Blog Archives

Religion and the Constitution


One Nation Under God. John McNaughton

A Precursor to ‘OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’

 

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)

 

Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

 

Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.

 

Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influence of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.

 

Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)

 

The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.

 

Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.

 

New Hampshire became the required 9th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.

 

Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:

 

 

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” …

 

 

… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders–a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.

 

On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the “chief Magistracy in the United States.” They celebrated Jefferson’s zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

 

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[3]

 

 

Jefferson’s Understanding of the “Wall”

 

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the “high and impregnable” wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own “wall of separation.”

 

Jefferson’s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …

 

 

The Wall That Black Built

 

The phrase “wall of separation” entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured.”[6] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson’s letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson’s language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]

 

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: “In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’…. That wall,” the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, “must be kept high and impregnable.  …

 

Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court’s ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia’s disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that “separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle,” attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the “wall of separation” image. …

 

The trope’s current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson’s figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[9] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.

 

The “high and impregnable” wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Black–Justice Hugo Black–built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

 

 

Jefferson’s wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s wall separates religion and civil government at all levels–federal, state, and local.

 

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

 

… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)

 

Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.

 

I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.

 

For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.

 

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

 

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)

 

See Also:

 

Annotation 13 – Article III: JUDICIAL REVIEW; FindLaw.com.

 

What It Means to “Interpret” the US Constitution; Lawyers.com.

 

Judicial Activism: Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp.; Heritage FoundationRule of Law.

 

SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT; LII – Cornell University Law School.

 

JRH 3/4/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 

By Robert Smith

Sent: 3/3/2015 2:05 AM

 

The President and several federal judges are violating our Constitutional rights.

 

The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. It also teaches us that we must not associate with homosexuals and their associates or those who associate with associates of homosexuals.

 

The President has allowed openly homosexual individuals to enlist in the armed services, which forces those of us who believe as I do into close contact with homosexuals and to take orders from any higher ranking homosexuals appointed over us, thus violating our constitutional rights, our freedom of association.

 

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any mention of homosexuals or same sex marriage. Why? It was due to the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality was not tolerated then, nor were any homosexuals of the time flaunting their predilection for such perverse behavior, and as such, there was not any problem or controversy over homosexuals in that era of our history.

 

It is now to be seen precisely how our Supreme Court views my Constitutional rights and the rights of those who believe as I do.

 

The Constitution of the USA was written to protect our God given rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

Read these verses of The Bible and it will show why our forefathers saw no need to mention homosexuality in The Constitution of The USA.

 

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

 

Chapter 18

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

Chapter 20

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJV)

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)

 

Romans 1:26-29; 13:8-10

 

Chapter 1

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

 

Chapter 13

 

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NKJV)

 

1 Timothy 1:10-11

 

10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (NKJV)

 

Mark 10:6-9

 

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[a]7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; [b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (NKJV)

 

What does God give to homosexuals in Leviticus? DEATH and no chance for salvation.

 

In the New Testament if they ask Jesus to be forgiven and show they have truly repented and give up their evil life styles they then can be saved.

 

This is the reason they are not mentioned in the constitution.

___________________________

Religion and the Constitution

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

_______________________

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

© Robert Smith

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Scripture references by Robert Smith and the Scripture quotes added by the Editor.

 

F.C.C. TAKES OVER THE INTERNET


Net Neutrality Lie


Here is an essay that demonstrates the political side of the Obama/Democratic Party inspired FCC rules changing the Internet from a truly Free Speech zone into a government controlled entity that will be regulated according to which Political Party dominates the FCC federal bureaucracy. Jonathan Emord shows us how the FCC can regulate its displeasure with how an Internet Provider deals with its customers. The government’s pitch of net neutrality is double-speak for Big Brother Internet despotism.
 
JRH 3/4/15
***************************
F.C.C. TAKES OVER THE INTERNET
 
 
At the behest of President Barack Obama, the Federal Communications Commission voted this past Thursday, 3-2, on party lines, to impose FCC control over access to and charges by internet service providers. This is the beginning of the end of freedom over the internet. So-called net neutrality is not neutral at all, but is a regulatory schema that imposes federal oversight and control over what was but a moment ago the last remaining example of largely unfettered freedom and free enterprise left in the world.
 
Longing for the power to force internet service providers to bend to the will of government masters, the Obama Administration aimed to get the proverbial camel’s nose into the tent, anticipating that its whole body would come next. Using the pretext of ensuring consumers had more rapid internet connections, the new regulations promise to do much more, essentially rendering all internet service providers common carriers subject to the same kind of innovation and competition stultifying regulations that made the old Bell system such an archaic, byzantine bureaucratic mess.
 
On the road to a better internet, now architects of systems and markets will have to stop at a government toll booth. There they must satisfy the subjective dictates of FCC commissioners or else they will not be allowed to proceed. One of the greatest, most powerful and far reaching technological achievements of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries is now to be but another utility where rates, service plans, and technological advances will not be allowed unless first approved by the politicians who populate the Federal Communications Commission.
 
The FCC has just denied liberty and free enterprise its essential place in that medium which holds out more promise for the advancement of mankind than any other. The FCC has learned through broadcast, cable, and telephone regulation that structural controls beget in time near total control over a medium. By lording it over on the internet service providers in the years to come, the FCC will coerce and cajole them into implementing the political dictates of FCC Commissioners in a manner akin to FCC’s long and sordid history of control over the broadcast media.
 
Displeasing a regulator who has subjective power over the structure of media invites retaliation. What former FCC Chairman Newton Norman Minow referred to as “regulation by raised eyebrow” in broadcast regulation is now applicable in the internet context. The mere hint of an FCC Commissioner’s dissatisfaction with the operations of an Internet Service Provider will cause that provider to appreciate all too well that the regulator’s displeasure makes essential approvals far more difficult to obtain. Instead, most will alter their business plans to avoid regulatory payback, even if that means constricting access to some in favor of others, thereby affecting who may speak and what may be said.
 
In that single instance, the First Amendment’s command that government be disarmed of power over speech and press is eviscerated. The ultimate control over the structure and content of the medium has passed from private to public hands. Now the politically appointed, unelected heads of the FCC, will call the shots over the internet. In this one vote of the FCC, everyone in America, indeed in the world, has lost freedom and opportunity. February 26, 2015, is the blackest day so far in the history of the internet.
_____________________________
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved
 
Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, seven on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of the Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, Global Censorship of Health Information, and Restore the Republic. He is the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine and joins Robert Scott Bell weekly for “Jonathan Emord’s Sacred Fire of Liberty,” an hour long radio program on government threats to individual liberty. For more info visit Emord.com, join the Emord FDA/FTC Law Group on Linkedin, and follow Jonathan on twitter (@jonathanwemord).
 
Website: Emord.com
 
 
 
NewsWithViews.com is dedicated to revealing lies, innuendo and agendas – wherever they may be.  Our political affiliations are not to the left or the right, but to “what is right and true.”
 
Our goal is to bring you the best news and commentaries on current events that may be manipulated or controlled by the mainstream media.
 
Our aim is to enlighten, educate and awaken people to the real issues facing this country and the world today.
 
NewsWithViews.com started publishing June of 2001. We noticed that there were websites that were the mouthpieces for the Republican party, the Democratic party, the feminist movement, the environmental movement, the Christian Right, etc., Everyone was in someone’s corner. The Left points a finger at the right, the right points a finger at the left. Neither side sees their own evil and hypocrisy, they escape the truth about themselves by blaming and pointing a finger at the other.
 
It’s not a Jewish, Christian, or a Muslim issue, neither is it a conservative or a liberal issue, nor a Republican or a Democrat issue, it’s a Right or Wrong issue. Truth is UNIVERSAL. Everyone can recognize it but, some reject it. Truth and honesty unite, lies and deception divide. Bare in mind that Truth is hate to those that hate the Truth.
 
NewsWithViews.com is NOT affiliated with any religious organizations or groups. We believe in God and our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior of mankind.
We run a small operation with a dedicated unpaid staff. All donations are appreciated. Click here if you wish to donate.
 
Disclaimer:

The views and opinions held by our writers and contributors are their own, and not necessarily the views of our advertisers, NewsWithViews.com or its staff.
 

Assimilate or Leave


John R. Houk
© January 14, 2015
 
 
Posted by iizthatiiz
Published on Jan 14, 2015
 
January 14th, 2015 • Muslim enclaves that are hostile to surrounding communities are springing up across America. Funded by Pakistani radicals, 22 villages in 9 states have been established that are teaching terrorist tactics to members of their compounds.
 
The above video is an interview between Brian Kilmeade and Martin Mawyer of the Christian Action Network. On The Kelly File last night Martin Mawyer was on with sub-host Shannon Bream showing nearly the exact footage of a Christian Action Network expose of Muslim terrorist enclaves operating apparently indiscriminately in U.S. soil. I say “apparently” because the FBI and Homeland Security are acting as if their hands are tied because of the First Amendment rights of Free Speech, Religious Freedom and I’m guessing free assembly. That sounds like a lame excuse especially with so-called lone-wolf terrorist attacks on our soil and let’s use the Charlie Hebdo example of organized terrorism that three terrorists had given  credit al Qaeda and ISIS.
 
