NONIE DARWISH DEMOLISHES FALSE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM


Mark Tapson writes a combination review of a book and a promotion for speaking engagement. The combo relates to Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim that converted to Christianity. The book is entitled “Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values”. The speaking engagement has passed as it was scheduled for April 6, 2017.

 

You can tell from the book title that Ms. Darwish provides a very effective contrast between Christian-Biblical values and Islamic values. I haven’t read the book yet, but it sounds like an excellent tool for a Christian to have to combat Muslim Apologists and Multiculturalist Leftists.

 

JRH 4/7/17

Please Support NCCR

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

NONIE DARWISH DEMOLISHES FALSE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM

Her new book clarifies which is the real “Religion of Peace.”

 

 

By Mark Tapson

April 5, 2017

FrontPageMag

 

For readers in the Southern California area, Nonie Darwish will be speaking on her new book Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values this Thursday, April 6, at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Get more information on the event and your tickets here.

 

Several years ago I was expressing to a friend of mine what I assumed was the undeniable fact that the world has an Islam problem. Her kneejerk response, ingrained by years of Progressive indoctrination, was, “But don’t you think Christianity is just as bad?”

 

Tragically, this continues to be the instinct among the multiculturalist multitudes in the West: a reflexive defense of Islam and an equally swift condemnation of Christianity. As jihad in all its forms – violent, cultural, legal – advances in the West, willfully blind defenders of Islam keep insisting that it is one of the world’s great Abrahamic religions, that all religions have extremists, and that, if anything, the colonialism and intolerance of the Christian West is the bigger problem. Our cultural elites demonize and fear-monger about the Christian right in ways they would never dream of characterizing Muslims.

 

Meanwhile Islam’s presence multiplies across the West as Christianity’s diminishes. To cite just one example: Giulio Meotti at the Gatestone Institute reports that since 2001, London alone has lost 500 churches of all denominations, with 423 new mosques springing up to replace them. As we face the momentum of an Islamized West in the future, the question “Isn’t Christianity just as bad?” has become one of paramount, existential importance.

 

Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim and now Christian convert, demolishes that moral equivalence in her new book Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values. She has proven in the past with her books Now They Call Me Infidel, Cruel and Usual Punishment, and The Devil We Don’t Know that she is a fearless crusader for truth against the apologists of Islam and the enemies of Christianity, and this book is her most forceful testament yet.

 

Ms. Darwish begins Wholly Different by noting that it wasn’t until she emigrated from Egypt to America that she began to get a clear perspective on the Islamic values she had accepted unquestioningly for the first thirty years of her life – values that she came to see “are diametrically opposed to Biblical moral values.” Her life under Islam “was a constant struggle to survive and placate a system that was unforgiving and unaccepting of anything less than total surrender of my humanity, dignity, and privacy – in other words, my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.”

 

But her introduction to Christianity was transformative. “When I became Christian and heard for the first time that we human beings were made in the image of God, I wept. I was in awe at the honor, after being given shame and little value under Islam,” which is “not about transforming hearts and renewing minds; it is about conquering lands and enslaving minds.”

 

“While the overriding theme of the Bible is the redemption and happiness of believers,” she adds, “the overriding theme of Islam’s holy book is punishing non-believers.”

 

Her new life where those principles life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness were at the center of the American Way showed her that “the differences between moral and immoral, good and bad, honor and dishonor, and success and failure were totally different” here. “In the West I found my peace and humanity… because of Biblical values that are the foundation of Western society”:

 

Not too many people notice that Biblical values are everywhere in America, even among those who call themselves secular, non-religious, or atheist. But I see Biblical values everywhere here. There is no other explanation for how different life in America is from life in the Islamic world.

 

[…]

 

It is unfortunate that many Americans take Biblical values for granted, assuming that kindness, honesty, and joy are the norm, with or without the Bible. Those of us who grew up in the parts of the world beyond the influence of the Bible know better. Biblical values are the product of the Bible, and they cannot be preserved separate from the Bible.

 

Darwish goes on to enumerate a list of differences between Biblical and Islamic values that she has personally witnessed. She breaks down these and literally dozens of other dichotomies throughout the book:

 

We Are All Sinners vs. They Are All Sinners
Life is Sacred vs. Death is Worship
Guided by the Holy Spirit vs. Manipulated by Human Terror
God the Redeemer vs. Allah the Humiliator
Jesus Died for Us vs. We Must Die for Allah
The Truth Will Set You Free vs. Lying is an Obligation
Faith vs. Submission

 

Darwish proceeds to hold up the two sets of religious values as mirror-opposites of each other, with virtually no common ground. She makes no attempt to whitewash Islam, which she refers to as “a cult of death,” and she pulls no punches in presenting it as Christianity’s mortal enemy. “Everything God tells us in the Bible that He loves, Islam has set out to destroy. Islamic values are backward, the opposite to what every Jew and Christian holds dear… The Koran represents a negative power, a dark and subversive force that relentlessly challenges the authority of the Bible and God Himself.”

