YOU TOO Could be Silenced Like Jayda Fransen


John R. Houk

© May 2, 2019

Ok, I realize I am entering the realm of Jayda Fransen fanboy, but her email update from May 1st is quote annoying. Living America one becomes quite accustomed to the Liberties and Freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. In Fransen’s case, she never would have become found guilty for exposing Islam, let alone even prosecuted. Fransen would have been protected by the Free Speech Rights of the First Amendment.

 

The UK’s Public Order Act 1986 came into existence with good intentions to battle racism and give protection to persecuted minorities. UNFORTUNATELY the UK Act has turned into a state weapon to force the public acceptance of Left-Wing Multiculturalist ideology. EVEN if the forced acceptance means abandoning the UK’s Western and Judeo-Christian heritage.

 

THAT MEANS a person standing for Biblical principles can actually convicted for promoting hate as defined by Multiculturalism (An Australian’s insight AND Conservapedia). THAT MEANS people who recognize Islamic principles run contrary to and EVEN disparages Jews and Christians, can be arrested, tried in court, fined, jailed and silenced ALL IN THE NAME OF Multiculturalist ideology forcing people to look away from Islam’s harmful history and future supremacist intentions in regard to non-Muslims ALL ACCORDING to Islamic revered writings in the Quran, Hadith and Sira – not to mention ages of Islamic commentary to those revered writings that stretch to this present time.

 

I have a huge suspicion I would be arrested for hate speech in the UK for sharing the prevalence codified hate and violence existent in Islam. So, when I read an email like what I received from Jayda Fransen, I BECOME UPSET. And you should be displeased as well.

 

JRH 5/2/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

WANTED AGAIN John

 

Jayda Fransen logo

 

Sent by Jayda Fransen

Sent May 1, 2019 1:02 PM

Sent via JaydaFransen.Online

 

Dear John,

 

As you know, I am currently on Bail in Northern Ireland waiting to be sentenced for ‘Hate Speech’ this Friday, 3rd May 2019.

 

One of my Bail Conditions states that I must live and sleep at my home address in Northern Ireland.

 

After I was found guilty of ‘Hate Speech’ at Laganside Court in Belfast on 29th March 2019, I contacted the Courts in England who have been Summoning me to attend.

 

I notified Bromley Magistrates Court in writing on 11th April 2019 that – due to my Bail Conditions – I could not attend a Court in London.

 

Fransen Summons for Breach of Post-Sentence Supervision

 

It would be impossible for me to adhere to my Bail Conditions of remaining in Northern Ireland and to appear at a Court in England.

 

I was confident that the Court would understand my position and agree to adjourn the Hearing.

 

I was wrong.

 

Instead, at the start of this week, Bromley Magistrates Court issued two Warrants for my arrest one to an address in England and one to my home address in Northern Ireland.

 

Jayda Fransen wanted 2-places at once 5-1-19 email

 

I am now therefore WANTED once again and facing imminent arrest.

 

This time, my crime is not being able to be in two places at once!

 

I am convinced that this is just a blatant continuation of State pressure to try and push me to breaking point.

 

There is simply no other explanation for such an irrational decision.

 

In less than 48 hours I will learn my fate at a Court in Belfast.

 

I could be spending the remainder of 2019 in a prison cell, just as I spent the majority of 2018.

 

If I manage to make it to Court this Friday without being arrested in my home tonight or tomorrow, I could be walking into a complete set up.

 

The Court will be crawling with Police so I am un likely to leave the building without handcuffs cutting into my wrists.

 

The only way for people to know what is happening to me is by signing up for my updates, just like you have John.

 

Please forward this email to all of your closest contacts and ask them to sign up to my updates by clicking this button:

 

SIGN UP FOR [FRANSEN] UPDATES

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Jayda Fransen

_____________________

YOU TOO Could be Silenced Like Jayda Fransen

John R. Houk

© May 2, 2019

______________________

WANTED AGAIN John

 

Jayda Fransen – My Story

 

Our God-Given Rights Are Universal


What God giveth, no man can eradicate. – Epistle of John the Houk (A little humor to state a simple truth)

 

I’m a the-Bible-is-the-voice-of-God kind of guy. I realize an atheist or a non-Judeo-Christian person discounts the Bible, but I’m definitely not one of those guys. Christians that look to God Almighty as the Author of Natural Law or Natural Rights believe God Almighty breathed what is Right and a knowing of what is Wrong into the human spirit. Hence these  God thoughts recorded in God’s Word carry an authority that no human legislature or human dictate can override in the sight of God –  Genesis 1: 1, 26-27; 2: 7; Romans 1: 19-20; 2: 14-15; Hebrews 10: 16 NKJV:

 

[Genesis] 1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [a]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

 

2 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 

[Romans] 1 19 because what may be known of God is [a]manifest [b]in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [c]Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

 

2 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

 

[Hebrews] 10 16“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”

 

Justin Smith addresses some thoughts from self-asserted Conservatives from Social Media who astoundingly seem to lack an understanding of the Natural Law/Natural Rights endowed by humanity’s Creator.

 

JRH 4/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Our God-Given Rights Are Universal

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/25/2019 3:38 PM

 

It’s an astounding matter to find so many so-called, self-described “conservatives” on social media sites like MeWe and Facebook who do not understand, that the very same rights enumerated and codified in Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights are God-Given Rights afforded all men and women.

 

If any nation has not codified those God-Given Rights and makes a habit of suppressing them, as so many do these days — including supposedly Free World countries like the United Kingdom, along with much of the Third World — this doesn’t mean those rights seek to exist.

 

God-Given Rights are Truisms and have been witnessed in Nature’s Law, since the beginning, and they preexist any legal system and structure and any government. They are UNIVERSAL to all mankind.

 

Our Founders acknowledged and understood this fact. Our Declaration of Independence clearly states:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

And Our Founders had to fight to secure those RIGHTS.

 

Founding Fathers

 

The absence of a legal system that protects these rights in any nation doesn’t mean that all of a sudden these rights no longer exists. It simply means that nation’s people have somehow failed to secure those rights for their own population.

 

Everyone has the absolute right to freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of assembly, to keep and bear arms and self-defense, to be secure in one’s home and privacy, habeas corpus, a speedy trial and to face one’s accuser in criminal matters, among other things.

 

Our God-Given Rights are Universal to All mankind.

 

And when I see so many on MeWe denying this fact and misrepresenting this statement as seeking One World governance, it exhibits precisely why our nation is suffering such unrest and tumultuous times. This “Conservative” IGNORANCE is just as corrosive and destructive to the republic and Liberty as the intentional and purposeful efforts of the Democratic Party Communists.

 

To equate recognizing God-Given Rights belong to all men and women with a globalist agenda, especially when speaking of illegal immigration is a non sequitur and lacks a proper understanding that a nation’s sovereignty is derived through its own sovereign individuals, each of which has been endowed by God with these inalienable rights.

 

If one commits the crime of jumping the U.S. Border illegally, that individual doesn’t lose rights that have long been recognized by most of the Free World. That’s just a plain fact and agreed upon since the very Founding of this nation.

 

To state or suggest otherwise is revisionist history.

 

It is this marked Ignorance that makes me almost want to leave all these social media sites and everyone on them to their own devices. Sink or Swim … because I know the Truth and I’m going to make it just fine … with or without them. But the nation is certainly suffering due to the poor level of education and real knowledge on both sides of the political aisle.

 

America is in deep trouble, even with the improvements seen under President Trump, but half the American people do not have a clue, or they are complacent and apathetic, just as long as they are getting their bread and circuses.

 

~ Justin O Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

E Pluribus Unum Trumps Multicultural Divisiveness


John R. Houk

© June 9, 2018

 

The Multicultural Left encourages Anti-Constitution/Anti-American-Heritage religion Islam to take up roots in America in the name of diversity. In case you didn’t realize it, DIVERSITY = DIVISION!

 

Two national mottos are stamped in American history representative of who we are as a nation of people. The first national motto codified by Congress on the United Seal in 1782 is E Pluribus Unum. The motto is Latin for “from many, one”. The other national motto is In God We Trust encoded by Congress in 1956 (Wikipedia). I am quite committed to both mottos, but I want to focus on “from many, one” in an American cultural perspective.

 

Whether you believe this motto refers to 13 former British Colonies becoming one to form one nation or a nation of European immigrants who became one-people to form one nation; the point is ‘DIVERSITY” has no part in America blending many people into one nation with one culture (which duh, was a Judeo-Christian heritage!). Why? AGAIN, because DIVERSITY = DIVISION!

 

President Abraham Lincoln completely understood as a nation divided, America would break up into weak independent States. He engaged in the Civil War against the Southern States that perceived Lincoln would promote an ever-growing Northern States attitude that the institution of slavery was immoral and should be abolished.

 

Rather an adopt a greater moral stand in catching up with the moral imperative that human beings should never be treated as property, all humans are created by God and God does not created some humans better than others. Rather the Christian perspective Man fell from union with God in Eden and Man has an opportunity of choice to re-institute that union in Jesus Christ.

 

That is ALL mankind (or humankind if you are a politically correct Multiculturalist Leftist) regardless of racial lines. Indeed Lincoln used the Biblical picture in his House Divided speech when he ran for Senator in Illinois indicating division is weakness:

 

A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South. (Quoted from Wikipedia; Lincoln’s House Divided Speech; page was last edited on 6/1/18 at 11:55)

 

Even though the Civil War came to a fighting point due to Southern wanting to preserve their culture based on State Sovereignty, the fight evolved into a fight on which culture (North or South) would be perpetuated: The Northern belief of a culture of a moral imperative on human nature or a Southern belief that a slave economy is essential to preserve the Southern way of life. Preserving the Union of American States initiated a Christian moral imperative for all Americans illuminating humans as property. In reality it has taken over 100 years for the descendants of former slaves to achieve the united Civil Rights of the descendants on non-slaves. There is still a lot cultural healing for African-Americans to experience because American non-slaves were indoctrinated that Black-skinned humans were inferior to White-skinned humans.

 

At this point I could spin-off to a number of subjects relating to how the Diversity thinking of Multiculturalist has increased division in America more than a continued healing of America bringing about an E Pluribus Unum, but I want focus on one divisive oriented issue that has really been imported to America in the name of Multiculturalism.

 

That imported divisive issue is promoting immigration of Muslim refugees that have been ingrained with the Islamic culture of intolerance of all things NOT Islamic. Lincoln began the union of cultural values by preserving the Union of American States. The American Left (cough – Democrats) is setting the stage for another divided America to fester into violence resulting between preserving our American Heritage and those committed to transforming American culture into self-destructive diverse peoples with no national loyalty but loyalty to only segments of like-minded people. You could call this segmenting Tribalism.

 

What is Tribalism?

 

Merriam-Webster:

 

1 tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups

 

2 strong in-group loyalty

 

Cambridge Dictionary:

 

♦ the state of existing as a tribe, or a very strong feeling of loyalty to your tribe

 

♦ a very strong feeling of loyalty to a political or social group, so that you support them whatever they do

 

There is ZERO E Pluribus Unum in Tribalism. A Tribalistic culture in America means this great Republic that our Founding Fathers fought for will not survive.

 

There can be no “from many, one” nation with a theo-political ethos that calls for the destruction or subservience of all things non-Islamic because Islam is superior.

 

No Coexistence Foolish Infidels

 

Search Engines are dominated by Multiculturalist thinking so you may actually have a difficult experience finding Islam/Constitution contradictions. When I began a search the top results were Muslim apologists trying to twist incompatibilities as irrelevant. After working with various phrases I found an honest comparison on WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.”

 

Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill – and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states:

 

“Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah” (Sura 5:38). READ ENTIRETY – Bold Emphasis Blog Editor’s (QURAN VS. CONSTITUTION: WHY THEY’RE INCOMPATIBLE; By William Federer; WND; 9/26/09  12:00 AM)

 

The Constitution guarantees Religious Freedom, but Religious Freedom cannot be used as a tool to overthrow the Constitution.