No-Go-Zones are a common place occurrence in Europe (including the UK – Emerson apologizes too soon) but especially in France. As an American you may be out of the loop concerning No-Go-Zones (NGZ). As it relates to Islam, a NGZ is an area in a non-Muslim nation in which Muslims are so dominant that a Non-Muslim is prohibited from entry due local restriction or outright fear of Muslim attack. In case you haven’t realized it there are NGZs in the USA; however unlike Europe where Muslims find an urban area to overtake, Muslims in America develop NGZs in rural or out of the way locations. The Martin Mawyer video clips demonstrate the ruralness of NGZs.
 
There are some notable urban areas in the USA in which Muslim immigrants and next-gen Muslim-Americans have begun asserting of a NGZ mentality. The most noted place in my mind is Dearborn (suburb of Detroit), Michigan.
 
VIDEO: American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI (Original edit) Nearly 23 minutes but you’ll get the idea early
 
Published by J. Mark Campbell
Published on Published on Jun 26, 2012
 
Like video? Show support here: The United West Support Page
 
Stay informed, Volunteer, or Send us news story here: http://www.TheUnitedWest.org 

Read full story of stoning here: American Muslims Stone ChristiansIf this extremely disturbing video does not result in a Federal investigation into the human rights violations of those Christians physically attacked at the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival then we are watching the beginning of a new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA.

In this new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA, shariah-compliant Muslims have succeeded in striking fear into the hearts of the infidels. In the case of the Dearborn Arab Festival, you will see that the infidels are NOT the few, brave Christians who withstood the physical attacks by the blood-thirsty Muslims, but the fearful are those who have taken an oath to protect Americans. The fearful, are the Dearborn Sheriff and Police. Sadly, you will see the Police fearful of confronting the criminals and enforcing the law as they stand by watching “Muslims Gone Wild,” attack the helpless Christians.

The United West predicts that success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt combined with the mounting fury of the “Arab Spring,” coupled with the support of President Obama will result in an expansive, “strong-horse” onslaught of Muslim physical aggression, similar to this Dearborn disaster, all across the new, MUSLIM AMERICA.

 
Our glorious President Barack Hussein Obama has allowed massive immigration of Muslims from volatile Muslim nations with the predilection to embrace radicalism. America is a nation in which immigrants have us the great melting pot of the world with the best constitutional government that has existed to date. Multicultural Leftist thinking often reminds Conservatives of the USA’s history of immigration but blatantly neglect the “melting pot” element of immigration. America’s Left has spent decades warping the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. This is particularly the case with the First Amendment.
 
The thing is in America the First Amendment does not give a right to plan or execute violence in the name of Free Speech nor Religious Freedom. When there is any kind of assembly in which the topic is to plan violence or do acts of violence, it is specifically prohibited by the First Amendment. The First Amendment attaches “assembly” with “peaceable”. Muslim enclaves, Leftist political terrorist cells (Weather Underground, SLA, ELF, Black Panther Party, NBPP and etc.), the extreme Right Wing (e.g. KKK, Aryan Nation, White Supremacists in general, violent Nazi organizations [although Right Wing is a misnomer with Hitler’s Nazism]) or whatever political or religious (American Islamic organizations associated with Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabist or Salafist violence; Phineas Priesthood, Army of God and Christian Identity terrorism in general) organizations that are violent by the nature of their advocacy is not – or at least should not – be protected by the First Amendment.
 
The No-Go-Zone phenomena that has already infected Europe will increase in the USA largely due to the Islamic Culture friendly President BHO. I found an editorial on Right Wing News that places in perspective allowing Muslim immigrants into America that have no intention of following the melting pot assimilation paradigm that has made us the most coveted nation to live at in the world:
 
No-go areas are a frightening aspect of the ongoing Islamic conquest of Europe. Local authorities have ceded control of these to Muslims, who live by their own laws and sneer at those of the country they have invaded. Welfare payments go into the no-go areas; nothing except violence comes out. Emergency vehicles require police escorts, as they are often attacked by hostile savages.
 
Europe has a much larger Muslim population than the USA. But already we have no-go areas too:
 
 
There goes the neighborhood.
 
In the U.S., Dearborn, Michigan: Over 100,000 Muslims, 45% of the city has settled into their first ‘no-go’ zone. The city and police officials have been sued in many cases that allege discrimination “against Christians” effectively by the authorities applying Sharia law. Dearborn-Dar-al-Islam, (a place governed by Islamic Sharia law). …
 
If Americans don’t wake up and get their heads out of the sand fast, what’s quickly overtaking Europe will consume the United States. Muslim religious beliefs do not supersede state and federal laws; the Constitution is the law of the land. And yet, we are being invaded, and nothing is being done to stop them.
 
On the contrary, the federal government is aggressively promoting Islamic colonization. The Obama Regime imported nearly 300,000 colonists from Muslim countries in 2013 alone.
 
Unless reversed decisively, this immigration jihad will inevitably lead to more violence inflicted by the so-called Religion of Peace. (Muslim No-Go Zones in the USA; By Dave Blount; Right Wing News; 1/13/15)
 
Brigitte Gabriel of ACT for America was on The Kelly File with Megyn Kelly moderating between Ms. Gabriel and Muslim apologist Khaled Beydoun of Barry University School of Law.
 
 
Published by act4america
Published on Jan 9, 2015
 
JRH 1/14/15

Please Support NCCR

Activist Courts Continue to Abuse 1st Amendment


VIDEO: Rally for police captain draws demonstrators

 

John R. Houk

© October 16, 2014

 

The Tulsa Police Department (TPD) under the management of Police Chief Charles (Chuck) Jordan punished TPD Captain Paul Fields for refusing to attend a mock/deceptive Law Enforcement Appreciation Day at one of the most radicalized Mosques in the United States of America. I have been following since about 2011 when this heinous breech of First Amendment rights of Religious Freedom began to occur.

 

Captain Fields has sued for this punishment and infringement of the First Amendment BUT every level of Court so far has come down on the side of the TPD. A combination of limiting the scope of evidence and misrepresentations by Tulsa City Attorneys has worked against Captain Fields. Ergo, unfortunately Left oriented Judges and Appellate Justices have chosen the multiculturalist approach to favor the TPD and the Radical Mosque (See Also HERE) ruling that there was no breech against Captain Fields’ First Amendment rights and that the Islamic Society of Tulsa (a radical Muslim network of ISNA) was providing a harmless inter-faith community service activity because the TPD was providing protection from hate-threats against the Mosque and Islam.

 

The American Freedom Law Center discusses the Federal case:

 

On February 17, 2011, Captain Fields received an email from his immediate supervisor at the Riverside Division, Major Julie Harris.  This email had the subject line, “Tour of Mosque – March 4,” and stated, in relevant part, “We are directed by [Deputy Chief of Police] Webster to have representatives from each shift—2nd, 3rd, and 4th to attend [the Islamic event].”  This email also contained the directive from Webster, which was pasted into the text of the email.  Webster, with the approval of Chief of Police Jordan, who is also a defendant in this lawsuit, was now ordering officers to attend the Islamic event.  It was no longer voluntary.

 

After receiving the email from Major Harris, Captain Fields met with her to discuss the order from Webster.  He advised Major Harris of his belief that the order was unlawful.  Captain Fields correctly believes that City police officials do not have a right to order police officers to attend an Islamic event against the officers’ personal religious beliefs and convictions.

 

Captain Fields also responded to the order by email.  In his email response, Captain Fields stated that he believed that the order directing officers to attend the Islamic event was “an unlawful order, as it is in direct conflict with my personal religious convictions, as well as to be conscience shocking.”  Captain Fields concluded his email by stating, “Please consider this email my official notification to the Tulsa Police Department and the City of Tulsa that I intend not to follow this directive, nor require any of my subordinates to do so if they share similar religious convictions.”

 

On February 18, 2011, Webster sent a three-page interoffice correspondence to Captain Fields by email that affirmed the order and requested Captain Fields to reconsider his position.  Captain Fields again refused based on his religious beliefs, convictions, and conscience.

 

As a result of Captain Fields’s refusal to compromise his religious beliefs and convictions and violate his conscience, Webster ordered Captain Fields to appear in Jordan’s conference room on Monday, February 21, 2011.

 

During this meeting with Jordan and Webster, Captain Fields again explained that he believed the order was unlawful and that he could not, in good conscience, obey the order nor force the officers under his charge to obey it.

 

At the conclusion of this meeting, Captain Fields was served with a pre-prepared order transferring him to the Mingo Valley Division, as well as a notification that the police department was initiating an internal investigation of him for allegedly violating Rule 6 of the Tulsa Police Department Rules and Regulations (“Duty to be Truthful and Obedient”).  The transfer order stated, “This action is taken in reference to an Internal Affairs administrative investigation regarding the refusal to follow a direct order.”

 

Prior to being transferred for his refusal to violate his personal religious beliefs and those of the officers under his charge, Captain Fields was the shift commander for 26 officers and 5 supervisors.  As a result of this transfer, which is now a permanent part of his personnel record, Captain Fields was stripped of his command and his stellar reputation as a police officer was irreparably tarnished.

 

On March 10, 2011, Captain Fields received an official notification via email stating, “You are hereby notified that Chief Chuck Jordan has requested IA [Internal Affairs] to conduct an administrative investigation in regards to your refusal to attend and refusal to assign officers from your shift, who shared your religious beliefs, to attend the ‘Law Enforcement Appreciation Day’ on March 4, 2011, at the Tulsa Peace Academy [a.k.a. Islamic Society].