 

“The flame of the Islamic rebellion against the Bible has been burning for fourteen hundred years,” Darwish continues. “It is fueled by terrorism, but also by intentional misinformation, propaganda, and lies.”

 

From praising versus cursing, from creating wealth versus seizing it, from seeking humility versus seeking power, from the example of Jesus to the example of Muhammad, to the differing takes of Christianity and Islam on the seven sins and the Ten Commandments, on reality and mental health, and on family values and feminism, Darwish draws a detailed picture of an incompatible pair of value systems embroiled in a worldwide culture clash. And one of them falls short in every respect: “Islam has failed to provide its followers with a comprehensive and well-integrated value system or with examples of true holiness and godliness. The behavior and character of Muhammad certainly do not qualify.”

 

“Islam lacks confidence in itself,” Darwish asserts, and thus “the mere existence of a freely chosen competing faith threatens Islam at its very core… Thus the Bible has become the number one threat to Islam’s ability to prevail.” That is why a book like Wholly Different is such a vital reminder in our time of the vast gulf between the two religions’ sets of values. As Islam wages genocide against Christians in the Middle East and pursues cultural jihad throughout the West, Christianity wrestles internally with a paralyzing identity crisis. There is no more time for self-doubt, no more time for “Coexist” bumper stickers and wishful thinking, no more time for appeasement. What our choice comes down to, Ms. Darwish’s book reminds us, is this: “The values of the Bible lead to peace, prosperity, life, liberty, and happiness. Islamic values will take any society to Hell.” Time to make our choice.

 

____________

ABOUT MARK TAPSON

 

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the editor of TruthRevolt.org.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT FRONTPAGE MAG

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

READ THE REST

 

Justin Smith Comments on TPP/TPA


By Justin O. Smith

Editor and Intro by John R. Houk

© June 12, 2015

I have to admit I dislike being in agreement with Democrats who thanks to Barack Hussein Obama are usually utopian Leftists out to ignore the Original Intent of the Constitution and the Christian values that are as much a part of our American heritage as is Liberty. I am in agreement with the Dems that are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

As I wrote June 8th the Dems are against TPP and related agreements because the Unions are against it. The Conservatives that are the multitudinous of acronyms are due to the potential to abuse our national sovereignty, immigration at the will of the Executive Branch and various yet disputed economic reasons.

A large chunk of Republicans are for the TPP/TPA due to the disputes over the economic affects which the Establishment GOP believes will strengthen the American economy. I found it disturbing that self-described Speaker Boehner was urging the Fast Tracking of this legislation that would have in reality meant an increase of discretionary power for scandal plague President Barack Hussein Obama and his equally scandalous Administration.

As I was typing this I heard on Fox News’ Cavuto that the Dems and thankfully enough Republicans united to shoot down TPP/TPA. In light of the three comments which I edited into one post from Justin Smith who gives good reasons what the threat of TPP/TPA is. Justin Smith comments to the SlantRight 2.0 post “Are YOU going to Allow the House to Fast-Track TPP” on the Facebook group America’s Party.

But for clarities sake here’s a somewhat neutral description in the summary of a PDF publication I found:

Legislation to reauthorize Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”), sometimes called “fast track,” was introduced as the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA- 2015; H.R. 1890/S. 995) on April 16, 2015. The legislation was reported by the Senate Finance Committee on April 22, 2015, and by the House Ways and Means Committee the next day. TPA, as incorporated into H.R. 1314 by substitute amendment, passed the Senate on May 22 by a vote of 62-37. The previous grant of authority expired on July 1, 2007.

TPA is the process Congress has made available to the President to enable legislation to approve and implement certain international trade agreements to be considered under expedited legislative procedures for limited periods, provided the President observes certain statutory obligations. TPA defines how Congress has chosen to exercise its constitutional authority over a particular aspect of trade policy, while giving the President added leverage to negotiate trade agreements by effectively assuring U.S. trade partners that final agreements will be given timely and unamended consideration. On July 30, 2013, President Obama first publicly requested that Congress reauthorize TPA, and he reiterated his request for TPA in his January 20, 2015, State of the Union address. Legislation to renew TPA was introduced in the 113th Congress (H.R. 3830) (S. 1900), but it was not acted upon.

TPA reflects decades of debate, cooperation, and compromise between Congress and the executive branch in finding a pragmatic accommodation to the exercise of each branch’s respective authorities over trade policy. The expedited legislative procedures have not changed since first codified in the Trade Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-618). Congress, however, has required that the authority to use TPA be periodically reauthorized, and at times has chosen to revise trade negotiation objectives, the consultative mechanism, and presidential notification requirements. While early versions of fast track/TPA received bipartisan support, later renewal efforts have been more controversial, culminating in a more partisan vote on the 2002 TPA renewal. Future debates on TPA renewal may center on trade negotiation objectives, congressional oversight of trade negotiations, trade agreement enforcement, and clarifying the congressional authority over approval of reciprocal trade agreements and trade policy more generally, among others.

