterian circles, he had been appointed a trustee of the College of New Jersey (Princeton) in 1768, and the student newspaper had been named the  "American Whig" in his honor. In 1771 he had been a founding member of the "New Jersey Society for the better Support of the Widows and Education of the Children of deceased Presbyterian Ministers...
--Introduction, The Papers of William Livingston. Vol 1, June 1774-77. Carl E. Prince, Editor, New Jersey Historical Commission, Trenton. 1979. p. 7.

His serious involvement with the Presbyterians is evidenced in this note to his son:
With respect to your entring a Sophomore & then staying another year at Elizabeth Town under Mr. Periam..I think it best for us to take the opinion of Dr. Witherspoon on that subject.
--To William Livingston Jr. March 1, 1777. Papers of Livingston, p. 262.

Mr. Livingston was trusting Witherspoon with his son's education. I doubt Witherspoon or the other trustees, would have allowed Livingston into their hierarchy if he walked out of communion. Here is the charter. Maybe someone can decipher it.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

International Law Quoted Against Anti-Union Bill

A blog in Michigan quotes anti-union bills violate; get this, not the Constitution, but International Law:
Under international law, all workers have a human right to organize and to bargain collectively.

These rights are an essential foundation to the realization of other rights, and are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, as well as conventions adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO).

As a state party to the ICCPR and a signatory to the ICESCR, the USA has an obligation to respect the human rights under these instruments and treaties.

As a member of the ILO, the USA also has a commitment, through the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, to respect, promote and realize the fundamental rights set out in the organization’s core conventions.

Moves to limit such rights in the USA are also at odds with commitments made under the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) as well as numerous subsequent trade agreements negotiated and ratified over the last 15 years.
The Founding Fathers wrote any violation of rights from a power other than the people themselves was tyranny and slavery:
The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be universally maintained but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves.
--James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Presented to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia at their Session in 1785 in Consequence of a Bill Brought into that Assembly for the Establishment of Religion (Massachusetts: Isaiah Thomas, 1786), pp. 4-5

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Hamas Fires More Rockets At Israel

Hamas, Yaser Arafat's Terrorist arm of Islam, fired dozens of Rockets against Israel; the same weapons from Iran that Israel intercepted last week from a cargo ship. Yet the world, still believes Muslims want peace. Islam re-ignited the conflict by the murder of an Israeli family, including the slit throat of a three month old baby.

Barack Obama; begun by the Bush Administration, believe in the road map to peace by giving the Palestinians a nation that will enable more coordinated attacks from a sovereign nation.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Did Men of the Enlightenment Believe in Miracles?

Carl Becker and Murray Rothbard promoted the idea Scottish Presbyterians of the Enlightenment rejected miracles. Did the intellectuals of the Enlightenment, as well as the Founding Fathers, believe man's Reason was King and reject the supernatural? The evidence gives a resounding no!

The fact is, Benjamin Franklin, supposedly a man of the Enlightenment, believed in Miracles!
[T]he Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc’d in the Course of Nature..If you say he has in the Beginning unchangeably decreed all Things….[but] he has divested himself of all further Power, he has done and has no more to do, he has ty’d up his Hand and has now no greater Power than an Idol of Wood or Stone; nor can there be any more Reason for praying to him or worshipping of him.
--Benjamin Franklin, “On the Providence of God in the Government of the World,” in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), vol. 1,  p. 267-8.

Franklin, though called himself a Deist, affirmed Jesus turning water into wine at Cana:
We hear of the conversion of water into wine at the marriage in Cana as of a miracle. But this conversion is, through the goodness of God, made every day before our eyes. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy. The miracle in question was only performed to hasten the operation, under circumstances of present necessity, which required it. [bold face mine]
--Franklin, 1779, On the marriage at Cana.