 

READ ENTIRETY (Captain Paul Fields v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma; American Freedom Law Center, H/T Noisy Room 3/25/14)

 

I actually stand by the TPD in providing protection for the Radical Mosque. No matter how much I or some extreme-minded Right Wingers may consider the IST Mosque to be a threat to American Constitutional government or as an anti-Christ religion; until the IST Mosque can get caught red-handed offering material support to Islamic terrorists, act as a front for homegrown Islamic terrorists or as an operational source placing into action the hate-rhetoric spewing from the Muslim equivalent of a pulpit then the IST Mosque itself has First Amendment rights of both Religious Freedom and Free Speech.

 

But when the TPD feels that not enough police volunteered to participate in the IST Mosque’s Law Enforcement Appreciation Day and then orders precinct Captains to participate along with chosen Police Officers; then the violation of Religious Freedom works toward the Officers so ordered.

 

Here are some of the blog posts from SlantRight 2.0 posted about this warped infringement of an individual American citizen Captain Paul Fields:

 

o   What if it was a synagogue?

 

o   Tulsa Police Chief Supports Radical Islamic Mosque

 

o   Stand With Paul Fields August 30

 

o   Tulsa Police Chief Targeted Paul Fields 1st Amendment Rights

 

o   ISNA Radical – OK Local ISNA Chapters Radical – Alton Nolan Radical

 

The only way Christians in America are going to reverse Obama’s fundamental transformation of American culture is if WE begin to be as vocal as Leftist and Muslims are anti-Christian.

 

As long as WE Christians trust in Leftist lies that the U.S. Constitution says there is a Wall of Separation keeping Christian Churches from supporting political candidates that represent Christian ethics and morals then Leftists will be allowed to falsely proclaim that anti-Christian morality is moral with reckless impunity our cultural American Exceptionalism will continue to evaporate.

 

In the same vein, as long as Islam is given an accommodation for Muslims to practice the unconstitutional portions of Sharia then the Liberty and Freedom enshrined in our Constitution will be rendered irrelevant.

 

What is unconstitutional with Sharia?

 

Islam is a theocratic political terrorist regime that hides behind the mask of religion to accomplish its mission of a worldwide caliphate. What most Americans don’t understand is that it is a totalitarian “theo-political” belief system and a social doctrine (the two go hand in hand) based on the Quran, Sirah and Hadith, what Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam aptly coins the “Trilogy of Islam.” It has mandates on every single aspect of life and those mandates are enforced and regulated by the barbaric criminal and civil code known as Sharia Law.

 

 

… In case you are not familiar with some of the condoned atrocities of Islam and Sharia law . . . are you aware that women are stoned to death for committing adultery and that gay men are actually hung? Or that the genitals of little girls are mutilated in order to protect her virginity and that children may be murdered in the name of family honor?

 

 

Understand that Sharia is very complex and it’s derived from multiple Islamic sources. The Quran, considered the “uncreated word of Allah” is the primary source of Sharia law. The Hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) is the second most important document in Sharia. Historic rulings by jurists over the years and so-called reasoning by analogy make up the other two, less-influential sources of Sharia. Together they constitute Islam’s theological core and they result in a totalitarian way of life for Muslim followers and non-Muslims (kafirs and infidels).

 

… Sharia demands the death of those who renounce Islam. … Honor killings, marital rape, female genital mutilation, not to mention the severing of hands and feet are but a few of the other components of Sharia.

 

… (Islam and Sharia: Deadly Facts You Should Know; By Kevin A. Lehmann via Catch Kevin; Letting Freedom Ring; 1/25/12)

 

A PDF document from the Center for Security Policy (CSP) that shows the specifics of Sharia contradictions to the U.S. Constitution:

 

Shariah Law vs. the Constitution

Center for Security Policy

 

Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land

 

Constitution: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”

 

Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)

 

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

 

Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

 

Shariah: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” Quran 4:89; “Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him” Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom. (o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).

 

First Amendment: Freedom of speech

 

Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”

 

Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.

 

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

 

Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

 

Constitution: Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 

Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.

 

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments: Right to due process and fair trial

 

Constitution: Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law.” Sixth Amendment: guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury.” Seventh Amendment: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”

 

Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims. A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.

 

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment

 

Constitution: Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

 

Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).

 

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process

 

Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “

 

Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.

 

For more information on Shariah law vs. the Constitution:

 

Shariah: The Threat to America in paperback or kindle at amazon.com, or free download at www.shariahthethreat.com

___________________

Original bullet marks edited out

 

AND YET the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city government of Tulsa, OK can violate the First Amendment Religious Freedom rights.

 

Here’s another thing I have a problem with. Although Tulsa changed the election law for candidates to run without a Political Party affiliation he has ran for all political Offices as a Republican. In Oklahoma if you are a Republican you are a Christian Right Conservative (even if you are a Roman Catholic). Instead of standing up for a Tulsa citizen who chose to not to attend a radicalized Mosque as the Islamic Society of Tulsa; Mayor Bartlett not only has not rebuked the TPD and its dhimmi Chief Chuck Jordan, Deputy Chief A. Daryl Webster and Major Julie Harris the Mayor did nothing to stop the Tulsa City response to being sued. I don’t care how you spin that but that means Mayor Bartlett is a supporter of the kind of Radical Islam that is spewed from the Islamic Society of Tulsa. If Dewey Bartlett runs for any Office as a Republican/Conservative – local, State or Federal – I will never vote for him!

 

Perhaps a deluge of electronic messages using the City of Tulsa contact page will let Mayor Dewey Bartlett may have a precarious political future in the State of Oklahoma by sending complaints. To use that contact page CLICK HERE.

 

On October 13 Jim Kouri wrote about the injustice being done to Captain Paul Fields at the Examiner.com. I was going to cross post it but I sense I ran out of space. Kouri gives an excellent synopsis of local government successfully abusing the First Amendment with the help of the U.S. Judiciary system. You should read Kouri’s article.

 

Since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) supported same-sex marriage by refusing to look at the Tenth Circuit Appellate Court’s recent ruling throwing out the voters of several States, I am not expecting too much constitutional Original Intent pertaining to Paul Fields. I pray in the Name of Jesus Christ that I am incorrect on that thought and that SCOTUS not only looks at Captain Fields’ violation of the First Amendment but rules in his favor.

 

JRH 10/16/14

Please Support NCCR

 

Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law vs. U.S. Constitution and Culture


Sharia Erases Liberty toon

Leftist Race Baiting is America’s of Executing Blasphemy Law

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2014

 

Shamim Masih is providing a follow-up (scroll below my thoughts) on the rumors and status of the Christian Zafar Bhatti who has been convicted for committing blasphemy in Pakistan.

 

As Shamim Masih reported yesterday in his report “CLAAS has nothing to do with Zafar Bhatti case, says Basharat Khokhar,” Pakistani Christian Zafar Bhatti has not been receiving the material and legal support publicized by the Pakistan Christian Civil Rights organization CLAAS. Regardless of the initial reported rumors, Bhatti is alive, unwounded but not well. This is the horrendous blasphemy Pakistan law that was supposedly committed and indeed convicted for (Sources on legal issues):

 

Zafar Bhatti is accused of blasphemy under Pakistan’s 295C blasphemy law. He was charged in July 2012, based on rumors that he insulted Muhammad’s mother in text messages. Zafar worked selling medicines, and he often went door-to-door with his presentation. He also used those opportunities to share Christ in the various homes, reading the Bible and praying with families. He also established a small NGO called “Jesus World Mission” [NGO link on Facebook] whose purpose was to assist the poor.

 

On July 11, 2012, he was accused by a fellow NGO worker of sending blasphemous text messages from a mobile phone that she had given him. Zafar and his wife left the village to avoid a massive riot. Police arrested him on July 26, charging him under 295c of the legal code, which are informally called the “blasphemy laws.”

 

In jail, Zafar has been beaten several times. Someone also tried to poison his food. Several of the Muslim prisoners pressure him, saying if he accepts Islam he will be forgiven. Zafar’s sister and wife are quite concerned for his well-being in prison as his case moves through the legal system. “Pray that God will help my brother stay strong in his faith,” said his sister. (Prisoner Alert: Zafar Bhatti; reposted from Persecution Blog [that link now dead]; Before It’s News; 9/4/13 12:32)

 

Once again, Pakistan’s blasphemy law has been used to bring unsubstantiated charges against members of religious minorities. Rev Zafar Bhatti, president of the Jesus World Mission, is in prison after he was accused of violating the ‘black law.’ Judges now must decide whether or not to heed the appeal made on his behalf and release him on bail. A Muslim leader said the Christian clergyman sent him text messages that insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Catholic leaders and human rights activists have responded immediately, pleading for his innocence, noting that police has been subjected to pressures and that the case is vitiated by errors in law.

 

Rev Bhatti hails from Karachi, but moved to Lahore in 2010, in Nawaz Sharif Colony, where he has worked on behalf of local Christians and religions minorities for the past two years. On 10 July, he decided to move with his family to the capital Islamabad. The next day, Ahmed Khan, deputy Secretary of the local Jamat Ehl-e-Sunnat, unexpectedly filed a complaint against the Christian clergyman at the New Town police station, in Rawalpindi.