 

Citing the Constitution – ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (Treason; The Heritage Guide to the Constitution)

 

U.S. Legal Code on Rebellion or Sedition – 18 U.S. Code § 2383:

 

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) — 18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection; Legal Information Institute, Cornell University

 

When most American lawmakers agreed that Communism was a threat to our Constitutional Republic, treason description was broadened through the Smith Act in 1940. The original Smith Act had some Constitutional problems that has modified the Act since its 1940 inception. Here is an excerpt from Conservative News and Views relating to the Smith Act:

 

The Smith Act

 

Here is some information about the Smith Act gleaned from Internet:

 

The Alien Registration Act of 1940, usually called the Smith Act because its anti-sedition section was authored by Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, is prescribed in 54 Statutes at Large 670-671 (1940). The Act has been amended several times and can now be found at 18 U.S. Code § 2385 (2000).

 

2385. Advocating Overthrow of Government.

 

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

 

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

 

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof–

 

 

The Smith Act and Muslim groups

 

The Smith Act clearly applies to Muslim organizations in the United States such as CAIR, the Council on American–Islamic Relations. CAIR is an Islamic supremacist organization that pioneered 20th century Islamic terrorism, and it sanctions violence against the United States. CAIR is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and has regional offices nationwide. Through media relations, lobbying, and education, CAIR promotes Islamic, hence anti-American perspectives to the American public, while promoting social and political activism among Muslims in America. Moreover, CAIR is suspected of being linked to terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and to HAMAS in the Gaza strip. Of course, no action will be taken against CAIR as long as Barack Obama is in the White House.

 

 

Islamic terrorism constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States, as understood by the language of the Smith Act. Hence, patriotic American statesmen and organizations should rise up and sound the warning that America has been penetrated by her deadliest enemy. READ ENTIRETY (SEDITION: CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER; By PAUL EIDELBERG; Conservative News and Views; 6/14/16)

 

For clarity, the Smith Act was amended because a thought of criminal activity is not unconstitutional. The Act was amended that actions planned and/or acted upon fits the Constitutional parameters. Here is an excerpt of some of the history the Act’s amendments:

 

Under a 1956 amendment to the Smith Act, if two or more persons conspire to commit any offense described in the statute, each is subject to a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum term of imprisonment of twenty years, or both, and is ineligible for employment by the United States or its agencies for five years after conviction. The Smith Act, as enacted in 1940, contained a conspiracy provision, but effective September 1, 1948, the Smith Act was repealed and substantially reenacted as part of the 1948 recodification, minus the conspiracy provision. On June 25, 1948, the Federal general conspiracy statute was passed, effective September 1, 1948, which contained the same provisions as the deleted conspiracy section of the original Smith Act except that the showing of overt acts was required and the maximum penalty became five years’ imprisonment instead of ten (18 U.S.C.A. § 2385). The general conspiracy statute became operative, with respect to conspiracies to violate the Smith Act, substantially in the same manner and to the same extent as previously.

 

The conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act and its provisions defining the substantive offenses have been upheld. An intent to cause the overthrow of the government by force and violence is an essential element of the offenses. The advocacy of peaceful change in U.S. social, economic, or political institutions, irrespective of how fundamental or expansive or drastic such proposals might be, is not forbidden.

 

A conspiracy can exist even though the activities of the defendants do not culminate in an attempt to overthrow the government by force and violence. A conspiracy to advocate overthrow of the government by force or violence, as distinguished from the advocacy itself, can be constitutionally restrained even though it consists of mere preparation because the existence of the conspiracy creates the peril.

 

An agreement to advocate forcible overthrow of the government is not an unlawful conspiracy under the Smith Act if the agreement does not call for advocacy of action; the act covers only advocacy of action for the overthrow of the government by force and violence rather than advocacy or teaching of theoretical concepts. READ ENTIRETY (Smith Act; Encyclopedia.comWest’s Encyclopedia of American Law; © 2005 The Gale Group, Inc.)

 

The point to be realized is Religious Freedom does not protect members of a religion if they actively prepare and work to overthrow the government of the United States Republic. Multicultural Diversity encourages a divisiveness that emboldens treason, sedition and/or rebellion.

 

Americans should not fear Multiculturalist political correctness to tell their Representatives and Senators to be wary of any religion – not just Islam – that advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government. Even if it means shutting down donations from nations or foreign NGOs that have a design to undermine or destroy the American Constitutional Rule of Law. Or shutting Mosques (or perhaps White Pride Identity Churches) that ACTIVELY (as defined by treason, sedition and rebellion) place their beliefs above the Rule of Law.

 

These thoughts were inspired by the recent actions of the Austrian government that has done exactly what I have described above about Mosques and subversive monies from foreign entities.

 

VIDEO: Austria to close seven mosques and expel dozens of imams [Hat Tip: Vlad Tepes]

 

Posted by euronews (in English)

Published on Jun 8, 2018

 

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz’s right wing government announces crackdown on “Islamist ideology” and foreign funding of religious groups.… READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2018/06/08/austria-to-close-seven-mosques-and-expel-dozens-of-imams

 

JRH 6/9/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Austria’s right-wing government plans to shut down seven mosques and expel up to 40 foreign-funded imams in crackdown against Islamist ideology

 

By KHALEDA RAHMAN FOR MAILONLINE and REUTERS

PUBLISHED: 04:37 EDT, 8 June 2018 | UPDATED: 11:17 EDT, 8 June 2018

Daily Mail

 

  • Chancellor Sebastian Kurz announced the measures in a news conference
  • Kurz said a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna is going to be closed 
  • The Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques will also be dissolved 
  • Ankara quickly denounced the move, saying the move ‘is a reflection of the anti-Islam, racist and discriminatory populist wave’ in Austria

 

Austria said today it could expel up to 60 Turkish-funded imams and their families and would shut down seven mosques as part of a crackdown on ‘political Islam’ that was described as ‘just the beginning’, triggering fury in Ankara.

 

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the government is shutting a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques.

 

His coalition government, an alliance of conservatives and the far right, came to power soon after Europe’s migration crisis on promises to prevent another influx and clamp down on benefits for new immigrants and refugees.

 

In a previous job as minister in charge of integration, Chancellor Kurz oversaw the passing of a tough ‘law on Islam’ in 2015, which banned foreign funding of religious groups and created a duty for Muslim societies to have ‘a positive fundamental view towards (Austria’s) state and society’.

 

‘Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have no place in our country,’ Kurz told a news conference outlining the government’s decisions, which were based on that law.

 

‘This is just the beginning,’ far-right Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache added.

 

Ankara quickly denounced the move, and Turkey’s presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said on Twitter: ‘Austria’s decision to close down seven mosques and deport imams with a lame excuse is a reflection of the anti-Islam, racist and discriminatory populist wave in this country.’

 

Scroll down for video 

 

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (pictured) said the government is shutting a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community

 

Interior Minister Herbert Kickl of the far-right Freedom Party (FPOe), the junior partner in Austria’s coalition government, said: ‘The circle of people possibly affected by these measures – the pool that we’re talking about – comprises around 60 imams.’

 

Kickl was referring to imams with alleged links to the Turkish-Islamic Cultural Associations (ATIB) organisation, a branch of Turkey’s religious affairs agency Diyanet.

 

The interior minister added that the government suspects them of contravening a ban on foreign funding of religious office holders.

 

The ministry said 40 of them had an active application for extending their residency and that a number of these had already been referred to immigration authorities, where a process for expelling them was underway.

 

Once family members were taken into account, a total 150 people risked losing their right to residence, Kickl told a Vienna press conference.

 

The actions by the government are based on a 2015 law that, among other things, prevents religious communities from getting funding from abroad. Pictured left, Kurz and right, Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache 

 

Seven mosques will also be shut after an investigation by Austria’s religious affairs authority sparked by images which emerged in April of children in a Turkish-backed mosque playing dead and re-enacting the World War I battle of Gallipoli.

 

‘Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have no place in our country,’ said Chancellor Sebastian Kurz of the ruling centre-right People’s Party.

 

The photos of children, published by the Falter weekly, showed the young boys in camouflage uniforms marching, saluting, waving Turkish flags and then playing dead.

 

Their ‘corpses’ were then lined up and draped in the flags.

 

The mosque in question was run by ATIB.

 

‘This is just the beginning,’ far-right Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache (centre) told the news conference. Pictured left, Kurz and right, Interior Minister Herbert Kickl

 

VIDEO: Austrian conservative Sebastian Kurz makes victory speech

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1554935.html

ATIB itself condemned the photos at the time, calling the event ‘highly regrettable’ and saying it was ‘called off before it had even ended’.

 

One of the mosques targeted by Friday’s measure was in the Favoriten district of Vienna.

 

The government said it had been operating illegally and that it was under the influence of the far-right Turkish political movement, the Grey Wolves.

 

Worshippers arriving for Friday prayers were met with a sign on the door reading ‘closed’ in Turkish and German.

 

Kursant, a 26-year-old, told AFP: ‘I’ve been coming to this mosque frequently since I was a child, I’ve had lessons here, I’ve never heard anyone at the mosque, any of the employees, express any Salafist opinions. That’s laughable.’

 

Six other mosques are being closed down, three in Vienna, two in Upper Austria and one in Carinthia.

 

All but one of the mosques affected belong to the ‘Arab Religious Association,’ according to the government.

 

But while Turkey’s presidential spokesman on Friday lambaste the measures as ‘anti-Islam’ and ‘racist’ move, other European far-right leaders welcomed the announcement.

 

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French Front National, said on Twitter: ‘Austria is taking things in hand and showing that ‘when you want to, you can!”

 

Last week Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (pictured) attacked Kurz, saying: ‘This immoral chancellor has a problem with us’

 

Matteo Salvini, head of Italy’s League and interior minister in the new government, also tweeted his approval, saying: ‘Those who exploit their faith to endanger a country’s security should be expelled!’

 

Turkey’s relations with Austria have long been strained, with Kurz calling on the European Union to break off negotiations on Ankara joining the bloc and banning Turkish politicians from campaigning in Austria for upcoming elections.

 

Austria, a country of 8.8 million people, has roughly 600,000 Muslim inhabitants, more than half of whom are Turkish or have families of Turkish origin.

 

Around 360,000 people of Turkish origin live in Austria, including 117,000 Turkish nationals.

 

Last week Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attacked Kurz, saying: ‘This immoral chancellor has a problem with us’.

‘He’s throwing his weight around and making a scene,’ Erdogan went on.

 

Both Kurz, of the centre-right People’s Party (OeVP) and the FPOe made immigration and integration major themes in their election campaigns last year.

 

The topic had been pushed up the political agenda by the migrant crisis of 2015-16, which saw more than 150,000 people seek asylum in the country of 8.7 million.

 

In Friday’s press conference Kurz was keen to emphasise that the action was being taken under legislation to regulate Islamic associations that he himself brought in as a minister in the previous government and which had so far – in his opinion – not been used often enough.

 

The conservative Kurz became chancellor in December in a coalition with the anti-migration Freedom Party.

 

In campaigning for last year’s election, both coalition parties called for tougher immigration controls, quick deportations of asylum-seekers whose requests are denied and a crackdown on radical Islam.

 

The government recently announced plans to ban girls in elementary schools and kindergartens from wearing headscarves, adding to existing restrictions on veils.

___________________

E Pluribus Unum Trumps Multicultural Divisiveness

John R. Houk

© June 9, 2018

__________________

Austria’s right-wing government plans to shut down seven mosques and expel up to 40 foreign-funded imams in crackdown against Islamist ideology

 

Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd

Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group

© Associated Newspapers Ltd

 

I Am Islamorgizo not Islamophobic


John R. Houk

© November 2, 2017

 

Islamophobic

 

Islamophobic is a word spliced together with the English for Islam and the Greek phobia.

 

I have no idea if “Islam” is an English transliteration of Arabic or if it is the actual Arabic adopted into English. Frankly, I don’t care. I know that “Islam” is a theopolitical religion founded by a man that legitimate history paints as a robbing bandit that developed a loyalty-cult by calling himself a prophet of a monotheistic deity that gave him permissive justification for all sorts of vile acts to enlarge that cult and perpetuate after it after his demise.

 

Initially the acts began as violent robberies of Arabic tribal caravans that were not loyal to Muhammad’s (or for years known as Mohammed in English) cultic teachings. Those teachings centered around absolute submission to the deity Muhammad carved out of a polytheistic moon-god (allah) and thus that deity called for absolute submission to his prophet Muhammad. After all Mo was the only human being that called the voice of allah; ergo, when Mo spoke allah spoke.