What then of Franklin's statement against the Old Testament:
To which I may now add, that the[re are] several Things in the old Testament impossible to be given by divine Inspiration, such as the Approbation ascrib’d to the Angel of the Lord, of that abominably wicked and detestable Action of Jael the Wife of Heber the Kenite. If the rest of the Book were like that, I should rather suppose it given by Inspiration from another Quarter, and renounce the whole.
--to John Calder, Aug 21, 1784.

He is referring to Inspiration, not a miracle, given the action he condemns is not a miracle. Moreover, did these men believe in violations of the physical laws of nature, or something similiar to an angel delivering a baby out of a burning building? The Enlightenment thinkers believed they were the same thing, only different forms of Providence, but done by God or Angels. Here are some names of the Enlightenment that believed in Miracles:

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Priestley, Charles Blount, Lord Shaftesbury, Robespierre, Francis Hutcheson, Samuel Clarke, Richard Price, Isaac Newton, John Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Washington, Reid, John Toland, Herbert of Cherbury, John Trenchard, et al.

This website did the footwork with the primary sources, and notes some interesting views from the philosophers:
For example, In his “Essay on Miracles,” the English deist John Trenchard said a miracle was when God altered the usual order of the universe:  “A Miracle or actio mirabilis, is an action to be wondered at; as when God Almighty interposes, and by his omnipotent power alters the order he at first placed the universe in, or enables or empowers other beings to do so.
Did Trenchard believe in miracles? In his view he did. He believed a flying angel violating the laws of gravity was a miracle. And Trenchard was one of the leading Deists of the Enlightenment.

The Chief Scientist of the Enlightenment was Isaac Newton; a man who believed in miracles. Newton wrote there were:
[S]ome very small irregularities which may have arisen from the mutual Actions of the Planets and Comets upon one another; and which tis probable will in length of Time increase more and more, till the present System of Nature shall want to be anew put in Order by its Author.
--Isaac Newton, from the Optics, as quoted in Samuel Clarke, “A Collection of Papers which passed between the late Learned Mr. Leinitz and Dr. Clarke, in the years 1715 and 1716,” 1st Reply, in The Works, vol. 4 (New York: Garland Press, 1978), p. 587.

Moreover, Samuel Clarke defended his friend Isaac Newton against Leibnizs' attacks:
[I]s himself the author and continual preserver of their [all things in the world] original forces or moving powers.  And consequently ’tis not a diminution but the true glory of his workmanship that nothing is done without his continual government and inspection.  The notion of the world’s being a great machine, going on without the interposition of God, as a clock continues to go without the assistance of a clockmaker, is the notion of materialism and fate and tends (under the pretense of making God a supramundane intelligence) to exclude providence and God’s government in reality out of the world . . . so whoever contends that the course of the world can go on without the continual direction of God, the supreme governor, his doctrine does in effect tend to exclude God out of the world.
--Samuel Clarke, “A Collection of Papers which passed between the late Learned Mr. Leinitz and Dr. Clarke, in the years 1715 and 1716,” Second Reply, in The Works, vol. 4 (New York: Garland Press, 1978), p. 598-600.

Leibniz was severely attacked by Newton's friends; ironically Leibniz believed in miracles. He attacked the wrong man and the wrong theory. Leibniz wrote:
I say that God’s miracles and extraordinary concourse have the peculiarity that they cannot be foreseen by the reasoning of any created mind.
--"Discourse on Metaphysics,” in Philosophical Essays, ed. and trans. Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989), p. 49.

Enlightenment thinkers even viewed natural disasters were God's punishment for sin. This thought would make today's liberals foam at the mouth:
[I]n a 1750 address to the scientists of the Royal Society, the English botanist Stephen Hales said earthquakes were sometimes sent by God to chastise people.  Hales said God sometimes “changes the Order of Nature, with Design to chastise Man for his Disobedience and Follies, natural Evils being graciously designed by him as moral Goods.
--Stephen Hales, Some considerations on the causes of earthquakes (London, 1750), p. 6.