 

According to the police report, Khan received some text messages on his mobile phone with insulting language towards Muhammad’s mother from an unregistered but visible number, which he kept in the phone’s memory. At the police station, he said that if the agents did not open an investigation for blasphemy under article 295-C of the Penal Code, his organisation would take matters in its own hands.

 

 

Police arrested Rev Bhatti on 16 July and his sister-in-law Nasreen Bibi. In custody, the pastor was physically abused and tortured to extract a confession but he stood his ground, rejecting the accusation and insisting on his innocence.

 

 

“Zhaffar Bhatti is innocent,” said Khalid Jill, of APMA. “We are going to fight for his release.” In his view, police began a case against him under “pressure,” but we “are going to appeal because he was charged under the wrong article of the law.”

 

Mgr Rufin Anthony, bishop of Islamabad-Rawalpindi, is of the same opinion. “How can police be sure” about the offender’s identity? “It is clear that it is a case of personal animosity,” probably in connection with some land. (Christian leader falsely charged of blasphemy in Islamabad; By Jibran Khan; AsiaNews.it; 8/13/12)

 

Zafar is accused of sending blasphemous cell phone text messages to an Islamic cleric. Problem is, Zafar is illiterate and would have no way of knowing how to write a text message.

 

The Pakistan contact says Zafar survived an assassination attempt in prison March 31. Apparently poison was placed in his food, causing him to bleed from his nose and mouth.

 

Here’s a portion of the email sent to me about Pakistani Christian prisoner Zafar Bhatti:

 

“Muslim prisoners told him he would be forgiven (for the alleged blasphemy incident) if he accepted Islam. But he refused to accept Islam. Muslim prisoners are trying to kill him… and are saying they will tell jail authorities that he is using bad language about Prophet Mohammed. Zafar’s sister says ‘everyday Muslim prisoners come around Zafar and call him kafar (infidel) and use bad language against him and Christianity.’ They are giving him mental torture. Zafar’s life is in danger in jail.” (Pakistani Prisoner in Urgent Need of Prayer; By Gary Lane; Blogs CBN.comThe Global Lane; 7/17/13 11:43 AM)

 

Zaffar Bhatti was poisoned in Jail and suffered unsasnitory (sic) living conditions which affected his legs and body, yet he survived. And as he hailed the Name of Jesus loud and clear echoing in the prison cell walls, the prison inmates and the guards became astonished and asked what was that? They never heard how Christians hail the name of Jesus aloud. But since then, they have kept their silence and refrained from persecuting Zaffar Bhatti. https://www.facebook.com/notes/jesus-world-mission/zaffar-bhatti-wins-his-safety-in-jail-through-jesus-name/653922414625661 (Updates on Zaffar Bhatti: Chairman Jesus World Mission; By Ahsan Nabi Khan; Ahsan Nabi’s Blog; 9/20/13)

 

I want you to notice the large bulk of this information is NOT from any Mainstream Media sources. The irony is if you Google ‘Zafar Bhatti’ most Mainstream Media sources still have the rumors that he was killed in Adayla Prison awaiting execution for the absurd Blasphemy conviction.

 

The Christians on death row for Blasphemy convictions are growing all the time. To my knowledge no one has been executed as yet. On the other hand death row Christians are victims often victims of attempted murder or murder by guards and/or inmates. Zafar Bhatti is an example of the many Pakistani Christians that are relatively unknown in America because our media has opted not to report on the horrendous treatment of Christians in Pakistan unless it is a catastrophic event in which many Christians die.

 

Shamim Masih is openly soliciting donations for care of Zafar’s legal bills and for his family that also live constantly under the threat of Muslim mob violence or mob execution. If you read this and KNOW someone or some Organization that can offer some very needed support Zafar you can send money directly to Shamim Masih who was contacted by Zafar’s family to get the word out on the Christian Pastor’s precarious life and death situation. For Americans willing to step up, the best way is through Western Union. Here is the Shamim Masih contact information to send money via Western Union for Shamim to present to the Zafar Bhatti family:

 

For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending this LINK to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560

 

By clicking “LINK” above Western Union will take you through the process of donating in U.S. Dollars in which Western Union converts to Rupees. Shamim’s phone is needed because that is how Western Union contacts Shamim to make him aware funds are available.

 

If you desire a tax deduction for your giving you need to find a reputable organization that has the proper U.S. Non-Profit tax status to that will contribute to the needs of Zafar Bhatti and his family.

 

OR try contacting Tahir Naveed Chaudhary the Chairman of the Pakistan Minorities Alliance (PMA) specifying on how to help Zafar Bhatti: HERE.

 

There is more donation methods toward Shamim Masih at the end of his update report posted after my thoughts entitled, “Zafar Bhatti blasphemy accused is perfectly fine, says his wife Nawab Bibi”.

 

Can you imagine the silliness of being convicted to a death sentence for voicing your opinion about Mohammed in a negative way? If such laws existed in the USA I would have been lynched long ago. As a Christian living in the land of Liberty I often condemn the theology of Islam directly from that so-called religion of peace’s own revered books such as the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The Quran is considered immutable even by devoted Muslims that call themselves Moderate. It is misleading that the Quran is not presented in a chronological order because there are basically two sides of a coin in the book. One side concentrating mostly form Mohammed’s home town of Mecca prior to fleeing are all about peace and toleration through Allah. The flip side of the coin are Mohammed’s words and actions in Medina which by Western standards are quite lecherous, greedy, brutal and intolerant. According to Islamic theology, especially as seen through the Sunni sect and Abrogation, the Medina portion of the Quran outweighs the Mecca portion when consulted on a theo-political jurisprudence matter. I do not have an irrational fear of Islam as the word ‘Islamophobia’ might indicate, rather I have a very rational dislike for the Islam that is very anti-Christian (ergo antichrist religion) and anti-Jewish (ergo antisemitic) in their holy writings. Thank God I have the right to expose the essence of Islam’s antichrist nature in America. Pakistan I probably wouldn’t make it to the court house before Christ-hating Islamic Supremacists murdered me for my beliefs as blasphemous to Mohammed, Allah and Islam in general.

 

Every charge of Blasphemy in Pakistan is an attack on Civil Rights issues taken for granted in the United States of America. We as Americans have the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

 

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

 

In America the Constitution is nearly holy writ for the American way of life. Hence Religious Freedom and Free Speech is protected even if individuals, people of devout faith, atheists or various political ideologies are offended. As Americans when a person or group of a divergent faith, no faith or political persuasion offends another American; the offended vents in written or peaceful protest form. Violent responses has become as heinous crimes in the minds of all Americans of faith, no faith, race, gender and politics. Now it is true peaceful protests have evolved into violence but this has occurred less and less in the USA since the 1960s. These days when violence does erupt it is almost never to do with religion or politics, rather when the perception of a minority race that their race has experienced a horrendous rupture in Civil Rights, the minority breaks out into violence. These days the majority population as a whole rarely if ever instigates violent protest over an incident. This was not the case during the 1960s and the very early 1970s in which the Civil Rights Movement was forcing the White majority to abandon long-time prejudices primarily against African-Americans (Black Community).

 

The Southern U.S. had been entrenched in the hostility toward Black Americans having the same Equal Rights as White Americans because of the former Black Slave status ended with the North (Union) victory over the South (Confederacy) States effectively ending the institution of slavery but not the White attitude toward former slaves. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution became the foundation to provide Equal Rights to American minorities even though the end of the slavery of Black Americans was the purpose. Those Amendments became ratified in 1865, 1868 and 1870 respectively. BUT full implementation was not forced upon the segregationist South and various non-South urban areas until the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. That is roughly 100 year variance between slavery emancipation and the enforcement of Civil Rights.

 

This is my point: other than some race baiting by certain politicians (coughPresident Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and more), Civil Rights violence has nearly ceased to exist. Regardless of the fact that discrimination does still exist it is not even close to the level that Black Americans experienced prior to the forced policies of the Civil Rights policies of the U.S. government in the 1960s and early 1970s.

 

As I was researching the limited sources I could access pertaining to Zafar Bhatti and his family I discovered that Zafar’s sister – Nasreen Bibi – experienced a tragedy at the hands of Muslims in 2010. Then 12 year old Shazia Bashir worked for a Muslim family as a domestic servant. When her parents were finally granted access to their daughter they found her tortured with cuts to her body of which Shazia eventually succumbed to in the hospital. At any rate forgive me for interjecting the U.S. Constitution be sure to read about Zafar Bhatti’s very urgent needs as reported by Shamim Masih.

 

JRH 10/1/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Zafar Bhatti blasphemy accused is perfectly fine, says his wife Nawab Bibi

Shamim Masih, Basharat Khokhar, Nasreen Bibi & Nawab Bibi

 Shamim, Basharat, Nasreen & Nawab

By Shamim Masih

Sent: 9/30/2014 6:06 AM

 

ISLAMABAD: Zafar Bhatti accused of blasphemy case confined in the Central Jail Adiala (or Adayla) Rawalpindi, is perfectly fine and fit, says his wife Nawab Bibi after visiting him in the jail on September 29, 2014. She is thankful to Tahir Naveed Chaudhary, Chairman Pakistan Minorities Alliance – PMA and Basharat Khokhar, Rights Activist for arranging their visit to Adayla Jail.