 

“Phobe” comes from a Greek word that that English is phobia. If you have a phobia, you have an irrational fear. Here are some irrational fears you may have heard of:

 

Agoraphobia– Fear of open spaces or of being in crowded, public places like markets. Fear of leaving a safe place.

 

Bacteriophobia– Fear of bacteria.

 

Francophobia– Fear of France or French culture.

 

Hydrophobia– Fear of water or of rabies.

 

Necrophobia– Fear of death or dead things.

 

Xenophobia– Fear of strangers or foreigners. (via a fascinating romp through PhobiaList.com. I doubt it is comprehensive yet fun nonetheless)

 

Islamophobe is the word Leftists and Muslim Apologists use an epithet to describe those that sense Islam spreads hatred of non-Muslims. Thus, the epithet leads to the accusation of racism. In other words, if you fit the description of Islamophobe, then you are a racist.

 

I am not a racist and I definitely don’t have an irrational fear of Muslims or Islam.

 

So, after listening to the lame Mainstream Media (MSM or Lame Stream Media) criticize Conservatives over anger of the immigration program that brought us Sayfullo Saipov, the Islamic terrorist that killed 8 with a truck, the term Islamophobic racists became the common MSM accusation. I’ve become quite weary of the idiotic reference to critics of Islam.

 

Ergo, I decided to look for a better term that describes my aversion as something better than an irrational fear of Islam. Phobia comes from the Greek language. I looked for a Greek word that better fits my feelings toward Islam.

 

I found a Greek word in a Bible Concordance online. Biblehub.com uses the Strong’s Concordance number system. Ever since the 9/11 attack, I have been angry at all things Islam. I have boned up on Islam a lot since then. I am not an expert, but I can read well enough to know deceptive propaganda when I see it come Muslim Apologists and Leftist Multiculturalists.

 

The Greek word that best describes the anger I have Islam is orgizó. I’m not going to take the time to look it up, but I am fairly certain orgizó’s root word orgé is what the English word for a monster-like creature known as an ogre is derived.

 

Here is what Strong’s says about orgízõ:

 

Cognate: 3710 orgízō – be angry, as expressing a “fixed anger” (settled opposition). 3710 /orgízō (“to show settled-opposition”) is positive when inspired by God – and always negative when arising from the flesh. “Sinful (unnecessary) anger” focuses on punishing the offender rather than the moral content of the offenseSee 3709 (orgē).

 

My anger is “fixed” as in “settled opposition”. The Word of God warns of allowing settled opposition to evolve into acts of sin:

 

26 “Be angry, and do not sin”:[a] do not let the sun go down on your wrath, (Ephesians 4: 26 NKJV)

 

Being angry is not a problem. The problem is if one takes anger to actions that are not godly:

 

25 Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,”[a] for we are members of one another. 26 “Be angry, and do not sin”:[b] do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil.

 

29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.

 

31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. (Ephesians 4: 25-27, 29, 31 NKJV)

 

Contrast how the Word of God tells Believers how to act in anger as opposed to the way Mo – allegedly from allah – tells his followers to deal with anger particularly when anger is insulting to Mo and allah:

 

Quran

 

57. Verily, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger Allah has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment.

 

58. And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear on themselves the crime of slander and plain sin.

 

 

60. If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while.

 

61. Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.

 

62. That was the Way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old, and you will not find any change in the Way of Allah. (Bold Emphasis is Editor’s – Quran 33: 57-58, 60-62 TheReligionOfPeace)

 

For Muslim and non-Muslim alike, insulting Mo and/or allah means a horrible death in this life.

 

The hypocrites = Those who allow the desires of the flesh to act. Sounds universal, but it’s not. A Muslim man can have sex to assuage his desires under these circumstances:

 

27: And those who are fearful of the punishment of their Lord –

28: Indeed, the punishment of their Lord is not that from which one is safe –

29: And those who guard their private parts

30: Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed –

31: But whoever seeks beyond that, then they are the transgressors – (Quran 70: 27-31 SAHIH INTERNATIONAL)

 

Can you guess the reference of “those their right hands possess”? For clarity let’s look at other translations for 70: 30 –

 

Imam Iskender Ali Mihr

Except with their spouses and those whom their right hands possess (their concubines), because they surely are not blamed.

 

Ali Quli Qarai

(apart from their spouses and their slave women, for then they are not blameworthy;

 

Amatul Rahman Omar

Except from their (free) wives or those (wives of theirs) whom their right hands own (- slave wives), for which they are not to blame.

 

Hilali & Khan

Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed,

 

Mohammed Habib Shakir

Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed, (Excerpts from Compare all English translations of Surah Al-Ma’arij – verse 30; en.noblequran.org)

 

“The Hypocrites” of Quran 33: 60 is ONLY telling male Muslim to NOT have carnal relations with Muslim women that are not their wives, but the non-Muslim gals that are abducted are fair game carnal relations – whether non-Muslim gal willingly participates or not. This is being called Rape Jihad in European nations that have taken-in millions of Muslim refugees. Rape Jihad has happened in the USA, but the Multiculturalists are keeping under wraps. Here’s an example from a tag search – Idaho – on SlantRight 2.0.

 

I am not an Islamophobe. A better word to combine with Islam is something denoting an anger that is a settled established opposition to the theopolitical religion.

 

So, I am a Islamorgizo. TAKE THAT all you Multiculturalist Leftists that have abandoned the Latin motto of E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One). Muslim refugees have zero intention of becoming ONE, they intend to be the diverse MANY with the hope making non-Muslim America Islamic. An Islamic America is an America without the Bill of Rights.

 

Conquest and forced submission is Islam became an empire in the once Christian Middle East and North Africa.

 

Mo was one slick operator. He discovered Jews and Christians developed a huge personal loyalty to a monotheistic God. Mo was in charge of a loyalty cult. Perhaps Mo could strengthen that loyalty if he borrowed from the Judeo-Christian traditions and perhaps entice Jews and Christians to accept him into their prophet traditions as the “final” prophet.

 

Yah, a majority of Jews and Christians recognized invitation as a heretical warping of their faith.

 

Suddenly Jews and Christians were demoted from “People of the Book” (i.e. the Bible) to the descendants of apes (Jews) and liars or idiotic deceived for believing Jesus was the Son of God, died on the Cross and arose bodily as the Redeemer of humanity co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Mo convincingly spoke of Father, Son and Holy Spirit three separate entities; hence Christians were polytheistic and not monotheistic like Mo’s moon-god allah (even though allah was once a part of Arab polytheistic pantheon).

 

I feel compelled to take a shot at explaining the monotheism of the Christian Trinity.

 

God is one in Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a human is one corporeally as a human spirit (the source of being or existence made in the image of God), a human soul (the source of thought and will) and a body (the flesh of our five senses). God is a Triune God and a human is a tripartite individual.

 

In full disclosure, people of the Jewish faith (Judaism) also view the Trinity as a diffusion of their primary statement of faith in the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one![a]” (Deuteronomy 6:4 NKJV) But that is a different theological discussion that is not a part of this topic. Suffice it to say, Christians view the discussion between Moses and God in Exodus 3:14-15 (NKJV):

 

14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

 

The English translation I AM WHO I AM comes from the letters YWVH. In the old King James Version those letters were translated as Jehovah. Most Bible scholars prefer the translation of Yahweh today. It is my understanding that Observant Jews find it disrespectful to verbalize the name. Thus, you probably read YWVH or G-d when written by a person of Jewish faith.

 

Either way, both Jews and Christians view God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham’s oldest son Ishmael from Hagar the servant of Sarah, is not a part of that lineage as Mo preached.

 

As a Christian, my largest reason for having an aversion to Islam (but not to Muslims personally), is its rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the denial of the Lord’s crucified death, burial and Resurrection reasserting His prerogatives as God Almighty yet as also being fully human in order to be the Redeemer of humanity.

 

The New Testament calls such rejection an Antichrist spirit. That’s a dangerous place to be as a human:

 

4 1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the worldBy this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of Godand every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (Bold Text Mine I John 4: 1-3 NKJV)

 

Islam’s revered writings (Quran, Hadith & Sira [Sunna]) specifically – not metaphorically – condemns the Divinity, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This makes all of Islam – Sunni & Shia – an Antichrist warped religion.

 

In full disclosure, I believe all religions not Christian are a danger to the Salvation of an individual person. The only religion I give an exception to is Judaism. Just as an aside, without Jews there would be no Jesus. No Jesus means eternal separation from the Presence of God because there is no Redemption from Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God that began humanity’s separation from God.

 

Jesus told this to the Samaritan woman whose religious faith was an eclectic combination of Judaism and polytheism:

 

19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

 

21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. (Bold Text Mine John 4: 19-22 NKJV)

 

It is my personal opinion and I can’t think of any Christian theologian who has said this, when Christ returns in power the second time to establish His Kingdom governance on Earth, I believe Observant Jews will recognize Jesus finally as the Messiah they watched for generations and generations.

 

I recognize that Observant Jews are laughing at me right now and that idiotic Antisemitic Christians are horrified, but oh well. I’ll stick with that opinion unless God smacks around to change. I’m nearly 61 and Divine slapping around has occurred. Humans slapping me around for my opinion don’t count. God’s Hand trumps humankind’s hand.

 

Well that is some good preaching if you receive it.

 

BACK TO ISLAM.

 

I am a huge supporter of the American First Amendment:

 

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. (The links are to Heritage Foundation essays on Establishment of Religion and to the Free Exercise of Religion. The Heritage Guide to The Constitution; Heritage Foundation; © 2017)

 

The government is Constitutionally prohibiting the establishment of a religion (but citizens are not prohibited to influence government regardless of SCOTUS Leftist misinterpretation – another topic), AND the government CANNOT prevent the free exercise of religion.

 

I do find Islam abhorrent as an Antichrist religion, but I honor the Constitution by standing with Muslims to practice their wicked religion ….

 

UNLESS

 

Islamic adherents or adherents of any religion or ideology actively or even violently, seeks to violate the Constitutional law in rebellion, squelching others’ Bill of Rights liberties. THEN Judges and Congressional legislators will have to find that fine Constitutional line that protects the Constitution from a violent termination.

 

If Multiculturalist Leftists persist in demonizing President Trump’s efforts to slow down the flood of Muslims devoted to the tenets of Islam which will always lead to the hatred of the U.S. Constitution and by extension all Americans that stand by the Liberty and Rights provided therein.

 

JRH 11/2/17

Please Support NCCR

Oklahoma Rep., Marine Too, Rocks: Busted Through Civilizational Jihad …


I came across a post six days ago from Adina Kutnicki about John Bennett a State Congressman from Oklahoma. To pique your interest in the post let me to get to the point that Kutnicki builds up to.

At the third annual Muslim Day Bennett Muslim constituents are given the opportunity to “interact with state legislators” that are constituents. Prior to the interaction, Bennett required his Muslim constituents to fill out a survey.

 

That should be enough to inspire you to read the entire post to find out what was in the survey and for its reason.

 

Oh yeah, did I mention I live in Oklahoma.

 

JRH 3/12/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Oklahoma Rep., Marine Too, Rocks: Busted Through Civilizational Jihad Via “Muslim Capital Day.” A Template. Commentary 

 

By Adina Kutnicki

March 6, 2017

Adina Kutnicki – A Zionist & Conservative Blog

 

FULL disclosure: this Muslim Brotherhood expert has a sweet spot for patriotic men who have the stones to stand up and be counted. For the most part, they fiercely protect those they hold near and dear, as well as the core values of national import. Yes, wishy-washy, PC bull-crap doesn’t factor in, nor cloud their (moral) vision. And, more often than not (of course, there are always rotten apples), behind many such men lies a stint in the U.S. Marines. There you have it…. “The Few. The Proud.”

 

BUT not to veer too far off (historical) course, think about this tidbit: how many know that Thomas Jefferson recognized what’s what and who’s who, as he understood the Muslim score to a historical tee? Indeed, that westerners could never, ever – in any way, shape or form – negotiate with followers of Islam. Mohammedans. Period.