TPA renewal may become a more pressing issue in the 114th Congress because current trade negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) are in progress. Technically, TPA is not necessary to begin or even conclude trade negotiations, but it is widely understood to be a key element of defining congressional authority, and of passing trade agreement implementing legislation. Therefore, its renewal can be construed as signaling serious congressional support for moving ahead with trade negotiations. Addressing congressional concerns over the definition and operation of TPA may be a central part of the debate.

Although there appears to be support for renewal of TPA in Congress, the details of the legislation are likely to be subject to considerable debate, including the specific treatment of any related TAA program reauthorization. This report presents background and analysis on the development of TPA, a summary of the major provisions under the expired authority, and a discussion of the issues that have arisen in the debate over TPA renewal. It also explores some of the policy options available to Congress. (Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy; By Ian F. Fergusson – Specialist in International Trade and Finance; Congressional Research Service via Fas.org; 5/28/15)

Here is an important background Breitbart read which includes a WikiLeaks document dump link on the subject of TPP/TPA immigration rules that were secretive or at least until WikiLeaks got a hold of it:

REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT

JRH 6/12/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Justin Smith Comment

June 8, 2015 at 7:49pm

TPP is my line in the sand John. If our government sees fit to go along with what essentially amounts to global fascism/corporatism and nations giving up their sovereignty to be governed by the world’s corporations, it will be a watershed moment — it should be an epiphany to all Americans who love freedom and liberty that they are not truly represented any longer — and it should mark the day they arm themselves in preparation for an all out revolution.

The hell of it is that only 5 Republicans in the Senate voted against fast tracking this, along with 16 Democrats. It should be interesting to see how the House votes on this.

Republicans want this because they are under the delusion that it will grow the economy and provide cheap labor as well as decrease the trade deficit, all of which are wrong for too many reasons to detail here. And the Dems, except those like Bernie Sanders who actually seems to really care about America’s well-being, see this as finally setting precedents that will push the U.S. and other nations into an organization that will have enforcement capabilities regarding its rules and “laws” in a way that supersedes U.S. law.

Research it for Yourselves — the TPP will not bode well for America in any way, shape or form and destroys a large segment of U.S. sovereignty, as well as the sovereignty of all the other nations that sign on to it. Think of it as a supersized, new sort of union modeled after the EU.

TPP also opens the door for international tribunals to modify our laws on immigration and healthcare to conform with “international norms” and it has very little to do with actual trade between nations. This is global governance moving ahead at warp speed.

+++

Justin Smith Comment

June 8, 2015 at 7:51pm

We’re rapidly approaching a point where an armed response may be the only thing that these fascist fools in the government understand. How long and how far do YOU let YOUR own government push YOU — taking away YOUR liberty and trampling on YOUR rights — before YOU stand and say “No More” and back it up with a rifle in YOUR hand? How long do YOU go through years of court battles that should never have been waged in the first place, because of an ever consistent and insistent advance against OUR Bill of Rights by the marxofascist Progressives, the corporatists and RINOs in government?

These bastards are trampling on the U.S. Constitution and the representative Republic daily. Just how much more are any of YOU willing to take?

To hell with “peaceful protest” — we’ve seen just how well that works these days. The Progressives have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to it. At the very least, it is time to refuse to obey and comply with any “law” we know to be outside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — to engage in the most forceful and powerful civil disobedience We can — and to show an armed mass of patriots on the steps of the Capitol in DC if it should prove necessary.

Go to exhibit a force of will and a preparedness to fight, not to start a revolution, but to impress upon the government just how far WE believe they have overreached their authority. If a revolution starts, let it start because they fired the first shot after causing the American people to have a hundred grievances against them already.

+++

Tom Hoefling No need for armed revolution. All we need is for conservatives to stop supporting traitors. June 8 at 9:06pm

++++

Justin Smith Comment

June 11, 2015 7:19pm

Tom Hoefling — 49 members of the Senate GOP showed themselves to be traitors to America on May 21st when they voted for Trade Promotion Authority fast-track for the Trans Pacific Partnership. There are fascists running rampant throughout both parties, and this TPA and TPP are fascism anyway one cuts it and anti-American through and through, no matter their reasoning for supporting it.

I fear the GOP can only see the almighty dollar sign and cheap labor, no matter that it will expand trade deficits and bring untold harm to our economy as it destroys U.S. jobs, despite assurances to the contrary advancing the lie that herein lies “prosperity for all.”

This TPA and TPP is a direct assault on the integrity of U.S. Sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution as it initiates international tribunals that will be poised and in place in order to implement measures that will supersede U.S. law — regarding immigration and healthcare specifically.

Please show me a conservative Tom Hoefling. There are 33 American Patriots in the Senate who voted “NO” on this deal. Tomorrow will delineate the Patriots from the Traitors in Congress, if the TPA makes it to the floor.

Ordinarily I’d agree with YOUR simplistic assessment, but the political atmosphere has so shifted in America that one can no longer tell a true conservative from a pretender, because so many will say and do anything in order to perpetuate their own power.