Here is an English Naturalist affirming Joseph stopped the sun. [H]e said that Joshua’s miracle of  stopping the sun and Hezekiah’s wheel turning backward were “miraculous Perversions of the Course of Nature…. They are great Arguments of the Power of God."

--William Derham, Physico-Theology, 7th ed. (London, 1727), p. 45.

Scientist Joseph Priestley believed in miracles, tearing apart Hume's rejection of them, which raises the question why Thomas Jefferson rejected them. The foremost Philosopher of the Enlightenment, Francis Hutcheson, believed in Miracles:
If the teachings are holy and leading to people’s happiness, we rightly believe that their announcer or teacher was filled with the  divine spirit in accomplishing the miracles.  And so NATURAL THEOLOGY will lead us to the embrace of what is called REVEALED THEOLOGY.
--Francis Hutcheson, Synopsis Metaphysicae Ontologium et Pneumatologiam (Glasgow, 1744), p. 123.  My translation.

Even Scottish Common Sense Philosopher Thomas Reid believed in miracles:
These laws of nature neither restrain the power of the Author of nature, nor bring him under any obligation to do nothing beyond their sphere.  He has sometimes acted contrary to them, in the case of miracles, …miraculous events, which are contrary to the physical laws of nature…  GOD is the cause of them, and to him only are they to be imputed.
--Thomas Reid, Essays on the Active Powers of Man (Edinburgh, 1788), p. 345.

Incredibly, the derelict Jean Jacques Rousseau, who abandoned all his children, believed in miracles:
He asserted it was “impious, if not absurd,” to say an omnipotent God could not do miracles.  In fact, he said a person who asserted such a point should not be punished as that would be too good for him; instead, he should be “confined to straw and a dark chamber.  But then who hath ever denied the power of the Deity to work miracles?”
--Jean-Jacques Rousseau,  Letters Written from the Mountain, in The Miscellaneous Works of J.  J. Rousseau, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: 1774), vol. 3, p. 79.

Could even the French Revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre believe in Miracles? Yes, he did. He believed God orchestrated the demise of Leopold, Emperor of Austria.

Based on this information, men of the Enlightenment did not believe Reason was King, as modern liberalism claims. They questioned only the inerrancy of the Bible because of faulty transmission.

Maryland Liberals Axe Same-Sex Marriage

The Liberal dominated State of Maryland rejected same-sex marriage, with Pastors testifying the harm it would do to our nation. Christians need to get involved right now while public opinion is in their favor.
Never underestimate the power of a few committed Christians! Just a few hours ago, the Maryland same-sex "marriage" bill went from the verge of passage to crushing defeat. After a passionate debate that lasted more than two hours, the House of Delegates shocked everyone by sending the legislation back to committee--all but guaranteeing its demise. If legislators decided to revisit the issue, they would have to start the process from the very beginning with new hearings, amendments, and votes. Sen. Jamie Raskin says that it isn't likely. For all intensive purposes, the bill was killed.

In an overwhelmingly Democratic Assembly, this is victory of gigantic proportions. Once again, it signals that even the most liberal states are not on board with the agenda to redefine marriage. FRC's Peter Sprigg, who testified against the bill in both chambers, was instrumental in pointing out the harms of same-sex "marriage." As he said, the confidence of the homosexual community is clearly misplaced. The opposition to this legislation, even from one its former cosponsors, shows the groundswell of resistance that exists in Maryland and beyond. This is in no small part due to the effort of FRC allies, Bishop Harry Jackson and Derek McCoy, who took such a courageous stand. Our thanks go out to everyone in the state who worked against all odds to protect the sanctity of marriage. It does make a difference!
Christians have God, and history on our side. Libertarians that allow homosexuality are violating the Laws of Nature's God.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Muslims Hand Out Candy In The Streets Following Murder of Jewish Children

It is only fitting Muslims would celebrate murder. After all, the man who killed these children will have his picture on Billboards. This is what Mohammed created; a bloodlusty death-cult. Why do they hand out candy?