 

RESULTANT, as noted within “BANNED: How Facebook Enables Militant Islamic Jihad” (pg. 48): “when called upon to deal with the Barbary pirates, as Muslim kingdoms engaged in piracy and kidnapping on the high seas, Jefferson read the Qur’an to see if it was possible to negotiate with them. Hence, America’s first foreign conflict and the source of the line in the “Marine Corps Hymn”, “to the shores of Tripoli.”

 

INHERENTLY, have Americans forgotten their history to the degree that too many are incapable of drawing the salient parallels between militant jihad of yesteryear and that of today, that which are really one and the same? Most significantly, above all else, it will be through a non-sanitized version of the political, cultural and quasi-religious basis of Islam that western civilization will be saved. Rest assured, without the proper lessons learned, as always, it is verily impossible to fight back. It’s a bit like chasing ghosts.”

 

WHICH brings the discussion straight back into the path of Republican Rep. John Bennett of Oklahoma, you know, the rockin’ Marine too!

 

SO without further ado……

 

Oklahoma Rep. John Bennett asked his constituents taking part in the state’s third annual Muslim Day on Thursday — in which Muslims have the opportunity to interact with state legislators at the capitol — to fill out the questionnaire.

 

Adam Soltani, executive director of Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) Oklahoma, said that high school students from Tulsa’s Peace Academy visited Bennett’s office to either meet with him or schedule a meeting. The students were met by a legislative assistant, Soltani said, who gave the students a questionnaire, telling them it must be filled out in writing.

 

Some of the questions in the document included the following:

“Sharia law says that it must rule over the kafirs, the non-Muslims. Do you agree with this?”

 

“The Koran, the sunna of Mohammed and Sharia Law of all schools say that the husband can beat his wife. Do you beat your wife?”

 

“Mohammed was a killer of pagans, Christians and Jews that did not agree with him. Do you agree with this example?

 

“I have heard that, according to accepted Islamic sources, Mohammed, at age of 49, married a 6-year-old girl, and that he had sex with her when he was 52 and she was only 9 years old. Is that really true?”

 

Bennett, a former US Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, made headlines in 2014 when he made anti-Islam comments on social media, later adding that Islam is a “cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out.” He also said there is no difference between moderate and radical Islam.

 

“How can I be racist against Muslims or Islam when the ethnicity is actual Arab?” he said at the time, adding, “This is kind of confusing.”

 

Last year, Oklahoma lawmakers approved a proposal Bennett submitted to study the “current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Sharia Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.”

 

Jihad Linked U.S. Muslim Orgs & People

 

BUT in order to internalize the depth of his patriotism and outside-the-box thinking, let’s first examine how Brotherhood Mafia front groups continuously pave the way for overturning America; step-by step, phase by phase. Then, and only then, can patriots recognize the depth of their infiltration and penetration, thus, exposing how Bennett (and a few other stalwart reps) outfoxed Islam’s stealth jihadists. Yes, aside from all else, they slither from capital to capital, feigning to assert their democratic “right” to influence respective leaders, as if stealth aka civilizational jihad is part of the American fabric and contract between the citizens and the government!

 

Written sometime in 1987 but not formally published until May 22, 1991, Akram’s 18-page document listed the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded “organizations of our friends” that shared the common goal of dismantling American institutions and turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation. These “friends” were identified by Akram and the Brotherhood as groups that could help convince Muslims “that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.”

 

Akram was well aware that in the U.S., it would be extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of terror attacks. Thus the “grand jihad” that he and his Brotherhood comrades envisioned was not a violent one involving bombings and shootings, but rather a stealth (or “soft”) jihad aiming to impose Islamic law (Sharia) over every region of the earth by incremental, non-confrontational means, such as working to “expand the observant Muslim base”; to “unif[y] and direc[t] Muslims’ efforts”; and to “present Islam as a civilization alternative.” At its heart, Akram’s document details a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States – not as an ultimate objective, but merely as a stepping stone toward the larger goal of one day creating “the global Islamic state.”

 

In line with this objective, Akram and the Brotherhood resolved to “settle” Islam and the Islamic movement within the United States, so that the Muslim religion could be “enabled within the souls, minds and the lives of the people of the country.” Akram explained that this could be accomplished “through the establishment of firmly-rooted organizations on whose bases civilization, structure and testimony are built.” He urged Muslim leaders to make “a shift from the collision mentality to the absorption mentality,” meaning that they should abandon any tactics involving defiance or confrontation, and seek instead to implant into the larger society a host of seemingly benign Islamic groups with ostensibly unobjectionable motives; once those groups had gained a measure of public acceptance, they would be in a position to more effectively promote societal transformation by the old Communist technique of “boring from within.”

 

“The heart and the core” of this strategy, said Akram, was contingent upon these groups’ ability to develop “a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions.’” That is, by working synergistically they could complement, augment, and amplify one another’s efforts. Added Akram: “The big challenge that is ahead of us is how to turn these seeds or ‘scattered’ elements into comprehensive, stable, ‘settled’ organizations that are connected with our Movement and which fly in our orbit and take orders from our guidance.” The ultimate objective was not only an enlarged Muslim presence, but also implementation of the Brotherhood objectives of transforming pluralistic societies, particularly America, into Islamic states, and sweeping away Western notions of legal equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

 

Akram and the Brotherhood understood that in order to succeed in this endeavor, they needed to appeal to different strata of the American population in different ways; that whereas some people could be influenced by messages delivered from a religious perspective, others would be more responsive to messages delivered by educators, or bankers, or political figures, or journalists, etc. Thus, Akram’s blueprint for the advancement of the Islamic movement stressed the need to form a coalition of groups coming from the worlds of education; religious proselytization; political activism; audio and video production; print media; banking and finance; the physical sciences; the social sciences; professional and business networking; cultural affairs; the publishing and distribution of books; children and teenagers; women’s rights; vocational concerns; and jurisprudence.

 

By promoting the Islamic movement on such a wide variety of fronts, the Brotherhood and its allies could multiply exponentially their influence. Toward that end, the Akram/Brotherhood “Explanatory Memorandum” named the following 29 groups as the organizations they believed could collaborate effectively to destroy America from within – “if they all march according to one plan”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By setting up these many front groups, the Muslim Brotherhood was emulating the Communist Party tactic of creating interlocking front groups during the Cold War in order to confuse its enemies and make it more difficult to combat.

 

VIDEO: Dr. Bill Warner Moment: How to Use the Elements of Islam to Vet Muslim Migrants.

 

Posted by The Glazov Gang

Published on Feb 13, 2017

 

IN light of the above (and so much more), how frightening is it to know that Allah’s Muslim terrorists have been wildly successful within all American spheres, and with their political muscle displayed within: 

 

US Council of Muslim Organizations logo

 

The US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), a coalition of leading national and local American Muslim organizations, today announced plans to host the first-of-its-kind National Muslim Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on April 13, 2015.

 

ALAS, is it any wonder that Iraqi-American Christians, Chaldeans, are petrified in their adopted homeland – yes, they are true refugees – due to the massive inroads carved out by followers of Islam, despite the fact that Shariah Law adherents are tied to every terror attack, bar none? Not only that, the very same Chaldeans already won an initial round in 2015 in Sterling Heights, Michigan, when they protested against a mega mosque – another! barracks within – being built in the midst of their community! But lo and behold, once again, Islamic pressure tactics – ala lawfare – turned justice upside its head.

 

In the end, the Iraqi Christians of Sterling Heights, Michigan, say they felt abandoned and left vulnerable by their government.

 

It didn’t matter that they had escaped genocide in the Middle East.

 

It didn’t matter they had 180 people at the City Council meeting Tuesday to voice their concerns about a large mosque being proposed in the middle of their neighborhood.

 

It didn’t matter, they say, that Donald Trump is their new president or that Jeff Sessions is the new attorney general.

 

They lost. The Muslims won.

 

The city on Tuesday night agreed to a settlement with a Muslim group that wants to build a mega-mosque on 15 Mile at Mound Road, in the heart of a residential area filled with Christians who escaped Muslim persecution in Iraq.

 

The nearly 200 people who packed city hall in protest of the mosque were limited by Mayor Michael C. Taylor to two minutes of speaking time.

 

“There were people crying, complaining about not being given enough time to speak,” said Nahren Anweya, spokeswoman for the approximately 50,000 Chaldean and Assyrian Christians living in the area.

 

“The mayor was literally acting like a dictator, wouldn’t let people finish their statements,” she told WND. “As soon as they said something about the persecution their family experienced from Muslims in Iraq, he would shut them down.”

 

Anweya said her own great-grandfather was crucified by Muslims in Iraq because he refused to remove the large gold cross he wore around his neck. Her family immigrated to the U.S. in 1989, when she was 6 years old.

 

Sensitivity training

 

Nahren Anweya’s family fled Iraq in 1989 after being decimated by Muslim community there.

 

According to the settlement deal, the city of Sterling Heights will grant the American Islamic Community Center a permit to build a 20,800-square-foot mosque and will send city employees to classes teaching them how not to discriminate against Muslims in the future.

 

The city planning commission had denied the mosque permit in September 2015, but nearly a year later the mosque sued the city claiming discrimination. In December 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice joined in with a similar suit claiming the city violated the Religious…..read the whole devastating betrayal….

 

AS the precipitating dangers creep closer and closer, the backbone of the aforementioned Oklahoma rep (and like-minded leaders), heartening as it is, is only a first step towards halting the final infiltration and penetration of Allah’s Muslim terrorists into the U.S. body politic. In tandem, post haste, President Trump MUST sign Bill S.2230 to designate the Brotherhood Mafia a terror organization, while millions of Americans MUST commit to join the struggle before it is too late. How late is it?

  

VERY!!

 

Marines: Mess with Best then Die with Rest

 

_____________

About Adina Kutnicki

 

In addition to being an investigative journalist, op-ed contributor and blogger, my first book,  BANNED: How Facebook Enables Militant Islamic Jihad,  is available online and in major bookstores.  In under 24 hours at AMAZON, it jumped to Number One in HOT New Releases!

 

For the most part, my work product revolves around militant Islamic jihad, with a particular emphasis on the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia. My geo-political analysis appears at various Zionist and Conservative media outlets. As an example of my long-standing efforts, I contributed to an in-depth investigative series at FrontPage Magazine with Lee Kaplan from 2003-2007We are still working together.

 

Segue over to his interview at Iran’s Press TV (one of many tv debates/interviews) where he debated a rabid self-hating Israeli, a so-called Jew, one who supports every manner of terror against Israelis/Jews, regarding the kidnapping (subsequent murder) of 3 Israeli Jewish teenagers. It can be found here. Head over to READ THE REST

 

My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde


Pastor Umar Mulinde – 2011 – BEFORE Muslim Acid Attack

John R. Houk

© September 1, 2015

Elsa sent a World Truth Summit email update on Sunday and I managed to get to it today on Tuesday. She starts her email with the heart of her update which is support for Ugandan Pastor Umar Mulinde who was persecuted by Muslims by getting an acid bath in his faith. I concur with Elsa that Pastor Mulinde deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for standing for his Christian faith in the midst of intolerant Islamic hatred. Then Elsa proceeds about some flack she received for defending same-sex marriage. I don’t agree on homosexuality but I do agree on Pastor Mulinde.

Below is the beginning of an email reply I sent to Elsa on the same-sex issue which I follow with some supportive thoughts on Pastor Mulinde. Then following all my thoughts I am cross posting Elsa’s email alert.

Elsa I am probably an insignificant among your subscribers. But here’s my two cents anyway.

I’m as a Christian Right Conservative as much as I am Counterjihad supporter. In saying that I am definitely not one who is pleased you are a supporter of homosexual same-sex marriage. Indeed I am not a supporter of anything the Bible condemns and that means the entire lifestyle of homosexuality and that group’s fight for equal rights as in a special recognition as a separate but equal cultural subset.