In the end, it does come down to the moral character of those We elect and fully vetting them properly to ensure that they do stand for God, the Constitution and the Republic and Our Beloved America’s traditions, Exceptionalism and Heritage — as expressed by the Founders through their Judeo-Christian beliefs and their Original Intent as presented in the Federalist Papers and other writings, such as Locke’s treatise on Government.

+++

Justin Smith Comment

June 11, 2015 7:35pm

No Tom Hoefling — when You have half the nation subscribing to a foreign/European ideology of Marxism/fascism and attempting to tear apart the foundations upon which Our nation was built — working outside Constitutionally accepted means in order to succeed — You have a group of people who may be American by birth but who are anything but American in their purpose and intent for the nation and who are the Enemy From Within that I swore an oath to fight against in defense of the Constitution and Our Beloved America in September 1977.

These marxofascist bastards are American in name only and are pursuing the ends justifies the means as they attempt to abrogate the U.S. Constitution and take America into “a new age” of a “post-Constitutional America” in which the people serve the State rather than the State serving the people. And their redistribution policies in this context – the TPA/TPP – will redistribute U.S. wealth worldwide and reduce our own personal prosperity and economic freedom to a shambles, which in turn will reduce individual liberty across the nation.

If We cannot elect Statesmen grounded in God, Family and Country in the next election -2016, as well as good, decent, moral and true conservatives, then the nation will see an increase in strife and social upheavals, eventually culminating in near civil war — most likely an all-out Civil War.

I cannot see strong willed and strong-minded Sons and Daughters sitting by idly as Progressive Fascists reduce US all to the lowest common denominator in poverty under their Utopian Statist Hell, especially when there is not any real political solution. One does not “compromise” with the very Evil that intends to destroy everything one loves about one’s nation. One destroys that Evil totally and completely. Civil War is coming whether anyone wishes to face it or not — too many takers live here with outreached hands and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their own failures.

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith

Judeo-Christian Values are in U.S. Constitution


Constitution for moral & religious people -John Adams

John R. Houk

© March 14, 2015

 

Below is a comment dialogue between myself and Sifu Mode from the SlantRight 2.0 post “Religion and the Constitution”. My 3/14/15 response is the meat of this post. I am guessing Sifu is one who intentionally or unintentionally supports the concept of a Living Constitution. I am definitely one who stands with the Original Intent Constitution.

 

##

Sifu Mode

Mar 5, 2015

 

Anyone who believes Constitutional rights don’t apply to any person or class is irrational and wrong.

##

John Houk

Mar 9, 2015

 

Anyone who believes the Original Intent of the Constitution changes with the whims of immoral Leftists is wrong and manipulative.

##

Sifu Mode

Mar 9, 2015

 

Original intent was that everyone is included regardless of religious beliefs so I have not advocated for changing it, you are.

##

John Houk

3/13/15 12:00 PM

 

Actually Sifu Original Intent was freedom to worship as you please (or not), but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective. Read the beginning and ending of Constitution and the entire Declaration of Independence factoring in each State’s Constitution which were never Federally abrogated by the U.S. Constitution.

##

Sifu Mode

3/13/15 12:24 PM

 

+John Houk 
but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective

This sentence does not make sense in context of the meaning of “rule of law”.

Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law. All are equally subject to the same treatment by law.

Now to say that laws were often based on the values commonly taught by the Christian religion is pretty fair. To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.

Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.

###

John Response to Sifu 3/13/15

3/14/15

 

Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law.

 

Sifu you are sorely mistaken! The “Rule of Law” means the law rules the land as opposed to the Rule of Man which implies a man or an oligarchy of men rule the land. Men rule by a pen and a phone (edict) are not subject to laws. When law is the rule no man is above the law. In Western Culture laws are derived from a heritage. The West’s heritage is Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian influences. This heritage is the reason Western nations that don’t have a Third World element thus have evolved a Representative Democratic form of government in laws have replaced men as the ruler.

 

To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.

 

Even the Democratic-Socialist Representative governments of Europe demonstrate the laws have an exclusivity to Judeo-Christianity – although that exclusivity is being eroded by culture destroying Multiculturalism. In America Multiculturalism only has a mere toe-hold because Left Wing Democrats and the Mainstream Media (MSM) have been ramming the concept down American throats.

 

As long as constitutional interpretation is via Original Intent rather than the make it up as you go along Living Constitution (Rule of Man), the Judeo-Christianity inherent in American culture and intended by America’s Founding Fathers will be preserved which has made America great.

 

Once Multiculturalism gains more than a toe-hold in America then the erosion of the Christian heritage that has made America exceptional so that the world’s poor dream of coming to America for a better life. The secularist value system promoted primarily by America’s Left is eroding American culture by a determined effort to dilute our Judeo-Christian influence to the point of actually belittling Christianity and calling Bible believing Christians bigots. Once Biblical values are replaced with the acceptance of concepts such as homosexual acceptance and allowing counter-American culture concepts such as despotic Sharia Law that is derived from a specifically antisemitic and antichrist religion known as Islam, then America’s values derived from Judeo-Christianity will cease to exist. America will cease to be exception followed by America ceasing to be great.