 

According to the details; there were rumors that Zafar Bhatti a victim of the 295-C [Blasphemy Law] imprisoned in Adayla Jail, was attacked after the attack of Muhammad [perhaps also Ali] Asghar, another blasphemy victim in the same premises. A police constable named Yousaf attacked Muhammad Asghar on September 25, 2014; he received a gunshot and was taken to the hospital and is still under treatment. Since then there were unverified reports [that Zafar was killed] and Zafar’s family was worried about him.

 

Early morning on 29th September, Tahir Naveed Chaudhary chairman PMA and Basharat Khokhar took Nawab Bibi and Nasreen Bibi and went to see Blasphemy victim Pastor Zafar Bhatti. They met Zafar in the jail and found him in good health. Tahir Naveed Chaudhary, who has been attorney to Rimsha (a minor girl, victim of blasphemy), said it was [his] first visit after the speculations and after the fact finding. We decided to take care of the family and the case as well. PMA has decided to provide assistance to the family and legal aid for the accused. Basharat Khokhar, a member [of] civil society, said that I voluntarily [provided] assist[ance] to the persecuted because I have faced the same charges. Human Rights champions work [assistance] as a business but I am passionate to save the beleaguered community.

 

Nawab Bibi, wife of the Zafar Bhatti, supported Basharat Khokhar and said that he [has] been helping us since the case is registered. Joseph Francis [of CLAAS] came to us and had a photo session, he also provided us assistance of Rs. 5000 twice, and she [had] answered when asked about the CLAAS assistance provision. Nasreen Bibi, sister of Zafar Bhatti, said he [i.e. Joseph Francis] is [the] least [to] bother solving the case and seems interested to prolong the case for his vested interest. That is the reason he uses delay tactics in the case. Both females showed their confidence on these gentlemen [i.e. Tahir Naveed Chaudhary and Basharat Khokhar].

 

The group came to my house after their meeting with Zafar Bhatti in the jail.

 

Persecution against religious minorities is very common in Pakistan. But it is observed that some Human Rights champions, without realizing the pain of the victims, play with the life of the poor Christian families.

_______________________

Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law vs. U.S. Constitution and Culture

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2014

______________________

Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law vs. U.S. Constitution and Culture

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2014

______________________

Zafar Bhatti blasphemy accused is perfectly fine, says his wife Nawab Bibi

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Text in brackets and all links are by the Editor.

 

© Shamim Masih

Special Correspondents

Daily Khabrian (PakBiz.com description) & Channel – 5

Human Rights Activist

 

Western Union to Pakistan Shamim Support Info:

 

For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending this LINK to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560

 

Snapshot of Human Rights Activism from 2011

Christian Rights Activist
Freelance Journalist 

Secretary General of Information

Pakistan Christian Congress

 

MORE Shamim Masih’s Donate/Support info:

 

FOR USD TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:                         MASHREQ BANK, NEW YORK
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:         MSHQUS33
Beneficiary Bank:                         JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:                 JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:         70008227
Title Of a/c                                Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:                 405527

 

Top of Form

IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227

FOR GBP TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:                         MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:         MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank:                         JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:                 JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:         00010855
Title Of a/c                                Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:                 405527
IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227

FOR EURO TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:                         MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:         MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank:                         JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:                 JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:         10847
Title Of a/c                                Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:                 405527
IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227

 

In Support of Conservative Principles and Biblical Christianity


Ben Franklin praising Christian Morality quote

 

John R. Houk

© August 15, 2014

 

I have been having a discussion with a commenter on my NCCR blog. I had posted that discussion in portion under the title, “So who’s Full of Baloney?” As you can expect that discussion has continued in the comment section at the NCCR blog. We have both entered the realm of antagonism once in a while but for the most part the discussion has been civil. I have always assumed Bryan the commenter was a Leftist due to his way Left of Center defense. In his last comment he said he was neither a Leftist nor a Right Winger but read info and made his own decisions. I will probably get into trouble by trying to find a place on the political spectrum for a guy that puts up a stiff defense for Left Wing principle yet considers himself neither Left nor Right on that spectrum. So I won’t.

 

Anyway, Bryan posted a rather lengthy comment to a comment I made knocking a previous Bryan comment. Bryan’s most recent comment is an impressive evenhanded response to my comment. I am going to do you – the reader – a small disservice by not posting Bryan’s last comment. Bryan’s comment was posted on August 5th so I am a bit behind the curve in actually responding. As you read my most recent response you may feel the need to go to Bryan’s comment to read exactly what I am responding to. HERE is the link to Bryan’s most recent comment as of this post if you choose to read.

 

Thus begins my response:

 

Bryan I appreciate the civility of this last comment. The only thing I can get behind 100% is the concept of the Free Choice and the 1st Amendment. As you can guess there are some nuances that I can never agree with.

 

Leftists, Atheists and perhaps centrists that interpret the 1st Amendment as the Freedom from religion in the sense of Christian Morality is flawed. And you can realize why from our exchanges. On the other hand I absolutely support one practicing any faith that does not run contrary to the American-style of the rule of law and I absolutely support a non-religious life if so chosen. What I cannot support is for Leftists, Atheists, Centrists or non-Christian faiths forcing the practice of Christianity out of the public forum. That was never the Original Intent of the Constitution. Rather the Original Intent was to make the rule of Law to not force anyone practice a particular form of Christianity and I’ll accept by extension to not force anyone to practice any form of religion or atheism. However, unconstitutional Separation of Church and State enthusiasts force Christians NOT to practice their faith quite forcefully under the false that practicing faith forces the non-faithful to practice a religion or ideology that is against another’s faith or lack thereof.

 

The Original Intent of the First Amendment was to offer anyone to practice their faith even in a public forum without restrictions than with restrictive prohibitions. The government is not endorsing any religion because the public forum allows one to freely practice like-minded religious principles. After all there is a certain universality on the foundations of Christian between all the Denominations of Protestants (incidentally the Original thinking of the Founding Fathers), Roman Catholics and Eastern Rite Christianity. Hence a prayer by a football team or a city council will probably have more broad agreement than hostile disagreement. If an atheist chooses not to pray – so be it. If a non-Christian in attendance wishes to pray according their own faith – so be it. Don’t force a culture in which Christians cannot pray just because taxpayer money might be paying for a Public School Football team or Field or pays for the meeting room of a City Council et al. That is breaking religious freedom more than the fallacy of allowing prayer establishes a national Church. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national Church (Original Intent) and by extension any national religion.

 

The case for or against abortion is argued as a woman’s free choice with their own body or against the personal life of the unborn baby in a woman’s womb. For a Biblical Christian calling an unborn baby a body extension with philosophically sanitized word of “fetus” is just smoke and mirrors to people of faith.

 

The increasing (and unfortunate) success of homosexual activists changing the minds of a huge chunk of American voters does not make the homosexual lifestyle any more acceptable to Biblical Christians. Yet homosexual activists have successfully used the legal system to force Biblical Christians to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, restricted Biblical Christian clubs or associations in Public Schools or Public Colleges from forming while allowing homosexual clubs and associations to prosper. This is a restriction of 1st Amendment religious freedom to accommodate a fairly recent acceptance of homosexuality. Indeed a Biblical Christian is now vilified as a bigot for demanding their religious freedom on a campus while a homosexual club or association gleefully mocks the Biblical Christians because they are restricted and the homosexuals freely practice a lifestyle Biblical Christians find abhorrent.

 

The one complaint you have that indicts me is my attitude toward Islam. I have a huge problem with Islam as a religion and Muslims that support Salafist (i.e. purest) Islam or even Muslims that might consider themselves moderate yet support Islamic terrorist like Hamas that are dedicated to killing Jews, Christians and Americans. I actually sway back and forth between Dajjal’s solution for Muslims who hate and the Christian principles of forgiveness and mercy. It depends on the Muslim atrocity, the Muslim self-justification or the Muslim lie of the day versus how much time I have spent in meditation in the Holy Scriptures. This inner struggle between ending Muslim hate and the patience of Jesus is constant. Perhaps you can be the conscience of the day once in a while that isn’t quite antagonistic.

 

Bryan I am certain I probably did not respond to all your concerns but I have run out of gas. I think you get the idea of my frustration with Leftist, Atheist and Centrist complainers of the practice of Free Market principles and Biblical Christianity. I am also certain your principles are no more tolerant of my Biblical Christian Conservative ideology than I would be with yours.

 

JRH 8/15/14

Please Support NCCR

The Truth about Separation of Church and State


1st Amendment

 

I have been several parts of a series entitled Disputing Separation Church/State (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). As of this writing I am up to Part Six and there is more to come. In doing the reading for these posts I came across a PDF designed as a brochure to dispute the Leftist influence that has move American Courts to stretch the interpretation of the First Amendment beyond the scope of its original intent. As I said I am still continuing my series on the subject; however below is an excellent to the point and relatively brief synopsis of reasons the present exploitation of the rule of law pertaining to the separation of Church and State is not a legal concept in the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/31/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************

The Truth about Separation of Church and State

Contrary to popular opinion, the term “separation of church and state” is found nowhere in the United States Constitution.

 

From PDF Brochure:

Alliance Defending Freedom

 

While the First Amendment clearly forbids the creation of a national denomination, it says nothing about the so-called “separation of church and state.”

 

§  The term “separation of church and state” was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801, when he responded to their concerns about state involvement in religion. Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting public religious expression, but dealt with government’s interference in the public expression of faith.