On the other hand I am an American that believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Rights specified in the Bill of Rights to be applied according to their Original Intent. As such homosexuals that are American citizens should be afforded the same rights as any other American citizen. This is not a call to support the homosexual agenda (which has been unfortunately quite successful) but rather to recognize any American as an American with Constitutional Rights. What people do in the privacy of their home (heterosexual or homosexual) is no one’s business if doesn’t impose on the Rights on another citizen. As long as sin is not against the law, be a sinner. Choosing a sin lifestyle or choosing spiritual death is both a Constitutional Right and a choice offered to all by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In Christianity the instant death in this required by the Law of Moses is suspended to be answered for in the Last Judgment according to how one accepts and believes in Jesus Christ the Risen Savior. Jesus doesn’t end the Law, He fulfills it. Jesus came to Save sinners and His Atoning Blood is available in this life right up to a sincere repenter’s last breath.

In the matter of same-sex marriage: For me there is no way around the fact that marriage is a religious oath of fidelity. As far as the Bible informs then, same-sex marriage should not be performed or accepted by Christians. However, a civil union as in a defined and binding contract is Constitutional according to even Original Intent and a matter of choosing Life in Christ or death in the Last Judgment with Satan and his deceived minions. Christians should never give up on showing a person lost in sin the Light of Christ and the path to eternal redemption.

Now to Pastor Umar Mulinde. His story is an amazing one: A former Muslim who found Jesus Christ the Savior, became a powerful preaching Pastor in Uganda, victimized by Muslims intolerant of converting to Christianity with acid in the face and treated free at an Israeli hospital essentially saving Pastor Mulinde’s life.

VIDEO: Muslims attack Pastor with Acid: The Umar Mulinde Story

 

Published by Maoz Israel

Published on May 6, 2012

On Christmas Eve 2011, two Muslim terrorists threw acid in the face of Ugandan Pastor Umar Mulinde. This video shares his amazing story of coming to faith, reaching other Muslims and how he ended up in Israel to receive medical treatment. Maoz Israel and our partners are paying for his hotel and meals, while he receives outpatient medical treatment in Tel Aviv. If you would like to help this dear man of God, you can go to www.MaozIsrael.org/Mulinde [Blog Editor: Link not found. HERE is MaozIsrael.org article about Pastor Mulinde posted in May 2012] to make a contribution. Please pray for Pastor Umar, that he will know the next step for him and his family in their journey with Yeshua.

Elsa’s email is primarily about getting Pastor Umar Mulinde on the nomination list for the next Nobel Peace Prize. I fully support that thought.

Elsa notes in her email that the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize was won (or actually shared) by young Malala Yousafzay. Young Malala was the Muslim girl from Pakistan whose life (actually shot) was threatened by the Taliban for daring to be a female getting an education.

After winner her portion of the prize money Malala committed to donate $50,000.00 to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which is essentially a fund conduit to the Islamic Terrorists known as Hamas which control Gaza like a sovereign nation. Hamas is the same organization of Islamic Terrorists committed to wiping Israel off the map and kill Jews – not only Jewish men but also Jewish women and children.

Pamela Geller writes this about the Muslim heroine for education for Muslim girls:

When a UNRWA school that Malala funds is discovered to be storing weapons to kill Jews, will she apologize? Don’t hold your breath.

Hamas is the Taliban. I am sure Malala’s $50,000 will be used by Hamas to acquire more deadly rockets to slaughter Jews. Well done, Malala.

Malala would do well to fund an education initiative dedicated to expunging Islamic texts and teachings that command jihad, misogyny, oppression and subjugation of non-Muslims and heretics with a particular emphasis on the sharia ban on non-Islamic education. It was why she was shot in the head.

Islamic Jew-hatred: even more powerful than a bullet to the brain. (Malala donates $50,000 to rebuilding Gaza schools; By Pamela Geller; PamelaGeller.com (Atlas Shrugs); 10/29/14)

Yup, I have a problem with that and you should too.

Get involved with Elsa’s petition to get persecuted by Muslims Pastor Umar Mulinde a Christian man and preacher.

JRH 9/1/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Honor Umar Mulinde – we stand with this man

By Elsa Schieder

Sent: 8/30/2015 4:14 PM

Sent via World Truth Summit

The last time I wrote, I knew many of you would disagree with my view on gay marriage. I’ll come to that.

But first, this time I’m sure we agree: honor Umar Mulinde, Christian pastor and bishop, ex-Muslim, acid burned.

We Honor Umar Mulinde

Umar Mulinde- acid burnt by Muslim & treated in Israel

I first heard of him in late 2012. It was at the time when Malala was front page news. Malala, the Muslim girl shot by other Muslims (called Taliban, not Muslim, in the mainstream media). She was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Umar gripped my attention at least as much, but wasn’t mentioned by the mainstream media.

My response: I set up an online petition, a small website, and a Facebook page. I did all I could to get the word out. The petition closed, in 2013, with 1,012 signatures.

Malala went on – as expected – to get the Nobel Peace Prize. And as is not surprising to most counter-jihadis, she has given a considerable portion of the prize money to the so-called Palestinians, disregarding the tunnels that had been built into Israel from Gaza targeting children at a day care, children who would have been murdered in cold blood had the tunnels not been discovered.

Time has gone by.

A few days ago I finished a short video celebrating Umar Mulinde.

VIDEO: Umar Mulinde. He chose to live his truth, despite the threat from Islam.

 

Published by Creativity Emporium

Published on Aug 26, 2015

Over the past couple of days, I’ve updated the site, Nominate Now.

You can see it here:

And I’ve re-opened the petition, which you can access from the site, or directly here.

I don’t know if the response will be larger now than in 2012. I know there’s more awareness of Christian persecution by Islam, and more awareness – largely courtesy of ISIS – of the content of Islam re non-Islamics.

We will see.

Malala, in the mainstream media, seemed to stand for “Muslims” – as the mainstream media wanted Westerners to see “true Muslims.”

Perhaps, if enough of us take action, Umar may come to stand – truthfully – for all those persecuted by Islam.

I don’t, by the way, hold out the hope that he will actually get the Nobel Peace Prize – unless someone with the stature of Donald Trump takes up his cause!!!

And now I will come back to the response to my piece saying that I don’t see how permitting gay marriage threatens marriage. A few people wrote comments like, brilliant! They were in the minority. I also had a couple of thoughtful responses against gay marriage. Again, these were in the minority. I’ve never had so many people cancel – including people who have been getting the updates for 3 years, since I started the initial interview series. Several cancelled with comments like: “God says homosexuality is a sin. Just what don’t you understand?”

I could have answered that we don’t all believe in the same god. Quite a few of us don’t believe in any cosmic force.

But that would have been a response to the words, not to the emotion.

What I saw most was that my not being against gay marriage touched what I might call a hot button, often a hot anger button. Game over. Get out now. No more updates ever.

Nothing else counted.

What comes to mind, for me, is the rage of some Southerners at the forced integration of white schools in the early 1960’s. One incident stands out for me: hundreds of whites lining the sidewalk as 2 10-year-old black girls walked to a previously all-white school. The black girls only got safely to school because National Guard troops held back the taunting whites.

Note: as I mentioned last time, I’m against forcing any religion to perform marriages it disapproves of. And I will add here: I’m against destroying the livelihood of people who don’t want to bake wedding cakes or provide flowers for gay weddings. I think of conscientious objectors who will not serve in the army because of their convictions. I was always in favor of their being allowed to follow their conscience without penalty. It doesn’t make sense, for something much smaller like refusing to bake a cake, to fine conscientious objectors $100,000. (I know this is a complex issue – one for another time.)

I will come back to that hot button around gay marriage another time.

Right now you may be asking: what am I doing, standing up for Umar Mulinde?

You may also be asking: how does he stand on gay rights?

My answer: I don’t know.

The motivation, for me, is caring about human rights and freedoms, including the human right to safety. I think it is utterly vital that we do that.

As always, comments welcome.

To life and to love – l’chaim and l’ahavah,

Elsa

PS. A couple of news items which show major differences re human rights in Canadian political parties [Blog Editor: Elsa is Canadian]:

The Canadian prime minister, Harper (Conservative party) avows his support for Israel

A Liberal candidate wishes an Israel supporter had been aborted with a coat hanger. That Liberal candidate has since stepped down, but I did not notice mainstream castigation.

PPS. Yet one more example of mainstream media bias. As noted at TheRebel.media, there was a lot of mainstream media criticism of the Conservative government when funding was cut off from the Canadian Arab Federation, and there was also coverage on the Federation’s suing of Jason Kenney, the minister in charge. But now that Jason Kenney has won, there is general media silence.

PPPS. For a quick look at my ethicshttp://elsasemporium.com/reality-based-ethics.html

_______________________

My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde

John R. Houk

© September 1, 2015

______________________

Honor Umar Mulinde – we stand with this man

© Elsa Schieder

 

Does Religious Freedom Trump Entire Constitution?


Religious Freedom Muslim Style toon

John R. Houk

© January 23, 2015

 

Well here we are. I’ve been working on a post for two days. It is taking me so long because I keep scraping it and start over. So here’s what I’ve decided to do.

 

I’m on the email list of the Florida Family Association (FFA). My interest in this group is they keep an eye on they consider Radical Islam in America. Their name has ‘Florida’ in it but really their counterjihad watch is on a national basis.

 

I received an FFA update on 1/20/15 exposing that the Federal government has been in secret negotiations with the NYPD to remove a report on local area (NYC and NJ) activity of Muslim hostility that leads or could lead to a terrorist attack. The NYC area Muslims and Obama’s Federal government (I am guessing under the auspices of Eric Holder’s DOJ) want the open source free to the public report REMOVED from the NYPD website. The FFA is not pleased with this kind politically correct inspired censorship, I am not pleased and YOU as an American should not be pleased.

 

The NYPD is considering to comply with the pressure because of a couple of Muslim civil suits not to mention Holder’s DOJ civil suit over NYPD surveillance of Muslims to detect terrorist threats.

 

The Muslims and the Federal government have made this a Bill of Rights issue roughly related to Religious Freedom and 4th Amendment privacy guarantees pertaining to needing a warrant to engage in the kind of surveillance the NYPD in.

 

I’m as much a Bill of Rights guy as any Conservative; however the Left and Muslims have not or I should say refuse to look at the balance of the Bill of Rights issues. For instance it bugs me that a huge amount of Mosques and Muslim-American organizations spew hate toward America, Jews and Israel as a normal part of their religious dogma.

 

It is my opinion that 1st Amendment Religious Freedom does not guarantee Islamic efforts to topple the U.S. Constitution to satisfy Islamic Supremacist Sharia Law. To put it bluntly the Left will do anything that undermines Original Intent Conservatives and Muslims remarkably forget about the rest of the Constitution to simply destroy it. AND Conservatives are too fearful of political correctness to point that out to the Left and to Islamic Supremacists!

 

Indeed my experience with Google is when searching for someone who understands this Constitutional is countered by Muslim organizations (primarily) and Left oriented media decrying NYPD surveillance as a complete breach of the Constitution. Make no bones about it. If balance the entire Constitution with Religious Freedom and Islamic terrorist violence with the object of overthrowing the Constitution, Religious Freedom does not include allowing the theology violent overthrow and murder.

 

Now what has bogged me down in writing this post was the “How?” I at first began by looking at the Muslims and Muslim organizations that are plaintiffs against the NYPD to see if they had any connections to Islamic Supremacist global Caliphate-minded thinking. This is still a path I am going to pursue but it is too daunting with my apparent not up to the task search engine skills.

 

So you got to read this little rant of mine and below is the FFA email which I have since learned is also available on their website.

 

JRH 1/23/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Islamists demand that NYPD scrub online report on Islamist terrorism and stop surveillance of mosques.

Imam in Mosque

From Florida Family Association

Email Sent: 1/20/2015 11:30 PM

FFA Online LINK

 

Click here to send email urging the Judge and Magistrate to make public safety in this case a priority.

 

The New York Post reported on January 18, 2015 “NYC may yank terrorism report to appease mosque ‘spying’ critics”:  The article states in part:

 

In top-secret talks to settle federal lawsuits against the NYPD for monitoring mosques, the city is weighing a demand that it scrub from its Web site a report on Islamic terrorists, The Post has learned.

 

The groundbreaking, 92-page report, titled “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” angers critics who say it promotes “religious profiling” and discrimination against Muslims. But law-enforcement sources say removing the report now would come at the worst time — after mounting terror attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris, Boston, Sydney and Ottawa.