 

Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.

 

Sifu either the Constitution is wholly a part of “those laws” or it is a piece of paper that exists to provide citizens an illusion of the existence of the Rule of Law meaning the Rule of Man is the reality and America is despotic and America has never been exceptional and thus America’s greatness is an illusion. That doesn’t sound like the same America I have studied nor is it the America I have grown up in from birth to the present (58 years). AND my elementary and secondary school learning occurred prior to the American Left making their efforts to revise history in text books and in class curriculum.

 

Now the Constitution did constitute the creation of a Federal government with three Branches designed in such a way that one Branch does not dominate the other. To prevent Branch domination the Constitutional Rule of Law provides for Checks and Balances. Once those Checks and Balances are breached by any Branch then despotism will ensue that will replace the Rule of Law with an oligarchic Rule of Man.

 

Part of those Checks and Balances is the influence of Judeo-Christianity and the Constitution maintaining that laws not mandated to the Federal government is under the sovereignty of the several State governments.

 

An essay by David W. New provides an astute observation the God of Christianity and the U.S. Constitution in terms of Original Intent, State Constitutions and the Federal government:

 

Where is “God” in the Preamble to the Constitution?

 

Secularists are very quick to point out that the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be ‘under God’ in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point. The word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. However, it is doubtful that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word “God” will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word “God” appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is “Almighty God.” This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words “Almighty God” appear in the state religion clauses. In the case of the U.S. Constitution however, no divine reference appears in either the Preamble or in the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Why is this true?

 

The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word “God” in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: “Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . . and Georgia.” When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People. Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their ‘spin’ on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Where is “God” in the First Amendment?

 

The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here however the textual reason is due to the subject matter of the First Amendment. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clauses in the First Amendment is the government or “Congress.” This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference in the subject matter is the reason the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Let’s compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . .” The subject of the clause is clear. It is “All men.” The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses’ better wording. It says “Every individual . . .” In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual. In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a “natural right” of an individual to worship “Almighty God” according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the “right” of an individual, the word “God” naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the “Congress.” The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words “God” “natural right” “worship” or “conscience” do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word “God” in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.

 

Where is “God” in the Constitution?

 

The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like “secularism” and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn’t even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word “God” does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is “God” is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: “Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers.” (Where is God in the Constitution? By David W. New, Esq.; posted by Ed Current; Free Republic; posted 12/10/2004, 5:38:41 PM; Originally from Faith and Action [dead link]; November 04)

 

Sifu God is in the Constitution.

 

Further Reading:

 

How Did the Bible Influence the U.S. Constitution? (eHow.com)

 

Rule of Law Legal Definition (Duhaime.org)

 

Rule of law (TheFreeDictionary.com – Legal Dictionary)

 

JRH 3/14/15

Please Support NCCR

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Elmo’s Voice and Man/Boy Sex


Kevin Clash & Elmo

John R. Houk

© April 13, 2013

 

Kevin Clash is the kind of man that homosexual activists try to cover-up. Why? It is not because Clash is a homosexual. Thanks to America’s Left being on the A-train with hoped for destination of destroying Christian Values to remold America into a Leftist utopia, homosexuals like Kevin Clash get a pass for licentious activity that is actually still illegal.

 

Oh my God! Proclaim homosexual hypocrites! Same-sex junk is acceptable in America today, right? So what did Kevin Clash the homosexual do that was illegal?

 

Did I mention that Clash is the puppet master for one of Sesame Street’s beloved children’s characters? Clash has operated Elmo for decades entertaining children with cough and educational format on PBS.  Apparently Elmo/Clash enjoyed seducing teenage boys into Man/Boy sex. YUP! A gay man having sex with a minor is still illegal in America. Indeed, it is the kind of felony if convicted that will get Clash on a sex-offenders list that enables parents to be wary to protect their children.

 

I have to be honest with you. I have heard of Elmo as well as most of America spanning generations of children. But until an email from Eugene Delgaudio alerted me of Kevin Clash’s offense, I had never heard of him.

 

This is the kind of scandal that should be first page news and prime time news to expose the heinous crimes of Kevin Clash. And yet a scandal like a homosexual that prominently entertains children on a decades old children’s educational program is not prominently displayed in the news. What is up with that?!

 

Mainstream Media outlets have reported on the case; however they do so in the unusual manner of presenting the facts that are known publicly and allowing readers to come to their own conclusions about the degree of wickedness of a man enticing a boy to have carnal-sexual relations.

 

Los Angeles (CNN) — A fifth man has filed a lawsuit alleging sex abuse by Kevin Clash, the puppeteer who gave Sesame Street’s Elmo his voice.

 

The allegations that Kevin Kiadii, 25, made against Clash, 52, are similar to those made by four other men who said they were courted and seduced by Clash when they were underage teenagers.

 

The lawyer defending Clash called the other suits “meritless and barred by the statute of limitations,” but he did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment on the newest filing.

