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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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!

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.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

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.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

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.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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, 7^th 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.

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?

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]

--AN ADDRESS OF THE CONGRESS TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. MAY 8, 1778.

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.

"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.

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.