 

The federal lawsuit mentioned in the first paragraph of the New York Post article is Raza et al v. City of New York et al.  This lawsuit seeks to stop the New York Police Department’s surveillance of specific Muslim individuals and mosques.

 

Peter G. Farrell, Senior Counsel for the City of New York, wrote a letter to United States Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack in which he outlined some serious issues regarding is Raza et al v. City of New York et al.

 

Regarding Plaintiff Masjid At Taqwa

 

The NYPD’s investigation of certain individuals associated with Plaintiff Masjid At Taqwa was based upon information about their lengthy history of suspected criminal activity, some of it terroristic in nature.  This information includes but is not limited to: illegal weapons trafficking by members of the mosque’s security team and the mosque caretaker both within the mosque and at the store adjacent; illegal weapons trafficking by certain attendees of the mosque; allegations that the mosque raî a “gun club”; and allegations that the assistant Imam had earmarked portions of over $200,000 raised in the mosque to a number of US Government-designated terrorist organizations.

 

Certain individuals associated with Masjid At Taqwa have historical ties to terrorism.  The mosque’s Imam, Siraj Wahhaj, was named by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to bomb a number of New York City landmarks in the mid-1990s (the “Landmarks Plot”).  Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the “Blind Sheikh,” who is serving a life sentence in federal prison for his role in the Landmarks Plot, lectured at Masjid At Taqwa.  Wahhaj testified as a character witness for Abdel Rahman during Abdel Rahman’s terrorism trial.  V/ahhaj also testified as a character witness for Clement Hampton El, a Masjid At Taqwa attendee who was convicted as one of the Blind Sheikh’s co-conspirators in the Landmarks Plot.  Members of the mosque’s security team have instructed individuals on how to disarm police officers and have led martial arts classes involving individuals convicted on terrorism charges.  Since at least 2003, Masjid At Taqwa members have participated in and sponsored paintball exercises and survival training outside New York City, activities which have been carried out for training purposes by violent extremists in multiple terrorism cases in the United States and abroad-such as the “Virginia Jihad” case, the Fort Dix plot, the 717 attacks in London, and the UK fertilizer bomb plot (“Operation Awakening”). On one of these outings, the leader of Masjid At Taqwa’s security team instructed the members of his paintball team to “form up, jihad assassins” and called them his ‘Jihad warriors”.  Farooque Ahmed, who is currently incarcerated after pleading guilty to terrorism charges in connection with a plot to bomb the Washington, DC metro, promoted and participated in at least one of these trips.

 

Mr. Farrell’s letter outlined many more public safety concerns related to this lawsuit.  Click here to read Mr. Farrell’s letter.

 

The Masjid At Taqwa mosque is run by Imam Siraj Wahha who was the key note speaker in the Garland Texas Islamist rally on January 17, 2015 that called for the defeat of Islamophobia.

 

The Islamist lawsuit was assigned to United States District Judge Pamela K. Chen.  The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack.

 

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges Judge Chen and Magistrate Azrack to make public safety in this case a priority by not tying the hands of law enforcement and by not censoring information of great importance.   The email will be copied to the New York City Hall.

 

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

 

Please click here to send your email urging Judge Chen and Magistrate Azrack to make public safety in this case a priority.

 

__________________________

Does Religious Freedom Trump Entire Constitution?

John R. Houk

© January 23, 2015

________________________

Islamists demand that NYPD scrub online report on Islamist terrorism and stop surveillance of mosques.

 

Posted edited by John R. Houk

 

Florida Family Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105
Telephone 813-264-5888

 

FFA Donation Page

 

CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE AND CONFIDENTIAL. Florida Family Association is a non-profit 501C3 tax exempt corporation that is devoted to educating citizens on what they can do to defend, protect and promote family values. Checks may be made payable to Florida Family Association or FFA. Contributions are tax deductible and confidential. Florida Family Association will never sell or give away any contributor’s name to anyone else, will never solicit contributions by phone, and will never report a contributor’s gift or bequest through a Will or Trust in any publication.

 

FFA About Page

 

Florida Family Association is a national organization that is made up of thousands of supporters across America who share in the same goal of defending American values and improving America’s moral environment.  These supporters send more than one million emails every month to Corporate America officials associated with issues posted on this web site.  Florida Family Association’s accomplishments are a direct result of the dedicated people across the country who support the efforts of this organization.

 

Florida Family Association’s mission statement in our IRS approved 501C3 application is to:  Educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values.

 

Florida Family Association, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Florida as a non-profit corporation. Florida Family Association is a tax-exempt 501C3 corporation under the Internal Revenue Service Code. Contributions made to Florida Family Association are tax deductible and confidential.

 

Florida Family Association is not an affiliate or subsidiary of any other group.  It is an independent organization with tens of thousands of supporters outside of Florida.

 

Operations and Finance

 

Florida Family Association chooses to …

 

 

David Caton founded the organization that is now called Florida Family Association in November 1987. David left a ten year accounting career as a corporate accounting controller in June of 1988 to become the executive director of Florida Family Association.

 

READ ENTIRETY

IRS has become Political Abusive Attack Dog


BHO Fake Outrage toon

John R. Houk

© October 28, 2014

 

The 16th Amendment legitimizes the existence of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

 

Amendment XVI

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

Your donation matters.

 

Taxing Power

 

Tax

 

Income Tax

 

Taxable Income (16th Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

 

HOWEVER, the 16th Amendment does not overrule the Bill of Rights (1st ten Amendments to Constitution) pertaining to the Civil Rights and Liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. And yet the IRS has mysteriously acquired the authority to seize property and bank accounts with the presumption of guilt BEFORE a criminal trial.

 

My son sent me a Daily Caller news story that focuses on small business owner Carole Hinders. Ms. Hinders has made the news ironically largely due to a NY Times articles about her and other small business owners being assaulted by the IRS without actual proof the law is being broken. Between yesterday and today Carole Hinders’ story his hit web in a huge way. The irony is all the sides of the political spectrum are displaying outrage over the abuse of power being exercised by the IRS. Could it be that Leftists and Conservatives can join forces over a constitutional issue affecting American citizens?

 

VIDEO: IRS Seizes Innocent Grandma’s Bank Account

 

Published by InstituteForJustice

Published: Oct 27, 2014

 

Carole Hinders has worked hard at her family-owned restaurant, Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Food, for 38 years. The federal government took her entire bank account using civil forfeiture, even though she did nothing wrong. Now, they are refusing to return her money, so Carole and the Institute for Justice have teamed up to fight back.

http://www.endforfeiture.com

 

Perhaps Congress can wise up and use this unified voter outrage to take some immediate legislative action to curb the power of the IRS. If Congress can enact a statesman form a legislative action pertaining to the IRS, you must realize it would only be a temporary fix. Most prominently these days the IRS is a political tool used by Obama against Conservative opponents, however there are more than one Federal agency that uses a law that has to be unconstitutional. State and Federal law enforcement ALSO utilize the Civil Asset Forfeiture law to seize property and money from American citizens. The thing is the public has looked the other way with government seizures because it is the primary weapon of law enforcement to pin down real criminals especially the kind that has built a criminal empire. Who can be unhappy about taking down criminals, right?

 

The thing is citizens like Carole Hinders or even those that have property that stifles the agenda of local, State or Federal authorities can have their property seized. WITHOUT A TRIAL!

 

As Americans on a grassroots level we have to figure out the legalese that protects law-abiding citizens while at the same go after moneyed criminals that break the law pretending to be law-abiding citizens.

 

The website End Civil Forfeiture explains the history of this practice in the USA and how State and Federal government have exploited this beyond the scope of the U. S. Constitution:

 

Civil forfeiture—where the government can take and sell your property without ever convicting or even charging you with a crime—is one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today. Civil forfeiture cases proceed against one’s cash, cars, or home, which means that property owners receive few if any of the protections that criminal defendants enjoy.   To make matters worse, when law-enforcement agencies take and sell your property, they frequently get to keep all the proceeds for their own use. This gives agencies a direct financial incentive to “police for profit” by seizing and forfeiting as much property as possible.

 

 

Although the Founders didn’t believe in this superstition, they used civil forfeiture as a way to enforce the collection of customs duties, which provided 80 to 90 percent of the federal revenue during that time. The government often could not try owners of smuggling ships themselves (often because they were overseas), and so civil forfeiture let officials seize their ships and cargo as a second-best option.

 

With minor exceptions during the Civil War and Prohibition, civil forfeiture remained a legal backwater. But as the War on drugs heated up during the early 1980s, so too did civil forfeiture. A key legal change occurred in 1984 when Congress established the Assets Forfeiture Fund. Previously, all federal civil forfeiture revenues were deposited into the government’s general fund. But after the 1984 amendments, federal agencies could retain and spend forfeiture proceeds—subject only to very loose restrictions—giving them a direct financial stake in generating forfeiture funds.  Similar amendments now allow law enforcement agencies in 42 states to keep and use some or all of the civil forfeiture proceeds they seize.

 

“Policing for Profit” Creates Incentives for Abuse

 

The changes at the federal and state levels led to an explosion of forfeiture activity. Because in most jurisdictions law enforcement can keep some or all of the proceeds from civil forfeiture, they have an incentive to seize and keep as much property as possible. …

 

… Here are four ways that civil forfeiture stacks the deck against property owners:

 

·         Burden of Proof: For the government to keep your property using civil forfeiture, it must prove that the property is connected to criminal activity.  But where criminal forfeiture requires the government to prove guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” under civil-forfeiture cases the government can prevail under much less rigorous standards.

 

·         Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Although many jurisdictions provide an “innocent-owner” defense that allows owners to get their property back if they had no idea that it was involved in a crime, most jurisdictions presume, however, that owners are guilty and force them to prove their innocence.

 

·         Legal Representation: Anyone who has watched a crime drama knows that the government must provide criminal defendants with an attorney if they cannot afford one. But civil forfeiture victims must either pay for a lawyer—which in many cases can cost more than the seized property is worth—or go it alone.

 

·         “Equitable” Sharing: Federal law provides a loophole called “equitable sharing” to law enforcement in states with good civil forfeiture laws.  This program allows state law enforcement to turn seized assets over to the federal government, which forfeits the property under federal law.  In turn, the feds give up to 80 percent of the forfeited property back to the state agency for its own use, even if state law would have required those proceeds to go into a general fund.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Civil Forfeiture: A Threat to Private Property and the Impartial Pursuit of Justice; By End Civil Forfeiture)

 

The only way I see to change all the law – civil and criminal – to protect the individual rights of law-abiding citizens is to amend the Constitution. I don’t care how much Leftists and Conservatives can agree on reforming the powers of the IRS, you know one day a President will come along to push the envelope of the Constitution citing case law to warp the legalese to go after political opponents. You do realize it won’t matter if that President is a Democrat or a Republican or the emergence of a Third Party to attain the White House, the legalese will be abused.

 

Unfortunately on a Federal level this nation’s governance is way too polarized to effect a Constitutional Amendment to change the definition and application of Civil Asset Forfeiture laws that protects the Rights and Liberty of law-abiding citizens as opposed to moneyed criminals. The only way to amend the Constitution via by-passing Congress is in the Constitution but in the 225 years our Founding document has been the foundation of America’s rule of law the by-pass Congress method to amend the Constitution has never taken place. Why?

 

The reason is political fear. No one active in government seriously thought of the ‘by-pass Congress’ method of amending the Constitution until the 20th century when political polarization seemed to become a hindrance to good governance. The method of offering an Amendment apart from Congress can be accomplish directly by the several States calling for a Constitution Convention. Neither the President, Congress nor the Judicial Branch can nullify or prevent such a convention from occurring. It would be the call of a majority of States. The fear is that a convention to amend the Constitution would evolve beyond the intentions of the reason the States called for it. The very real fear – both Leftist and Conservative – is a Constitutional Convention could take it upon itself to scrap the entire current Constitution. The fear is the potential for a Leftist vision or a Conservative vision to become the rule of law to the detriment of the losing side of the political spectrum.

 

I personally have wavered back and forth on the pluses and minuses of a Constitutional Convention. BUT NOW with the abuses of the IRS simply becoming way too egregious, something must be done. The best thing would be to scrap the whole current tax system developing a new paradigm whether it is income or National sales tax or a combination of both to be fair to the taxpayers while also still have the ability to go after the moneyed criminals of whatever kind of organized crime network might exist (violent criminals or white collar criminals). And whatever that standard is should be applied equally criminally and civilly according to the Fourth Amendment.