 

“Mr. Clash continues to deny any wrongdoing, and we intend to defend this case forcefully,” attorney Michael Berger said when the fourth suit was filed.

 

Clash was suspended from Sesame Street and eventually resigned after the first allegations surfaced in November.

 

Kiadii’s suit, filed in a federal court in New York, said he was 16 when Clash contacted him on a gay chat telephone line and invited him to his Manhattan apartment in 2004. (READ THE REST; Former voice of Elmo hit with 5th sex abuse suit; By Alan Duke; CNN; updated 10:11 AM EDT, Thu April 4, 2013)

 

Looks likes when it rain it pours, a fifth person has come forward accusing former Elmo voice actor Kevin Clash of inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor, according to the Daily Mail.

 

Kevin Kiadii claims to have been only 16-years-old when he and Clash met for their dalliances, which he says included full penetration.  Kiadii told the Daily Mail in an exclusive interview he was not only coerced by Clash but also reveals how the former puppeteer’s fetish was allegedly that of the role of a father figure to the then boy. Kiadii, who is now 25, told reporters Clash knew he was a minor when they met. The young man also states Clash claimed all throughout their sexual tryst that he was 28-years-old instead of revealing his actual age, which was 43. (READ THE REST; Ex-Elmo Puppeteer Kevin Clash, Gets Hit With A Fifth Sexual-Abuse Lawsuit; By Gumbumper; From gumbumper.com; ZIMBIO; April 3, 2013)

 

Man/Boy predator Kevin Clash apparently is looking for innocent by virtue of the expiration of the statute of limitations. Of course that makes him innocent for corrupting children and teenagers, right? If the criminality of Man/Boy sex has indeed expired then I pray civil litigation will expose this pervert to a cash punishment that makes Man/Boy sex something to be wary of.

 

Below is the email from Eugene Delgaudio of the Public Advocate which focuses on the ungodly practice of homosexuality.

 

JRH 4/13/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Media continues cover-ups

 

By Eugene Delgaudio

Sent: 4/13/2013 8:06 AM

Sent by Public Advocate

 

Famed puppeteer, Kevin Clash, is facing charges for sexual abuse against a minor.

You, like most others, probably haven’t even heard about it.

Why?

Because the radical liberal media refuses to exploit Mr. Clash and the atrocious acts that have been alleged.

You see, Kevin Clash is a homosexual.

He earned fame and fortune being the voice of a very popular American children’s character for almost 30 years.

Yet despite all his notoriety, we’ve hardly heard a peep from the media about the allegations.

To make matters worse, this is Kevin Clash’s FIFTH accusation of sexual abuse against a minor.

But the left-wing media — usually foaming at the mouth for a Hollywood scandal — refuses to cover the story.

It truly breaks my heart when I hear of such stories and the media stays silent — acting as if nothing has happened.

These are children we’re talking about!

Clash got away with his repulsive acts of abuse because his victims were either paid off or waited too long to report the crimes.

But what upsets me the most is the lack of outrage from the media.

If our media can’t even speak up against children being sexually abused, who can we look to?

It’s up to us.

Public Advocate will do everything in our power to get this story out so these victims can have just a bit of solace after so much was taken from them.

I hope you will do the same.

For our children,

Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate

P.S. Please consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or more to help fund Public Advocate’s fight for traditional values.

__________________________

Elmo’s Voice and Man/Boy Sex

John R. Houk

© April 13, 2013

________________________

Media continues cover-ups

 

Because Public Advocate of the U.S. is a nonprofit, charitable organization that fights the radical agenda of the Homosexual Lobby, contributions are not tax deductible for IRS purposes.  This email was not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.  Public Advocate’s phone number is (703) 845-1808, its address is 5613 Leesburg Pike, Suite 17 Falls Church, VA 22041, and its website is http://publicadvocateusa.org/.

To help Public Advocate grow, please forward this to a friend.

Gingrich Certainly Qualifies as a Christian Values Candidate


Palin-Gingrich

John R. Houk

© January 2012

 

Sarah Palin took on the criticism that Newt Gingrich is receiving from Establishment Republicans on her Facebook page yesterday. Palin compared the attacks as consistent to how the Left Wing Media assassinates the character of Conservatives. Of course the greatest negative ads are coming from Mitt Romney who has not exactly demonstrated a Conservative Republican exemplar in his days of Governor of Massachusetts. Whereas Newt Gingrich has spent his entire political career emphasizing Conservative fiscal policy and values. Yes I said “values”. Newt’s personal life may have been a screw-up in living those values; however he did espouse those values. Every single person supportive of Christian values has made a mistake contrary to Christian values to one degree or the other. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!

 

Those that have made a mistake with Christian values and have not sought repentance but rather have sought self-justification are the people that should concern values voters.

 

Consistent Pro-Life Record
 

Newt Gingrich has consistently upheld a pro-life standard.  He had a consistent pro-life voting record throughout his twenty years in Congress, including his four years as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
 

Gingrich pledges to uphold this consistent pro-life standard as president. (READ MORE)

 

Setting Record Straight of Left Exploitation of Gingrich Divorce to 2nd Wife

 

Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer

 

Newt’s daughter recently wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.
 