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Massachusetts Unitarians And The Laws of Nature

Massachusetts Unitarians: John Adams, Thomas Cushing, and Robert Treat Paine (although Paine was a Calvinist early on) understood The Laws of Nature, unless enumerated, included the Scriptures. The four men from Massachusetts Bay listed below, were the most respected men in the Colony. Here, in the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay, these Founding Fathers, with John Hancock as President, show us the distinction; again, proving The Laws of Nature in the Declaration of Independence is the Christian God:
Province of the Massachusetts Bay

In Provincial Congress Cambridge
December 5th 1774.

Resolved, that the proceedings of the American continental Congress held at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of September last, and Reported by the honble Delegates from this Colony, have with the deliberation due to their high importance been considered by us; and the American Bill of rights therein contained, appears to be formed with the greatest Ability and Judgment; to be founded on the immutable Laws of Nature and reason, the principles of the English constitution, and respective Charters and constitutions of the Colonies, and to be worthy of their most vigorous support, as essentially necessary to liberty. Likewise the ruinous and eniquitous measures, which, in violation of these RIGHTS, at present convulse and threaten destruction to America, appear to be clearly pointed out, and judicious plans adopted for defeating them.

Resolved, That the most grateful acknowledgments are due to the truly honorable and patriotic Members of the Continental Congress, for their wise and able exertions in the cause of American Liberty; and this Congress, in their own Names, and in behalf of this Colony, do hereby, with the utmost Sincerity, express the same.

Resolved, That the Hon. John Hancock, Hon. Thomas Cushing, Esquires, Mr. Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Robert Treat Paine, Esquires, or any three of them, be, and they hereby are appointed and authorized to represent this Colony, on the tenth of May next, or sooner if necessary, at the American Congress, to be held at Philadelphia, with full power, with the Delegates from the Other American Colonies, to concert, agree upon, direct and order such farther measures, as shall to them appear to be best calculated for the recovery and establishment of American rights and Liberties, and for restoring harmony between Great-Britain and the Colonies. [bold face mine]

A true copy of record,
Benjamin Lincoln, Secretary.1
[Note 1: 1 The original is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, Massachusetts, Credentials of Delegates.]
Furthermore, the Unitarians of the 18th Century adhered to Biblical Inspiration, differing from most of their 19th Century counterparts who believed the Bible was not inspired. The term "of God and Nature" was in common use by Christian Philosophers and the Founding Fathers:

The least of men is a man as well as a giant: And those in the West-Indies who have not above twenty or thirty subjects able to bear arms, are kings as well as Xerxes. Every nation may divide itself into small parcels as some have done, by the same law they have restrained or abolished their kings, joined to one another, or taken their hazard of subsisting by themselves; acted by delegation, or retaining the power in their own persons; given finite or indefinite powers; reserved to themselves a power of punishing those who should depart from their duty, or referred it to their general assemblies. And that liberty, for which we contend as the gift of God and nature, remains equally to them all."
--Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government, Section 44: No People That Is Not Free Can Substitute Delegates, [1698]. Ed. Thomas G. West (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1996).