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Fourth Amendment; Legal Information Institute (LII) – Cornell University Law School)

 

On a personal level I don’t feel comfortable to suggest a different tax system to shoot for. My primary concern here is the abuse of government power on the Civil Rights and Liberty of American citizens. The very reason and cause of the American Revolutionary War in which the British citizens of America’s Thirteen Colonies felt abused by unjust taxation, improper representation and the abuse of government authority.

 

WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.

 

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. READ THE REST (In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America; by the signing delegates and penned by Thomas Jefferson; Library of Congress)

 

TODAY I feel like the risk is necessary for the USA to have a Constitutional Convention. The Federal government cannot be trusted for a long term reform eliminating the IRS as a political attack dog of whatever political party. Just like the Founding Fathers felt a risk was necessary to throw off the bonds of an abusive government, it has become necessary to throw off the bonds of a politically oriented tax agency as well as other Federal agencies that have gone beyond bounds of the guaranteed Liberty of the Bill of Rights.

 

Citizens concerned for the future of their country, under a federal government that’s increasingly bloated, corrupt, reckless and invasive, have a constitutional option. We can call a Convention of States to return the country to its original vision of a limited federal government that is of, by and for the people. (Convention of States: This One Amendment Could Solve Forty-Five Problems; By Steve Robinson; The Maine Wire; 7/15/14)

 

Article Five of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the two ways to amend the Constitution:

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (The Constitution of the United States – Article V; National ArchivesFederal Register)

 

Our current tax system is a progressive income tax:

 

A progressive tax structure is one in which an individual or family’s tax liability as a fraction of income rises with income. If, for example, taxes for a family with an income of $20,000 are 20 percent of income and taxes for a family with an income of $200,000 are 30 percent of income, then the tax structure over that range of incomes is progressive. One tax structure is more progressive than another if its average tax rate rises more rapidly with income. (Progressive Taxes; By Joel B. Slemrod; Library of Economics and Liberty)

 

DEFINITION OF ‘PROGRESSIVE TAX’

 

A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. The United States income tax is considered progressive: in 2010, individuals who earned up to $8,375 fell into the 10% tax bracket, while individuals earning $373,650 or more fell into the 35% tax bracket. Basically, taxpayers are broken down into categories based on taxable income; the more one earns, the more taxes they will have to pay once they cross the benchmark cut-off points between the different tax bracket levels.

 

INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS ‘PROGRESSIVE TAX’

 

The U.S. progressive income tax is effectively a means of income redistribution. Individuals who earn more pay higher taxes; those taxes are then used to fund social welfare programs that are used primarily by individuals who earn less. Critics of the progressive tax consider it to be discriminatory and believe that a flat tax system, which imposes the same tax on everyone regardless of income, is a fairer method of taxation. (Progressive Tax; Investopedia)

 

Yup, IRS/Progressive Tax is evil. If small potatoes like me has to hire a tax service to figure out the complications of owing or receiving refund then it is evil. How do we replace the evil IRS? The suggestions I have read are the flat tax, fair tax, National Sales Tax or some kind of combination.

 

According to my search engine perusals it appears the Fair Tax seems to be the current favorite tax to terminate the IRS and end political head hunting. I personally see how the Fair Tax (which is actually a national sales tax) looks good on paper; however if things go south versions of the Fair Tax shows sales tax climbing anywhere from 50% to 70% of purchase or service to keep sufficient revenue flowing. Fair Tax proponents tell you the rate is 23% if everything goes as foreseen with a monthly prebate of cash from the government for families that make less than the poverty line in income. The prebate for a family of four below the poverty line utilizing the 23% sales tax rate would receive a monthly government check of $1,983.33 for an annual total of $23,800. Like I said that sounds favorable to me; however if the revenue collection does not complete the Federal budget, does anyone think the sales tax rate will remain at 23%?

 

The Flat Tax still sounds attractive to me. The first problem of a Flat Tax is an agency still has to be around to administer collection of the tax. My God, that agency CANNOT be the same bureaucracy of the Internal Revenue Service. Its management has become politically corrupt that bad things undoubtedly continue to occur. The management level portions of the current IRS must be jettisoned and a whole new agency created under strict guidelines that insures the enforcement of the Bill of Rights in the new tax agency’s collection methods.

 

However in full disclosure Fair Tax proponents do have problems with the Flat Tax. For one thing the politicians are looking for a Flat Tax rate that actually mind cause discomfort for poor to moderate income families while the more wealthy tax payers will jump for glee. I currently fit into the poor to moderate category that would feel a squeeze from higher taxes. On the other hand I also realize across the board less of a tax strain on higher wage earners to wealthy people will release entrepreneurial development that will result in better jobs, more available spendable money and hence a better economy which will also translate into more tax revenue without putting the bite on all Americans.

 

So here are website article with Flat Tax and Fair Tax plusses and minuses leaning to favoring one or the other (in no particular order):

 

o  Could The Fair Tax Movement Ever Replace The IRS? By Mark P. Cussen; Investopedia; 4/4/14

 

o   Flat Tax vs. Fair Tax; By Admin; Freedom Works; 7/6/11

 

o   FAIR Tax Abolishes IRS – Then What? By Peter J. Reilly; Forbes; 8/6/14 9:30AM

 

o   Summary: H.R.25 — 113th Congress (2013-2014) Introduced in House; (01/03/2013): Fair Tax Act of 2013 – Repeals the income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift tax. Redesignates the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the Internal Revenue Code of 2013.

 

A Constitutional Convention needs to restore Liberty as well as narrowly define the duty of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches to uphold restored and defined Liberty. Here’s part the Leftists will become apoplectic about: A Constitutional Convention needs to simultaneously protect Religious Freedom and NOT prevent religion from being a moral advocate politically to influence government. At the same time government specifically be defined as not involving or inserting itself on how a religion involves itself in politics UNLESS that religion’s specific purpose is to terminate the Constitution, overthrow the government and end the Liberty of the Bill of Rights. Separation of Church and State is a one-way street and not a two-way street. No government in religion but lots of religion as a moral pulpit to influence the morality of society. The Constitution needs to address the issue of preventing the laws and customs of foreign lands from being used as precedents in any judicial case law. There can be no foreign treaties entered into that contradicts the U.S. Constitution without an Amendment change to correspond to that foreign treaty. And as America has traditionally been the melting pot of many national peoples seeking a new life those people must be amenable to swear to abide and uphold the U.S. Constitution adopting the traditions of America first while honoring their former culture second.

 

Well that is the part of a Constitutional Convention I am certain Leftists will cry a convention run-amok. For our Republic to survive future generations the traditions that have made us a desirable melting pot must be preserved. Losing those traditions to some kind of transforming diverse multicultural Socialist Democracy that descends into cultural chaos polarized racially to the extent political polarization tears the nation apart under political ideology rather than preserve national patriotism. Oh yeah … Let’s really drive the Left looney. We should throw in personhood establishing the rights of an unborn baby rather than perpetuate the myth that an unborn baby is an appendage of a woman’s body.

 

JRH 10/28/14 (Hat Tip: Adam)

Please Support NCCR

 

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 7


No Nation Survives without Law

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2014

 

Dougindeap left a comment on the post “The Truth about Separation of Church and State” at NCCR which is a cross post of an Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) brochure that provides reasons for the concept of Separation of Church and State as SCOTUS has set in stone today is and was not a correct interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

 

It is my habit to usually post my perspective on a comment then place the comment below my thoughts. Since Dougindeap divided his comment into eight parts to refute the ADF points. So as I initially began to respond to Dougindeap’s original comment which resulted in various parts with the title “Disputing Separation Church/State” (which as of this writing is up to six parts). You can read an edited version of that comment at the end of my thoughts at SlantRight 2.0 or the NCCR blog. You can read Dougindeap’s unedited comment version at NCCR HERE. I am bucking my typical course and take a valiant effort to briefly take each of Dougindeap’s points to put in my two-cents. I say briefly because I can tell that the six parts of “Disputing Separation Church/State” could go on much longer than I desire to devote to the subject. I have to say something though because I disagree with Dougindeap as much as he disagrees with me. Sadly the slant of the reader’s politics will line the reader with Doug or myself.

 

So here we go.

 

dougindeap commented on The Truth about Separation of Church and State

April 2, 2014 at 8:12 PM

 

[Blog Editor: Dougindeap uses the abbreviation “ALF” when I suspect he was thinking Alliance Defending Freedom which would “ADF”. I mention this for clarity’s sake because we all post comments hurriedly in which typos or missing words occur and not as a criticism of Dougindeap.]

 

Dougindeap:

 

You have succeeded in gathering quite a collection of arguments about separation of church and state, nearly all of which I’ve seen and seen debunked many times. I won’t attempt to touch on every one of the many points, but will take the ALF items one by one.

 

1. While Jefferson’s first use of the term “separation of church and state” may have been in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he hardly was the first to use the term.

 

Certainly Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting public religious expression. ALF contends against a strawman. No one contends that Jefferson said any such thing.

 

It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

 

JRH:

 

I believe Dougindeap has correctly expressed the meaning of the First Amendment until he gets to the part I took the liberty to highlight with bold print.

 

When Doug says the government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, he is correct to the extent those individuals are under the direct mandate of the government. The problem is the Left Wing assumption that all instruments of the government are representative of the Federal government. THIS WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL INTENT of the First Amendment.

 

The Bill of Rights which are actually the first ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution provides an intent that must apply to the First Amendment as enumerated in the Tenth Amendment:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Just as Doug points out the First Amendment prevents the U.S. Congress to establish a State Church or to make any laws that prohibits the free exercise of religion. The Tenth Amendment brings specificity in that the State government or “the people” (implying local government such as Counties or cities) can define how individuals working as instruments of government are defined on the State and Local level. Hence the Federal government did not end Established Churches on the State level. The States individually disestablished State Churches as it became obvious the State Established Churches were slipping into the minority among Christian denominations in the various States. Ironically Massachusetts one of the most Liberal States in the American Union today was the last State to disestablish their State Church in the 1833. States’ Rights ended the Established Church in the USA and not the enforcement of the Federal government. In the same manner of Original Intent each State has the power of the law to limit or encourage government instruments such as employees from sharing their individual faith.

 

Dougindeap:

 

2. Justice Hugo Black was not the first to “insert” separation of church and state into American jurisprudence. Not by a long shot. A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court first used that term in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States, where it quoted Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists while interpreting the First Amendment.

 

JRH:

 

In Reynolds v. United States Dougindeap fails to mention the reason for the unanimity of SCOTUS in the 1878 religious Liberty case before them. George Reynolds a citizen of the then Territory of Utah was a Mormon that married more than one wife. Reynolds was convicted of bigamy. Reynolds demanded his First Amendment rights of Religious Liberty. The 1878 SCOTUS officially was more concerned about social norms than Religious Freedom. In Christian America in 1878 bigamy was not only illegal it was also a heinous sin. The reality of the 1878 SCOTUS decision was upholding traditional Christian values over the cult of Mormonism (Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints). Mormons then and now believe in the supremacy of the Book of Mormon and certain so-called Mormon prophetic pronouncements (Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) over the traditional Christian values of the Holy Bible. SCOTUS upheld the conviction of George Reynolds in 1878 unanimously. I have no doubts Mormons consider themselves Christians however their theology is so divergent from the orthodox practices of Christianity an intelligent evaluation even today would come to the conclusion Mormonism at best is its own religion and at worst a cult spin-off Christianity. It should be noted the powers that be in Mormonism had the remarkable revelation that marriage is between one man and one woman in order for the Utah Territory could become the sovereign State of Utah in 1890.

 

As to the 1878 SCOTUS unanimous opinion referencing the Jefferson to Danbury Baptists letter WallBuilders provides the actual intent of that Court opinion:

 

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

 

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added)[12]

 

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

 

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

 

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

 

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. (Excerpted from – The Separation of Church and State; By David Barton; WallBuilders.com; January 2001)

 

Dougindeap:

 

3. First, ALF tries to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

 

Second, it is ALF that has confused its history. Contrary to its assertion, Justice Black did not write that the Danbury letter may be accepted “almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.” Rather Chief Justice Waite wrote that in Reynolds v. United States. Black, moreover, did not repeat that statement in Everson.