This story is a vicious lie.  It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on hearsay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today.  It is completely false.
 

Recently, Newt’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.  The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce.  You can read it here.

 

Here are some excerpts from an article demonstrating Gingrich’s opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and abortion. The article asks about Newt’s three marriages in which Newt responds by saying as President he will enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

 

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president in 2012, has vowed to support a federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

 

Gingrich’s pledge came in a written response to conservative Iowa group The Family Leader’s “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.” The group’s 14-point pledge can be found at http://www.thefamilyleader.com/the-marriage-vow.

 

In addition to opposing same-sex marriage, the pledge also requests candidates vow “personal fidelity” to their spouse, appoint federal judges who are “faithful constitutionalists” and reject Islamic sharia law.

 

Gingrich, 68, has been married three times. …

 

 

In his response to The Family Leader, Gingrich also said he would “vigorously enforce” the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama directed the Justice Department to cease defending the constitutionality of the law.

 

 

Gingrich joined U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in signing The Family Leader’s pledge.

 

 

In regard to Gingrich’s response, Bob Vander Plaats, president & CEO of The Family Leader, said: “We are pleased that Speaker Gingrich has affirmed our pledge and are thankful we have on record his statements regarding DOMA, support of a federal marriage amendment, defending the unborn, pledging fidelity to his spouse, defending religious liberty and freedom, supporting sound pro-family economic issues, and defending the right of the people to rule themselves.”

 

Following is the full text of Gingrich’s response to The Family Leader: (Read the text at the Rock River Times)

 

Here are twelve quotes from Newt Gingrich’s book “Rediscovering God in America” courtesy of the website OnTheIssues.

 

On Education: Removing God from Pledge of Allegiance assaults our identity

 

There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square. The 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional represents a fundamental assault on our American identity. A court that would unilaterally modify the Pledge of Allegiance as adopted by the Congress in 1954, signed by President Eisenhower, and supported 91% of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our unalienable rights come from God.

 

How can the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, overrule the culture & maintain its moral authority? It can’t. The Supreme Court begins each day with the proclamation “God save the United States and this honorable Court.” This phrase was not adopted as a ceremonial phrase of no meaning: it was adopted because justices in the 1820s actually wanted to call on God to save the US & the Court

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 6 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Education: Removing “God” from Pledge assaults our identity

 

There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the secular Left’s relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square. The 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional represents a fundamental assault on our American identify. A court that would unilaterally modify the Pledge of Allegiance as adopted by the Congress in 1954, signed by President Eisenhower, and supported by 91% of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our unalienable rights come from God.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 6 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Government Reform: Insist on judges who understand our rights come from God

 

For most Americans, the blessings of God have been the basis of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as a unique country.

 

For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation.

 

For most Americans, the prospect of a ruthlessly secular society that would forbid public reference to God and systematically remove all religious symbols from the public square is horrifying.

 

Yet, the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans is rejected by a media-academic-legal elite. Our schools have been steadily driving the mention of God out of American history. Our courts have been literally outlawing references to God, religious symbols, and prayer.

 

We have passively accepted the judiciary’s assault on the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is time to insist on judges who understand that throughout our history, Americans have believed that their fundamental rights come from God and are therefore unalienable.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 9-10 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Government Reform: Insist on judges who understand our rights come from God

 

·         For most Americans, the blessings of God have been the basis of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as a unique country.

 

·         For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation.

 

·         For most Americans, the prospect of a ruthlessly secular society that would forbid public reference to God and systematically remove all religious symbols from the public square is horrifying.

 

Yet, the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans is rejected by a media-academic-legal elite that finds religious expression frightening and threatening, or old-fashioned and unsophisticated.

 

It is time to insist on judges who understand that throughout our history–and continuing to this day–Americans have believed that their fundamental rights come from God and are therefore unalienable.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 9-10 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Government Reform: Our rights come from God, not from government

 

As the most consequential document of freedom in human history, the Declaration of Independence is the most important document held in the National Archives. It was influenced by the Magna Carta of 1215, a contract of rights between the British king and his barons generally regarded as the first step toward guaranteed liberties in Britain. However, the Declaration of Independence differs from the Magna Carta in one essential way: The Founding Fathers believed that our rights as human beings come from God, not from the kind or the state. Thus, they rejected the notion that power came through the monarch to the people; but rather, directly from God.