John Adams also wrote of "God and Nature"
The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 3
J. Adams to the President of Congress.*
[Note *: * MSS. Dep. of State; 3 Sparks' Dip. Rev. Corr., 137, with verbal changes.]
Paris, June 16, 1780
..."With the independence of America," says he, "we must give up our fisheries on the bank of Newfoundland and in the American seas." Supposing this to be true, which it is in part, but not in the whole, if Great Britain loses her fisheries, does not America gain them? Are they not an object then to America as important and desirable as to Great Britain? Has not America then at least as strong and pressing a motive to fight for them as Great Britain? The question then is reduced to another--Which has the best prospect of contending for them successfully? America, favored by all the world, or Great Britain, thwarted and opposed by all the world. And to whom did God and nature give them? The English lay great stress upon the gifts of God and nature, as they call the advantage of their insular situation, to justify their injustice and hostilities against all the maritime powers of the world. Why should the Americans hold the blessings of Providence in a lower estimation, which they can enjoy, without doing injury to any nation or individual whatsoever? ....
John Adams uses the phrase again to Presbyterian William Livingston:
Be assured that when contemptible discord, with its odious attendants, artifice and imposture, could effectuate nothing, absolutely nothing, at the moment when the present war broke out, to prejudice in the least the fidelity of the citizens of the Amstel, or to shake them in the observation of their duties, the inconveniences and the evils that a war naturally and necessarilly draws after it, will not produce the effect neither; yes, we will submit more willingly to them, accordingly as we shall perceive that the means that God and nature have put into our hands are more and more employed to reduce and humble a haughty enemy."
--John Adams, letter to Livingston*, March 19, 1782, The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Vol. 5. [* - MSS. Dep. of State; 3 Sparks' Dip. Rev. Corr., 562.]

Also, the foremost authority on the Laws of Nature understood the distinction by using the of "God and Nature" This proves James Wilson, in his "Lectures on Law" viewed God's word superior to Natural Law,which many have apparently missed from his writings. There are those who claim Wilson believed Revelation could not supercede Reason. Here Wilson destroys that argument, as he writes God first, then reason, as though reason could be superior to God:
But however great the variety and inequality of men may be with regard to virtue, talents, taste, and acquirements; there is still one aspect, in which all men in society, previous to civil government, are equal. With regard to all, there is an equality in rights and in obligations; there is that "jus aequum," that equal law, in which the Romans placed true freedom. The natural rights and duties of man belong equally to all. Each forms a part of that great system, whose greatest interest and happiness are intended by all the laws of God and nature. These laws prohibit the wisest and the most powerful from inflicting misery on the meanest and most ignorant; and from depriving them of their rights or just acquisitions. By these laws, rights, natural or acquired, are confirmed, in the same manner, to all; to the weak and artless, their small acquisitions, as well as to the strong and artful, their large ones. If much labour employed entitles the active to great possessions, the indolent have a right, equally sacred, to the little possessions, which they occupy and improve. [bold face mine]
--James Wilson, 1791, "Lectures on Law". [The Works of James Wilson. Edited by Robert Green McCloskey. 2 vols. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967.]

Unitarians respected probable unitarian, John Locke:
The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it. [bold face mine]
--John Locke, "The Second Treatise of Government" - Chapter 11 - Of the Extent of the Legislative Power. (1690).

The Father of the Bill of Rights declared the distinction in a Court of Virginia:
The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.
--George Mason, 1772 [Robin v. Hardaway, General Court of Virginia]

Revolutionary General Arthur Lee differentiates the two components of The Laws of Nature:
"...At the same time he trusts that the Spanish nation will receive no inconsiderable retribution from the freedom of that commerce the monopoly of which contributed so much to strengthen and aggrandize her rival and her foe; nor can anything give more lasting satisfaction to the royal mind than the reflection of having employed those means which God has put into his hands in assisting an oppressed people to vindicate those rights and liberties which have been violated by twice six years of incessant injuries and insulted supplications; those rights which God and nature, together with the convention of their ancestors and the constitution of their country, gave to the people of the States. Instead of that protection in those rights which was the due return for sovereignty exercised over them, they have seen their defenseless towns wantonly laid in ashes, their unfortified country cruelly desolated, their property wasted, their people slain; the ruthless savage, whose inhuman war spares neither age nor sex, instigated against them; the hand of the servant armed against his master by public proclamation, and the very food which the sea that washes their coast furnishes forbidden them by a law of unparalleled folly and injustice. Proinde quasi injuriam facere id demure esset imperio uti. Nor was it enough that for these purposes the British force was exhausted against them, but foreign mercenaries were also bribed to complete the butchery of their people and the devastation of their country. And that nothing might be wanting to make the practices equivalent to the principles of this war, the minds of these mercenaries were poisoned with every prejudice that might harden their hearts and sharpen their swords against a people who not only never injured or offended them, but who have received with open arms and provided habitations for their wandering countrymen. These are injuries which the Americans can never forget. These are oppressors whom they can never again endure. The force of intolerable and accumulated outrages has compelled them to appeal to God and to the sword. The King of Spain, in assisting them to maintain that appeal, assists in vindicating the violated rights of human nature. No cause can be more illustrious, no motive more magnanimous. [bold face mine]
--Arthur Lee, March 17, 1777, Letter to Florida Blanca, [The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 2]