 

Finally, the further notion, suggested by ALF and advanced by some, that the Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional separation of church and state in Everson is all Justice Black’s doing is laughable. It bears noting that all nine justices in the Everson case read the Constitution to call for separation of church and state, and indeed all of the parties and all of the amici curiae (including the National Council of Catholic Men and National Council of Catholic Women) did as well; no one disputed the principle, they differed only in how it should be applied in the circumstances of the case.

 

JRH:

 

Actually Hugo Black equally emphasized Jefferson and Madison together. Doug fails to mention that Black’s Majority Opinion included both Jefferson and Madison’s efforts on a State level in Virginia to disestablish any Church to receive tax support because such taxation would be discriminatory toward non-established Christian denominations. Hence Jefferson and Madison were not arguing the removal of recognized Christian Morality but rather the removal of taxpayers’ paying the salary of a State established Clergy. AND so yes, Hugo Black misappropriated the work of Jefferson and Madison use of a States’ Rights issue to apply to Federal authority. Hugo Black attempts to solidify the Church/State separation by adopting Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. How did Black connect a States’ Rights issue to Federal authority? Then Black used the presumption that the Fourteenth Amendment which officially ended Slavery in all the States by Federal rule of law, then by extension Black presumed the Fourteenth Amendment nullified the Tenth Amendment which in turn pertained to individual State sovereignty bowing to the will of the Judicial and Executive branches of government. This interpretation had the effect to keep the influence of Christianity outside the scope of State level and local level government parameters in the rule of law.

 

Dougindeap:

 

4. That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

 

Contrary to ALF’s supposition, separation of church and state rests on much more than just the First Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (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. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

 

JRH:

 

Doug mistakenly equates the lack of the words “Wall of Separation of Church and State” in the Constitute is the same as other civics terms not being the Constitution such as “Bill of Rights, separation of powers (i.e. in branches of government), checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty” and so on. The reason Doug is mistaken because all those other terms are specifically spelled out in the Constitution BUT the term “Wall of Separation of Church and State” is not spelled out AT ALL The First Amendment ONLY spells out that Congress cannot make a law to Establish a State Church and that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

 

Dougindeap:

 

5. While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

 

JRH:

 

Dougindeap quotes James Madison’s first writing of a proposed First Amendment: “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”. I suspect Doug is implying Madison’s influence spoke for all the Congressmen in constructing religious freedom as imputed by Federal government authority en toto as opposed to States’ Rights. That is DEFINITELY not the case because of House deliberation the First Amendment’s form ratified as law is what was sent to the States for ratification. Hence States’ Rights coupled with the Tenth Amendment became the actual Original Intent of the First Amendment which included the individual States upholding the primacy of the values of the Christian religion by which all Denominations upheld regardless of varying theological dogma.

 

Since the Declaration of Independence led to the Articles of Confederation which were then superseded by the U.S. Constitution in 1789 shows that the Founding Fathers bowed to the will of ‘We the People’ in the promotion of the very least the promotion of Christianity as what will maintain the general welfare of the people of the new USA.

 

Here’s an abbreviated list of the Continental Congress pushing Christian Morals and Values for the General Welfare (1774 – 1789):

 

1. Congress’ First Act: A Resolution to Pray – September 6, 1774

 

2. Congress Ordered Purchase and Printing of Bibles – September 11, 1777

 

3. Congress Expressly Promoted Religion – October 12, 1778:

 

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.

 

4. The Declaration of Independence – formally adopted it on July 4, 1776, and signed it August 2, 1776. The Declaration directly appeals to God at least four times

 

5. Congress Appointed Days Of Prayer, Thanksgiving, and Repentance – In the approximately fifteen years of its existence, the Continental Congress approved at least fifteen proclamations calling on the states to appoint days of special worship or honor to God. Dates enumerated from 1777 through 1787.

 

The above lists remarkable does not contain the Northwest Ordinance enacted by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation July 13, 1787. The legislation has 14 Sections and the Fourteenth Section has Six Articles. The purpose for the Northwest Ordinance was to establish a Central government rule of law for expansion westward from the Original 13 States and a method of admitting new sovereign States to the United States of America (then under the Articles of Confederation). Christianity and Religious Freedom combined are expressly part of the designs of the Northwest Ordinance.

 

Sec. 13. And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest: (Bold emphasis Blog Editor’s)

 

Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:

 

Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

 

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. …

 

The two bills James Madison vetoed was done correctly. The bills’ goals were to Establish the Episcopalian Church in the city of Alexandria within the District of Columbia and provide public funds to buy land for a Church in the Territory of Mississippi. On a Federal basis the First Amendment specifically states that Congress can make no law establishing a Church. AGAIN this has nothing to do with the laws enumerated to the several States not in the U.S. Constitution (Tenth Amendment).

 

My above thoughts on the history of the Courts and Church Establishment already refute the Doug’s claim that Church/State Separation issues is “hardly a new invention of modern courts.”

 

Dougindeap:

 

6. Dreisbach’s fundamental error is his largely unspoken and unexamined presumption that the Constitution’s separation of church and state is merely a First Amendment textual matter. As noted above, however, it is rather a bedrock principle of our Constitution, resting on much more than the First Amendment.

 

JRH:

 

Already proved this line of thinking is in error by Dougindeap.

 

Dougindeap:

 

7. The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

 

Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

 

JRH:

 

The only contention I can agree with Dougindeap is that the First Amendment prevents the Federal Congress from Establishing a State Church and that the Federal Congress cannot enact laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Everything else not forbidden by the U.S. Constitution is the purview of each State in the Union of the United States of America. The tiny url posted by Doug does not work or at least not in my Chrome or Internet Explorer browsers. When I Googled ‘Wake Forest Q&A primer on Separation of Church and State’ I discovered Dougindeap has been posting link since at least 2010. I can find no such document online from Wake Forest. Perhaps the closest thing I can find is a PDF document entitled, “Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law”. I found two links for this document: One by Wake Forest and another posted on the Anti-Defamation League website but both are the same document. Both documents are dated January 2010. The document is a collective work by a bunch of people that are on opposite sides of the Church/State Separation issues. The document is anything but definitive. The closest section talking about the First Amendment and Church Establishment is Chapter Two of the roughly 32 page document with End Notes longer if you include acknowledgements by Wake Forest’s (at least then) Director of Wake Forest University Divinity School and the Center for Religion and Public Affairs. The Chapter Two title is “Is the First Amendment the only constitutional or legal provision that affects these issues?

 

Chapter Two clearly expresses the First Amendment is functional as a Federal law in which there is a large degree of discretion on the State level of law in which the First Amendment does not address.

 

In connection to this PDF document (Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law), the “diverse” committee that truly consisted of representation of both sides of the political spectrum on Church/State issues was led by Melissa Rogers as the Director of Wake Forest University Divinity School’s Center for Religion and Public Affairs during the PDF document’s 2010 publication. Melissa Rogers is hardly neutral a person that looks equally on both sides of the coin on Church/State issues. Rogers is a downright and overt proponent of the revisionist Left Wingers choosing to exclude the merits of Original Intent of the Constitution in relation to the opinions of the Founders on how Christianity effects the general welfare of a good society. Even the Founding Fathers in James Madison (See also HERE) and Thomas Jefferson that were closer to the secularist Enlightenment discrediting of orthodox theology of Christianity agreed that Christian Morals and Values promoted a good society.

 

Dougindeap:

 

8. While some, including myself, grow tired of the semantic wrangling over the phrase commonly used to describe or name one of the Constitution’s fundamental principles, that principle—by whatever name—remains central and essential to the Constitution and our way of life.

           

JRH:

 

Doug says he is getting weary of wrangling that Separation of Church and State is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. I myself am frustrated about Leftists trying so hard to prevent the historical nature of Christianity of being such a huge influence on the development of our nation. It is my belief that the Leftist efforts at historical revisionism is to transform America into a society that abandons Christianity as a Moral Foundation. Then replace Christianity with a Secular Humanist perspective as a foundation for societal morality. Such a humanist morality places the created on a pedestal above the Creator. No matter how lofty the ideals of man being inherently good, actual history shows that man is inherently evil. That inherent evil exists in human nature because God’s first created human being – Adam – betrayed God the Creator by agreeing with the serpent Satan and partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why did Adam consume the fruit? Satan told Eve, who Adam did not rebuke, believed the serpent that the fruit would make her and Adam like God knowing the difference between good and evil. Adam’s act of disobedience of God voluntarily sold his nature to the dominion of Satan. Since Adam was made the perpetual steward of God’s created Earth. That meant the earth also came under Satan’s control. Adam’s disobedience led to the punishment of being separated from God which is spiritual death. Humanity and Earth became cursed to a Fallen nature explaining an inherent evil nature. The inherent evil nature of man will inevitably lead to unwholesome if not downright wicked choices in which selfish desires overrule the general welfare of humanity.

 

The good news for humanity God the Creator promised a way out for Adam choosing Satan’s lie as truth rather than God’s holy union.

 

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:

 

“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel
.” (Bold Emphasis Blog Editor – Genesis 3: 14-15 NKJV
)

 

Verse 15 is God’s first Promise of a Redeemer to bring humanity back into right standing with God Almighty. Then and only then will humanity not need laws of a government to curb the inclination of a Fallen human nature. Secular Humanism is wrong, humanity is not essentially good.

 

JRH 4/5/14

Please Support NCCR

David’s Comment to: Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1


G Washington & American Praying, Flag & Under God


Thank you David for your glowing comment to Part One. The only thing I might disagree with is the statement:
 
First Amendment. Second, and an important point — the Bill of Rights — only amplify the Constitution, those ten Amendments do not alter it.
 
For the most part the statement is true; however the word “Amendment” does entail amending something that is there. Frankly I am not a Constitutional expert. I can’t vouch that the Bill of Rights amplifies or amends any part of the Constitution document. I am guessing though if I pursued the point I could find something that amends to go along with the amplification.
 
At any rate Dougindeap also commented on Part One which I posted previous to David’s comment below. Dougindeap stubbornly maintains his position that the separation of Church and State is as much a part of the Constitution as the separation of Branch Powers and with enumerated (though as he points out not specified) checks and balances. The enumerated checks and balances are in the description of the powers rather than specifying what is checked and/or balanced.
 
JRH 3/28/14

Please Support NCCR

**************************
David’s Comment to: Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1
 
 
John, thank you for the article. I think the big problem is the disconnect between the presuppositions of people and the facts of history as they have been misguided through leftist propaganda. The states at our founding had state religions, churches sponsored by state taxes. These faded over time but were never barred and could return today if the people so choose.
 
However, we do have a separation of church (the bureaucracy) and the state at the federal level, as no official church (entity or bureaucracy) can be established per the First Amendment. Second, and an important point — the Bill of Rights — only amplify the Constitution, those ten Amendments do not alter it. The Bill of Rights are only stating in negative terms what the Constitution already says in its silence.
 
This does not apply however to “the church” (the people) and the state. What might be a better way to form this argument is to point out that the values of the individual — the virtues of morality and virtue — found in their religious faith are never barred from influencing the power of the state. Liberalism (a faith based ideology) is used all the time, yet because of our connection to “the church” those on the right are thought to be by default prevented from having our views and values represented at the table of government. This is completely false as you so eloquently show. How sad that our Republic of Virtue rooted in the moral foundations of Christianity and Western civilization is the only view discriminated against by every single group — including those liberal Christians who should know better.
 
The First Amendment — far from excluding the “church” (the people of faith) it is promoting it, it is advocating for it, by proclaiming that the Federal government cannot discriminate for one sect over another or silence it any way through “law” vis a vis Congress shall make NO law establishing or prohibiting. The Christian moral view of law and its implementation was the view of the Founding Fathers and assumed to be the view of future generations. Without it they knew full well the Republic could not stand. And on that point where do we stand? We have been rudderless for generations and are now sinking by taking on the flood of immorality and calling it good. This stuff is not very hard to understand — unless you are a liberal politician, professor, Hollywood elite or mind numbed media personality.
 
Thank you for all you valuable work!
__________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
© ***David***