 

 

§  It was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who first inserted the term “separation of church and state” into American jurisprudence in his majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education (1947). He wrote: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

 

 

§  Black’s opinion was based on a previous misreading of Jefferson’s 1801 letter in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States (1878). Black also confused his history. In the opinion, he wrote that the Danbury letter was “almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the First Amendment.”

 

 

§  The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” No mention is made of a “wall between church and state.”

 

 

§  The true purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from establishing a national church, like the Church of England, or require that sectarian policy be forced on an individual state or on the federal government. While the amendment does recognize a “differentiation between church and the government, it does not mean that they could not cooperate with each other.”

 

 

§  In 2001, Daniel Dreisbach, Associate Professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University, wrote that Black was wrong to apply the term “separation of church and state” to the First Amendment. The danger of Black’s argument, according to Dreisbach, is that it gives constitutional reasons to “separate religion, religious values, and religious organizations from public life.” He continues: “If we can’t talk about religion in any meaningful way in public schools, religious citizens can’t communicate their faith in public life. [The public square] must be ‘sanitized’ of religious messages, and we are left with a strictly secular public life.”

 

 

§  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allies, along with other groups hostile to religious freedom, have used Black’s wording to:

 

o   Deny churches the right to rent public school facilities for Sunday worship services.

 

o   Have public displays of the Ten Commandments removed from public buildings.

 

o   Prohibit students from praying at graduation ceremonies or football games.

 

o   Threaten fixed income housing project residents with eviction for displaying signs about prayer in their apartment windows.

 

o   Tell an eight-year-old girl that she cannot pass out handmade Valentines that read “Jesus Loves You.”

 

o   Tell pastors that they do not have the right to speak freely from their pulpits applying Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections.

 

 

§  In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in ruling in favor of a public display of the Ten Commandments, wrote: “The ACLU’s argument contains…fundamental flaws… [It] makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

 

 

For almost four decades, the ACLU’s distortion of the “separation of church and state” went nearly unchallenged. Since 1994, Alliance Defending Freedom has taken the ACLU and its allies head-on to expose this distortion and restore the original intent of U.S. Constitution with regard to religious freedom. Since its inception, Alliance Defending Freedom has helped to win many groundbreaking cases in defense of religious freedom and expression. The result is that the so-called “wall of separation,” erected by Hugo Black and others, is slowly starting to crumble. With your prayers and support, Alliance Defending Freedom will continue to tear down the “wall of separation.”

_______________________________

About – ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: FOR FAITH. FOR JUSTICE.

 

Alliance Defending Freedom is a servant ministry building an alliance to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.

 

Recognizing the need for a strong, coordinated legal defense against growing attacks on religious freedom, more than 30 prominent Christian leaders launched Alliance Defending Freedom in 1994. Over the past 18 years, this unique legal ministry has brought together thousands of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations that work tirelessly to advocate for the right of people to freely live out their faith in America and around the world.

 

Building an Alliance for Victory

 

Unlike any other legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to empower its allies and READ THE REST

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 5


G. Washington- Rightly Govern only by God & Bible

John R. Houk
© March 26, 2014
 
Here we go continuing to refute Dougindeap’s false belief the Church/State separation is as much a part of the Constitution as are the separation branch powers and checks and balances.
 
Similarly, they [i.e. the Founding Fathers] did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by … (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. (Dougindeap from: The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories; SlantRight 2.0; 3/13/14)
 
Dougindeap’s point two is vaguely cryptic. What in the world does he mean by “… they actually separated them by … (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers”?
 
An accurate statement might be seen in a rearrangement of the word order of the Dougindeap quote. How about something like:
 
The Founding Fathers separated powers (since power resides in the government that being separated must refer to the constitutionally defined Branches] by (2) according limiting government by enumerated the Branch powers.
 
This reordering of wording is a point I can get on board with because is a bit more clarity to extract an understanding. The Founding Fathers intent with the Constitution was to limit government in the context of affecting personal Liberty of American citizens. The object of employing checks and balances between the Branches was so that no single Branch could achieve despotic unchecked power over the government and hence over Americans promised Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as a way of life.
 
Government was to be limited to enforcing the rule of law that should be designed for the general welfare according to the moral of Nature’s God – the Creator – Who has placed the measuring stick for what is right and wrong for a good society.
 
I have established in Part Two that the Original Intent of the phrase of “general welfare” of the Constitution’s Preamble was in relation to the framing of Nature by Nature’s God the Creator. I quoted the Father of our Nation George Washington followed by an observation:
 

“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts in the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. — Every step, by which they have been advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”
George Washington (Quote found, “SEVENPRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY: I LIBERTY IS OF DIVINE ORIGIN; By J. David Gowdy; Institute for American Liberty; Copyright © 1996)
 
As far as Liberty is concerned the Founding Fathers in the majority that religion (meaning Christianity in the 1780s) was essential for a virtuous and moral society to remain cohesive in the practice of Liberty or chaos will ensue that will only despotic rule could quell. (Disputing Separation Church/State Part 2)
 
The should and must recognize that this provides a context for the First Amendment that Justice Hugo Black must have willfully ignored in the majority decision of Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 which ONLY THEN not only upheld the intent of keeping government out of religion BUT ALSO extra-constitutionally added that religion must not have any contact with a taxpayer supported government operation on a Local, State and Federal basis.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold Emphasis Mine First Amendment)
 
There is no place in the First Amendment that enumerates that Christianity should not be the moral basis for the rule of law foundation in the U.S. Constitution. That which is enumerated is that Congress – the vehicle for legislating law and establishing a government budget – MUST not make any laws establishing an established religion (meaning in the 1780s the Christian Church). And the First Amendment specifically enumerates that Congress shall prohibit the “free exercise” of religion (AGAIN meaning the Christian Church in the 1780s).
 
ERGO Dougindeap is wrong that the Founding Fathers created a Constitutional paradigm of Separation of Church and State in the sense that American practicing Christians must keep their faith out of the government. In relation to the State the only enumeration of power separation is that the government must stay out of the worship business of the Church in not establishing the preeminence of one Denomination over another Denomination whether that be Protestant, Catholic and by extension the Eastern Orthodox Churches that were not common in the USA in the 1780s and 1790s.
 
End of Part Five
 
o   Part One
 
o   Part Two
 
 
o   Part Four
 
 
JRH 3/26/14

Please Support NCCR

Obama’s DoD v The Constitution


I am a huge fan of The Patriot Post and Mark Alexander. Indeed, I have a Patriot Post banner on my SlantRight 2.0 blog in which you can click to receive a free subscription of the online magazine in your inbox.

 

On Wednesday Alexander posted an exposé of the United States Air Force Academy’s persecution of religious freedom in which points a finger at guess who for officially instituting such a policy? If you are a Conservative you KNOW it was the America’s own Marxist-in-Chief President Barack Hussein Obama. The atheist tool needling Obama’s military policy at the Air Force Academy (AFA) is Mikey Weinstein.

 

I am cross posting Mark Alexander’s essay below in its entirety. Interspersed throughout the essay are “Comment” and “Share” links which I am leaving intact. Feel free to utilize them but note the links are under the auspices of The Patriot Post and not my blog.

 

JRH 3/21/14

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Obama’s DoD v The Constitution

Suppressing 1st Amendment Religious Expression in the Air Force

 

By Mark Alexander 

Mar. 19, 2014

The Patriot Post

Email Notification Sent: 3/19/2014 1:07 PM

 

“God who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson (1774)

 

 

Yet another case of BO’s D-O-D v G-O-D…

 

During the rancorous debates that preceded passage of the 2014 DefenseUSAFA Free Thinkers ad - Ask an Atheist Day budget – the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 – one of the proposed amendments was designed to protect the First Amendment rights of members of the Armed Services.

 

The NDAA as signed by Barack Hussein Obama in December of 2013 included an amendment based on the protective rights language proposed by Rep. John Calvin Fleming (R-LA). Regarding that amendment, Fleming noted: “The conscience rights of our men and women in uniform and their chaplains must be protected. While existing protections have focused on their beliefs, my amendment will extend that protection to the liberty granted by the U.S. Constitution, namely the freedom to exercise those beliefs in speech and actions. This amendment is aimed at stopping the unjust threats and reprimands against service members who have been speaking or acting in accord with their deeply held beliefs, while ensuring that military necessity and readiness are not compromised.”

 

Indeed, Section 532 of the NDAA, the “Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members,” was implemented as a first step toward achieving that goal.

 

Last week, however, the Air Force Academy, with a little help from perennial atheist agitator Mikey Weinstein, tested the protection of those rights. Recall that Weinstein heads the “Military Religious Freedom Foundation,” or what would be more aptly named the “Military Freedom From Religion Foundation.” (Other Service Academies are not burdened with Weinstein because he has made the AFA his testing ground for atheist challenges.)

 

One of Weinstein’s resident cadre of campus atheists complained to the Academy’s Superintendent, Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson, about a Bible verse posted on a Cadet’s dorm door whiteboard: “I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me…” (Gal. 2:20) Those erasable whiteboards are on all Cadet doors, and they are used for personal messages and statements. There is no AFA restriction on what can be posted on them, and Cadets have a respectful understanding of what might be offensive to others – which most assuredly should not include a Bible verse.

That notwithstanding, it was promptly “suggested” to the Cadet that he remove the Bible verse, even though such posts are common.