Again, the Continental Congress differentiating the laws of Revelation and the law of Nature:
Friends and Countrymen: Three years have now passed away, since the commencement of the present war: a war without parallel in the annals of mankind. It hath displayed a spectacle, the most solemn that can possibly be exhibited. On one side, we behold fraud and violence laboring in the service of despotism; on the other, virtue and fortitude supporting and establishing the rights of human nature...Trust not to appearances of peace or safety. Be assured that, unless you persevere, you will be exposed to every species of barbarity. But, if you exert the means of defence which God and nature have given you, the time will soon arrive when every man shall sit under his own vine and under his own fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid...." [bold face mine]

Even Deists, like James Monroe make the distinction:
Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 22
James Monroe to Joseph Brant
Dear Sir,(1) (Copy) New York. Febry. 5th. 1785
It is the earnest disposition of the States to cultivate the friendship of the Indians, and of course, the less they are connected with other powers, the more agreeable it will be to them; and the greater confidence they will be able to place in them. Examine your own situation; look to the Powers of Europe; mark their objects and progress on this Continent; then look to the united States; with whom does the powerful impulse of nature, or the God of nature bid you ally yourselves!

Israel seizes ship with Iran arms for Gaza-Netanyahu

Israel seizes ship with arms from Iran headed for Gaza.

It is amazing the Israeli's still want to make peace with Muslim nations. The Jews have to know Muslims want to destroy them; but they continue to deal with them. The United States being a guilty party putting pressure on Israel to deal with these pirates:
Nine years ago, Israeli forces intercepted the merchant ship Karine-A in the Red Sea and brought it to the Israeli port of Eilat, where the military displayed 50 tonnes of weapons, including rockets, which Israel said Iran had sent to Palestinian militants.
It never ceases to end. Century after century, Muslims attempting to destroy Israel, and they continue to allow the United States to broker a Palestinian State for a better concerted attack against Israel.

Christian Preferences Of The 2012 Republican Nomination

The Barna Group has completed a poll of Christian preferences for the 2012 Republican Nomination.

Concerning Catholics, it looks good for Huck, who make up a large amount of Independents. From a previous poll, Huck has already won the South; that is, all of the South, including Florida and Gingrich's home state Georgia. Christians will not vote for Gingrich. He's been married three times, had affairs on two of his wives, delivering divorce papers to his first wife at the hospital while she had cancer, having two children with his high school math teacher, whom he married at 19.

Huck should take FL, OH, NC, VA, and IN. Obama took those States because McCain would not take private money. It is probable once the budget woes get better in WI, he should win that State too.

Counting the States McCain won, he will have 270 electoral votes.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

"The Unions are Big Money"

I would urge everyone to check out this website:
The unions are big money. Five of the top ten contributors to congressional and presidential campaigns since 1989 are labor unions according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the last election, 10 of the top 20 PACs were union PACs.