 

The Declaration of Independence contains four references to God: as lawmaker, as Creator, as Supreme Judge, and as Protector. The Declaration of Independence represents both the genesis and heart of American liberty. Our rights come from our Creator, not the government, sovereign, or King.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 29-30 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Principles & Values: Constitution says freedom OF religion, not FROM religion

 

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Amendment I begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

 

The language clearly prohibits the establishment of an official national religion, while at the same time protecting the observance of religion in both private and public spaces. In fact, two of the principal authors of the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were also our third and fourth presidents, respectively, both attended church services in the Capitol building, the most public of American spaces. During Jefferson’s presidency, church services were also held in the Treasury building and the Supreme Court. Therefore, these Founding Fathers clearly saw no conflict in opposing the establishment of an official religion while protecting the freedom of religious expression in the public square.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 31-32 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Principles & Values: Supreme Court hostile to religion, but building based on it

 

While recent years have seen increasing hostility from the courts to public displays of religion, the Supreme Court is filled with them. Notice that all sessions begin with the Court’s marshal announcing: “God save the United States and this honorable court.”

 

Throughout history, decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized that we are a religious nation. For example, in the 1952 case Zorach vs. Clauson, the court upheld a statute that allowed students to be released from school to attend religious classes.

 

The most striking religious imagery at the Supreme Court building is that of Moses with the Ten Commandments. Affirming the Judeo-Christian roots of our legal system, they can be found in several places: at the center of the sculpture over the east portico of the building, inside the actual courtroom, and finally, engraved over the chair of the Chief Justice, and on the bronze doors of the Supreme Court itself. There is also a sculpted marble depiction of Mohammad on the wall.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 85-89 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Principles & Values: Creator as source of liberty is literally written in stone

 

The first rays of sun on our Nation’s Capital each morning illuminate [the Washington Monument]. And there on the top is inscribed Laus Deo (“Praise be to God”). These simple words, for the eyes of heaven alone, are a fitting reflection of George Washington’s conviction that liberty is owed to divine blessing.

 

[One can see in any tour of Washington DC] that our Creator is the source of American liberty–it is literally written into the rock, mortar, and marble of American history.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.130-131 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Principles & Values: Media-academic-legal elite imposes radical secularist vision

 

A media-academic-legal elite is energetically determined to impose a radically secularist vision against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. This outlook rejects the wisdom if the founding generation as outdated and treats the notion that our liberties come from God as a curious artifact from the 1770s but of little practical importance for more enlightened times.

 

This elite is especially hard at work in the courts and in the classrooms where it is attempting to overturn two centuries of American self-understanding of religious freedom and political liberty.

 

In the courts, we see a systematic effort by this elite to purge all religious expression from American public life. The ongoing attempt to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance is only the most well-known of these mounting efforts.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.131-132 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Civil Rights: Five justices banned school prayer against American majority

 

The views by the media-academic-legal elite are completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans. Once five justices decided we could not pray in schools or at graduation or could not display the Ten Commandments, we lost those rights. If five justices decide we cannot say that our nation is “under God,” then we will also lose that right.

 

They are not only arbitrarily rewriting the law of the land but are usurping the legitimate rights of the legislative branch to make the laws.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Government Reform: Supreme Court has become permanent Constitutional Convention

 

The media-academic-legal elite have been successful to date at purging all religious expression from American public life. Their success is because for the last 50 years the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention in which the whims of five appointed lawyers have rewritten the meaning of the Constitution. Under this new, all-powerful model of the Court, the Constitution and the law can be redefined by federal judges unchecked by the other two coequal branches of government.

 

This power grab by the Court is a modern phenomenon and a dramatic break in American history. The danger is that the courts will move us from a self-understanding that we are one nation “under God”, to a nation under the rule of the state, where rights are accorded to individuals not by our Creator, but by those in power ruling over them. History is replete with examples of this failed model of might-makes-right–Nazism, fascism, communism–and their disastrous consequences.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Education: Replace multiculturalism with patriotic education

 

In the classroom, the very concept of America is under assault. The traditional notion of our country as a union of one people, the American people, has been assaulted by multiculturalism, situational ethics, and a values-neutral model in which Western values and American history are ignored or ridiculed. Unless we act to reverse this trend, our next generation will grow up with no understanding of core American values. This will destroy America as we know it, as surely as if a foreign conqueror had overwhelmed us.

 

It is absolutely necessary to establish a firm foundation of patriotic education upon which further knowledge can be built; otherwise, Americans will lack understanding of American values & how important & great it is to be an American.

 

It is important to understand what makes America so unique and why generations of diverse people immigrated to this great land for freedom and opportunity. If Americans do not appreciate America, then how can they be ready and willing to defend her?

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.133-134 Dec 31, 2006

 

The above quotations are from Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future, by Newt Gingrich (published October 10, 2006).

 

For all the criticism about Newt Gingrich’s past we must understand these are the thoughts of a man with Christian Values and a person that is a fiscal Conservative.

 

On the other hand Mitt Romney is not a Christian. He is a Mormon. Romney’s business experience is undoubtedly excellent; however his Conservative bona fides are definitely sketchy. Romney if elected will be a RINO that will make his goal to satisfy the Left and the Conservative Republicans. The cost will be the continued influence of the Left in Congress and a Leftist Activist Judiciary to continue to transform America away from its heritage by erasing the influence of Christianity.

 

JRH 1/29/12 (Hat Tip: Newsmax and The Hill)