 

Johnson claimed in an official statement, “The scripture [on the Cadet’s door] could cause subordinates to doubt the leader’s religious impartiality.”

 

Really?

 

On Tuesday of this week, a Cadet with the same leadership rank and position in his squadron as the Cadet who posted the Bible verse on his dorm door, invited the entire Cadet Wing, both in a public announcement to the Wing assembled and by official AFA email, to the “Ask and Atheist Day” event. The event flyer was advertised all week on Academy bulletin screens.

 

So, are we to believe then that promoting atheism to the entire Cadet Wing through official channels does not raise doubts about “the leader’s religious impartiality”?

 

The Cadets who contacted me about the atheist event indicated that they were not objecting to the promotion of that event, but to the hypocrisy of that promotion, versus a fellow Cadet being asked to remove a Bible verse from his door. Obviously, only the Christian expression of faith is the target of AFA discrimination, and it is Johnson’s “religious impartiality” which should be in contention.

 

AFA Cadet White Boards with Scriptures

 

Of note, Johnson’s press release stated, “While we swear an oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States, Airmen are also bound by [Air Force Instruction 1-1].” (Shouldn’t that read “Airpersons”?) Instruction 1-1 is a regulation put into place in 2009 by Obama’s DoD administrators to suppress religious speech.

 

Johnson’s reference to “swear an oath” is ironic, given that, as The Patriot Post first reported last year, somebody at the AFA removed the words “So Help Me God” from the Officer and Enlisted Oaths in the AFA’s official handbook. Those words were removed in 2010 and are still AWOL from the current handbook – in violation of federal statutes and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

My column, “End Run on ‘So Help Me God’,” details this omission, and the matter is now the subject of a Freedom of Information Act inquiry to determine who removed those words and why. (I bet Mikey Weinstein’s name pops up.) Suffice it to say that removing “So Help Me God” from official oaths is a far more egregious offense than the current dispute over the Bible verse, but both fall into the same category of faith suppression. However, we may never get an answer given that “the most transparent administration” has stonewalled far more FOIA requests than any other administration.

 

Comment | Share

 

Regarding the whiteboard Bible verse, Weinstein told Fox News that it “clearly elevated [fundamentalist Christianity] over all others at an already virulently hyper-fundamentalist Christian institution.” He added, “It massively poured fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already raging out-of-control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny, exceptionalism and supremacy at USAFA. You cannot put a picture in front of your room of a white person whipping a black person. You can’t put a picture of anything that’s denigrating outside your room.”

 

Got that? Posting a passage from the Bible on one’s personal whiteboard is akin to posting a picture “of a white person whipping a black person.” (Shades of Joseph Goebbels in Weinstein’s über -hyperbolic rhetoric.)

 

Former spec ops commander Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (USA Ret.) says, “The very troops who defend our religious freedom are at risk of having their own taken away. The worst thing we can do is to stop Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, especially the chaplains, from the free exercise of their faith. … If a scripture scares [the AFA administrators] this much, then [some of those they are training] may not be very effective when confronted by a committed enemy who is willing to die for his or her beliefs. This academy should be training warriors. Scripture is hardly a threat.”

 

 

The AFA’s leadership malfeasance spilled over into Air Force budgetA.F. Secretary Deborah Lee James & A.F. Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh testimony before Congress last Friday, with both Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James and Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh being asked for a detailed explanation of why the AFA is suppressing religious expression. Reps. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Michael Turner (R-OH), Mike McIntyre (D-NC) and Randy Forbes (R-VA) pressed for answers.

 

Lamborn noted, “The Air Force Academy is in my district, and … I’m very disturbed by what happened with this Cadet. I think it’s a suppression of religious rights.” He has written a letter of protest to Johnson, noting, “We are asking future officers to perhaps give even their very lives to protect and defend the Constitution and yet denying them rights from that same Constitution.”

 

As Forbes put it to Sec. James, “Can you imagine a young Cadet when he’s forced with the entire chain of command coming in there and telling him basically this is inappropriate?” He objected further, “Perhaps most offensive, the Air Force said this was a teaching moment, that the Cadet’s action of putting the Bible verse on [the whiteboard] was inappropriate based on leadership principles.”

 

Forbes then asked Gen. Welsh, “What other inspirational quotes have Cadets been forced to remove from their personal whiteboards other than verses from the Bible?”

 

Welsh insisted the “single biggest frustration I’ve had in this job is the perception that somehow there is religious persecution in the United States Air Force.” He added, “We remove hundreds of quotes from those boards. … You have to get the facts right on every one of these cases.”

 

Now, I’ve met Gen. Welsh, and I found him to be in possession of strong character and leadership qualities – and a devoted Christian. But if he’s been told that the AFA has removed “hundreds of quotes from those boards,” I for one would like to see the evidence of those removals, preferably without issuing another FOIA request. According to a response I received from Gen. Welsh regarding the issue of “So Help Me God” being removed from the AFA’s official handbook, he was told that was “a printing error on a wall calendar,” not an obvious omission from the handbook.

 

Memo to Gen. Welsh: You can’t “get the facts right” if somebody at the AFA is feeding you misinformation.

 

Comment | Share

 

So what now?

 

To ratchet up the stakes, some AFA Cadets are standing their ground in protest by posting this offensive note on their door whiteboards: “IN GOD WE TRUST”. By “offensive,” I mean an offensive strategic move to challenge the culture of religious suppression at the AFA. (The Patriot Post is offering 4″x6″ stickers with our flag over the words “IN GOD WE TRUST” free of charge to Cadets at any service academy. E-mail GodTrust@PatriotPost.US to inquire about obtaining quantities of these stickers.)

 

US Flag - In God We Trust

 

Of course, Mikey Weinstein is furious: “This is an absolutely horrible, shameful disgrace. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an open rebellion like this happening at any military academy. It’s like they’re sticking their middle finger up at what the academy did.”

 

Will AFA Superintendent Johnson demand our National Motto be removed from her Cadets’ doors?

 

If so, a religious Liberty coalition, including the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Liberty Counsel, the Liberty Institute and the Thomas More Law Center, announced they will provide legal defense for any Cadet brought up on charges.

 

Liberty Institute attorney Mike Berry believes the AFA actions are a direct violation of Section 532 of the NDAA as noted previously, saying, “If the Cadet didn’t violate any rules, then why was the quote removed? … This is not only morally wrong, it’s illegal. … We met with Col. Paul Barzler, the Air Force Academy Staff Judge Advocate [and] pointed out that under the Constitution, federal law, and military regulations, Cadets have the right to religious exercise. I was shocked when he responded that [according to Obama’s DoD policy] the term ‘religious exercise’ does not include written or verbal speech.”

 

Personally, I’m not sure why anyone would be shocked at any directive from the Obama administration.

 

Under the pretense of “religious tolerance,” Obama’s administration has been advancing his mandate to remove all expressions of faith from government forums. This eradication serves the Left’s strategic objective of replacing Rule of Law with the rule of men – because the former is predicated on the principle of Liberty “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that Liberty is the gift of government.

 

Stand your ground, Cadets!

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

___________________________

© 2014, The Patriot Post.

 

About The Patriot Post

 

The Patriot Post is a highly acclaimed advocate of Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We believe, as did our Founders, that Essential Liberty, and Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution, must be defended at any cost. “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Ben Franklin) · “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” (John Adams) · “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Thomas Jefferson) · “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” (Thomas Paine) · “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. … If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” (Samuel Adams) · “Give me liberty or give me death!” (Patrick Henry) · “Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” (George Washington)

 

The Patriot Post — inspired byREAD THE REST

 

From Email Version:

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

Are YOU a Bigot if YOU Hate Islam?


Mahdi Antichrist

John R. Houk

© November 25, 2013

 

Here come the accusations of hater and bigot.

 

Islam is an evil religion. Its adherents love to call their faith the religion of peace. That is a bit of a deceptive moniker. There are a lot of Quranic suras that indeed extol peace and family; however an equal or greater amount of Islamic theology extols violence to those who refuse to submit to allah or to those who insult allah and the antichrist prophet Mohammed. The verbal anger in the newest suras of the Quran reflect Mohammed’s frustration of being rejected as a prophet by Jews and Christians. The rejection is easy to understand. Mohammed goes from calling the People of the Book (i.e. the Torah and Bible) as people to be respected as receiving – cough – allah’s revelations first to calling Jews and Christians as evil twisted deceivers of allah’s word who corrupted scripture ensuring their place in hell. So if you happen to see a Jew hiding then kill’em.

 

And so although I believe those who call themselves Muslims may be decent and upright in character kind-of-people, their theology when honored as pure is evil toward non-Muslims (aka kafir).

 

As an American devoted to the Freedom and Rights inherent in the First Amendment I have struggled with Islam as being a religion that should be freely practiced in the USA.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold Emphasis Mine – 1st Amendment to U.S. Constitution)

 

Americans are guaranteed to not have an established religion by the government AND Americans are guaranteed that the government will not prohibit the free exercise of religion. So how do Constitutional honoring Americans who are not Muslims deal with a religion in which a part of its theology is to transform the social-political nature of nature by force if necessary. In other words a devoted Muslim would not be off base towards his faith to fight against the U.S. Constitution as the basis for the rule of law by changing the legal foundation to Sharia Law. Sharia Law stands against everything the U.S. Constitution stands and in particular Sharia Law is a contradiction to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 – 10).