More importantly, it's not as if Big Labor is balancing out the rest of "big money." Does Krugman know that all of the top ten industries contributing to the 2010 elections gave more money to Democrats than to Republicans? That's right: Lawyers, Health Professionals, Securities & Investment, Real Estate, Insurance, Lobbyists, Pharma, Government Unions, Entertainment, and Electric Utilities all favored Democrats in 2010.
I never understood the Unions, not the Corporations give the most money--and they give to the Democratic Party.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Another Attack, However Subtle, Against "The Christian Nation Thesis"

John Fea has a new book out called "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?" However, he has written a post on his blog indicative of his book's theme; rejecting the United States was formed a Christian Nation. If Fea doesn't accept the framers' proclaiming we are a Christian Nation, he must reject the type of Christianity the Colonists formed, in otherwords, reject the framers were Orthodox.

It is already a proven fact, without any dispute whatsoever, the Founding Fathers considered us a Christian Nation. They wrote it several times in public pronouncements, and formed the States establishing Christianity:
If the public homage of a people can ever be worthy the favorable regard of the Holy and Omniscient Being to whom it is addressed, it must be that in which those who join in it are guided only by their free choice, by the impulse of their hearts and the dictates of their consciences; and such a spectacle must be interesting to all Christian nations as proving that religion, that gift of Heaven for the good of man, freed from all coercive edicts, from that unhallowed connection with the powers of this world which corrupts religion into an instrument or an usurper of the policy of the state...Upon these principles and with these views the good people of the United States are invited, in conformity with the resolution aforesaid, to dedicate the day above named to the religious solemnities therein recommended. [bold face mine]
--Given at Washington, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1813.[seal.] JAMES MADISON

Note, Madison--the Orthodox Christian--like all his references about religion early in life, refers to religion as only Christianity.

Here is John Adams claiming we are a Christian people:
[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.
--First Inaugural, In the City of Philadelphia, Saturday, March 4, 1797.

This proves beyond any doubt Nature's God in the Declaration of Independence was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Adams helped draft the Declaration. When Virginia and Massachusetts formed Christianity as the established religion of their respective States, it wasn't Unitarianism they had in mind; it was what they allowed. In Massachusetts, the Unitarian Adams was part of the secret minority in 1780 who personally understood Christian Unitarianism was Christianity. Anyway, here is Fea:
When we think of the defenders of a Christian America today, the Christian Right immediately comes to mind. We think of people like Glenn Beck (who despite his Mormonism has joined forces with many Christian nationalists), David Barton, Peter Marshall and David Manuel, or Newt Gingrich. All of these public figures have championed the idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Their careers have been defined by the belief that this country needs to return to its Christian roots in order to receive the blessings of God. Rarely, if ever, do we hear the name Martin Luther King, Jr., included in this list of apologists for Christian America. Yet he was just as much of an advocate for a "Christian America" as any who affiliate with the Christian Right today.
Without getting into the subject of Martin Luther King Jr, who wasn't even a Christian, (He denied Biblical Inerrancy, The Deity of Jesus Christ, et al.) therefore he is irrelevant as any other heterodox framer, like Benjamin Franklin, in claiming we were formed a Christian Nation. Biblically speaking, King and Franklin's Christianity is not Christian. Politically speaking, Unitarianism or Arianism, may have been accepted under the umbrella of Christianity, however, the vast majority of Colonial Protestants were Orthodox, thus, the governing documents reflected their Orthodox sentiments, not those of Arianism or any other ism.

It was claimed by the framers themselves, not just David Barton, et al; that by violating the Scriptures, not only would the Blessings cease, but judgment was just around the corner:
As nations can not [sic] be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects[,] providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.
--The Father of the Bill of Rights. The Constitutional Convention. Robert A. Rutland, ed., The Papers of George Mason (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), p.966.

George Mason was an Evangelical--as nearly all of them were--Christian Fundamentalist, who partook of the Communion elements that signified his belief in Christ's Vicarious Blood Atonement for Sin.

Noah Webster and James Madison were emphatic in defining terms correctly, otherwise subverting the Constitution could ensue. The Christian States allowed any practicing faith, Christian or not, that did not violate public order or the Scriptures.

Without showing my hand--something left for a book--the Founding Fathers wrote our governing documents in Orthodox language.