 

In Islam there is no Religious Freedom because Islam is supreme and the non-Muslim is an insult.

 

In Islam there is no Free Speech because if Islam, its deity allah and/or its prophet Mohammed are insulted punishment must follow up to and including the death penalty.

 

In Islam Non-Muslims cannot assemble peaceably especially to worship their faith openly because that would be an insult to the supremacy of Islam – punishment will follow.

 

If non-Muslims petition the government with a grievance that might be contrary to Sharia Law it would be considered an effrontery to Islam – punishment will follow.

 

AND this just addresses the First Amendment!

 

Islam is a religion that is beyond an individual seeking the spiritual answers to that which is divine. Islam is an ideological-political religion that absolutely demands the government to enforce the precepts of Islam as derived from the Quran, Hadith and Sira (Sunna). When you here a Muslim inform you that their Quran claims there is no compulsion of religion in Islam – it is a deception. If one chooses to retain their non-Muslim faith and are lucky enough to be a member of the People of the Book, you are not compelled to convert to Islam. The deception is – especially in a Muslim dominated nation – your life is made a living hell of humiliation and religious taxation that only the most ardent non-Muslims choose not to convert. That is how the Christian Middle East and North Africa changed from a Christian majority into a Muslim majority. Converting to Islam removed 2nd class humiliation status to the Muslim family of the Umma. So always remember the ‘Islam is Peace’ and ‘there is no compulsion of religion in Islam’ are deceptions meant to entice the kafir to enter Islam.

 

It is thus my opinion that Islam that adheres to a purist belief – i.e. an original loyalty to the early meanings of Islamic theology – should be banned in America as not a religion but as a political element dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution. Frankly such a reform for Muslim-Americans is something they will not stomach. Just as Christians are taught the Bible is Holy and Jews are taught the Torah is Holy, Muslims are taught that the Quran is the irrefutable word of allah (what they call god). The difference for Jews and Christians is that our theology tells to submit to the ruling authorities as appointed by God even if they are heathen because the political authority is the instrument that administers right over wrong in society. If you do no wrong then there should be a peaceful life. Contrarily Islamic theology is to fight the kafir until they submit or fool the kafir until the Ummah is strong enough to force kafir to submit. Jews and Christians pray for peace. Muslims force submission to enfranchise an Islamic Supremacist peace. The Islamic political nature is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

 

So I advocate a ban on any Islamic theology that is politically motivated to utilize violence to achieve the ends of destroying the U.S. Constitution. This is where the hater and bigot accusations should really begin to fly.

 

There is an essence of truth to the accusations. As a Christian I can say without any remorse that Islam is an antichrist religion. Islam denies the Sonship and Godhood of Jesus Christ. The New Testament specifically tells Christians that such a belief is an antichrist spirit. HOWEVER, the New Testament also teaches us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute you.  So I can confidently say I hate Islam the theo-political religion but I pray for the peace and Salvation of all Muslim adherents.

 

Allow me to briefly switch gears on you. I have a different perspective on Jews. In Christian history Jews have often been vilified as Christ-Killers. Merely that sentiment alone would make Judaism an antichrist religion. HOWEVER, Christians forget that Christ came first to the lost sheep of Israel. At the Resurrection the disciples wondered if this was the time that Israel would be restored the Lord Jesus told them to the effect not yet and then gave last instructions to go into all the world witness of Jesus Christ first to “…Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Matt. 28: 18-20; Mk.16: 15-16; Acts 1: 6-8). The ONLY Christians when Jesus spoke to his disciples were indeed Jews. God’s Promises are to the Jews. Salvation is of the Jews. When non-Jews receive Christ Jesus they are engrafted (NOT REPLACING) into God’s Promises to the Jews. It is my unlearned opinion that although the majority of Jews reject Christ’s Messiahship now, there will be a time when they embrace Jesus. Remember the Twelve Apostles did not immediately believe Jesus Christ arose from the dead and the Apostle Thomas was the last hold-out in that non-belief. I believe the Jews of today are the modern doubting Thomases that will believe when they see the return of King Jesus. So I honor Jews as the Chosen People rather than as Christ-killers.

 

Now what was it that got me thinking about Islam and the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment Religious Freedom?

 

I subscribe to Sharia Unveiled. One of my favorite blogs has come across some information that the nation of Angola (western neighbor of Congo, Zambia & Namibia) has banned Islam from being legal. The government has even taken the step of destroying Mosques in Angola. Now it being Africa I suspect this will not be a non-violent situation in Angola.

 

The Angola government has had a Marxist-Leninist domination from about the 1970s. Apparently Angola place a new Constitution in 1991 and again 2002 that changed the government into a multiparty system; however elections seem plagued by corruption. The (Marxist) Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) has been the primary power holder since Angolan independence from Portugal in 1975. There had been an Angolan civil war off and on especially in the old Cold War days of the USSR vs. USA. As the word “Marxist” implies the Communism á la Marxist-Leninism was the dominant rule of law factor in Angola. Meaning not friendly to religion. Apparently after 2002 (and beyond) the still dominant MPLA eased up religious intolerance under an official democratic socialism rather than a Marxist dictatorship. However the way the Angolan Constitution is framed almost absolute power is vested into the Office of President. The President is chosen by the majority party in Parliament.

 

The power structure is important to understand the ability of the government to move against the Muslim minority of Angola. The Marxist influence the quarter century inspired the Angolan government to move against the legality of Islam when it determined that al Qaeda began using its influence among the 80-90 thousand Muslims via NGOs. So in Angola Islam is illegal to keep Radical Islam out. The only problem I have with this Angolan move is that if the government reverts back to an anti-religion policy that would include the shutdown of all religions in the despotic nation.

 

JRH 11/25/13

Please Support NCCR

******************************************

Angola has ordered the shutdown of all mosques and declared Islam illegal.  Becomes the first nation in the world to issue a ban on Islam.

 

Posted by Sharia Unveiled

Posted on November 25, 2013

By Umm Ayoub

Originally Ajib – France

President Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola

 

President Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola

 

The fight against Islam does not seem to be exclusive to westerners.  According to the African press, Angola is determined to eradicate Islam from its territory.

 

Thus Muslims Luanda saw their mosque being destroyed.  The municipality of the town was radically breaking the only mosque in the city. Just days later, this is the Mosque of Viana was reduced to dust.

 

VIDEO: Angola Bans Islam and Shuts Down All Mosques

 

To excuse these unjust acts, the governor of the city said that the government of the country was not ready to legalize the construction of mosques. Similarly, earlier this week, the Minister of Culture, Rosa Cruz e Silva said: “With regard to Islam, the legalization process has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Man, their mosques will be closed until further notice. ”

 

Now the main task of the Angolan government would destroy all the mosques located in the country because their status is considered “illegal”. This “illegal” status is further enhanced by the fact that the Muslim religion is considered contrary to the customs and the habits of the country. Therefore, leaders want the ban at all costs.

 

Although the proportion of Muslims is small, it prevents our Angolan brothers are suffering from this anti-Islam political regime. Allah assists and facilitates the Hijra!

 

A report has been issued stating the following:

 

“The legalisation of Islam has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights [and] their mosques will be closed until further notice,” said minister of culture Rosa Cruz e Silva.

 

The minister called Islam a “sect” which would be banned as counter to Angolan customs and culture.

 

Following the ban, there were unconfirmed reports that mosques across the vast southern African nation were being destroyed.

 

“This is the final end of Islamic influence in our country,” President Jose Edurado dos Santos told the Osun Defence daily.

 

Muslims account for less than 1% of the population of 19 million, while more than half of this former Portuguese colony subscribe to Christianity.

 

Clashes between the two communities are frequently reported in the local media. Muslims, many of whom migrated from west Africa and Lebanon, often face hostility from lawmakers in Angola.

 

Along with Islam, 194 other “sects” have been outlawed.

 

“Besides these, there is a long list of more than 1,000 applications to be authorised,” said Silva.

 

__________________________________

Are YOU a Bigot if YOU Hate Islam?

John R. Houk

© November 25, 2013

________________________________

Angola has ordered the shutdown of all mosques and declared Islam illegal.  Becomes the first nation in the world to issue a ban on Islam.

 

Sharia Unveiled About Page

 

  TRUTH! 

 

…in a word, that is what sharia unveiled is about.

 

sharia unveiled is committed to seeking and sharing the truth.  In all things, there is only one truth.  There is no “middle ground” in truth.  There is no “compromise” in truth and there is no “tolerance” in truth.  There is no “leuke warm” in truth.  There are no “grey areas” in truth.  Truth is black and white.  Wrong or Right.  There is truth and everything else is just a lie.

 

We live in this world although we are not of it.

 

We live in a world of darkness, lies and deception.  We live in a world that protects, defends and rewards those who lie.  Why?  Primarily due to the fact that faith is being forced out of the world and evil is being invited in.  When we force God out essentially, we are creating a vacuum in society.  We are creating a void of empty space and the natural tendency is for that space to be filled.  The door has been left open and evil has been invited in.  Evil comes in many forms although rarely does it present itself as evil.  In most cases, it hides itself beneath a cloak of deception and a pretty name.  Sometimes evil even hides beneath the facade of “Peace and Love.”

 

We are dedicated to human rights.

 

sharia unveiled is absolutely and unequivocally devoted to the protection and defense of human rights.  There are READ THE REST

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 108 other followers

%d bloggers like this: