Saturday, September 27, 2008

Short US History Of Church & State

All citizens should be reminded that, before the Revolution, there were in the UK and the "Colonies" established, government supported, churches which could call upon taxing powers for their own benefit and to the exclusion of other churches. They also were able to direct what pastors said and were forbidden to say and, in theory, require all residents to attend their services.

After the revolution the First Amendment was written so that the Federal Government would not be able to establish such churches (Some states retained them for some years) AND that the Federal government would place no limits on worship, such being the "free exercise of religion" noted in the Bill Of Rights. Of course, many public officials (Including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln) were, for many years, free and expected to call upon God in their public declarations. This was NOT changed by Thomas Jefferson's private letter to a private organization which spoke of some sort of "wall of separation" between church and state.

For many years thereafter, the churches did not hesitate to attack or defend political issues or those involved in them. The clearest case of such is the religious base of the abolutionist movement which led underground-railroad movement, the transfer of military weapons ie "Beecher's Bibles") to anti-slavery advocates and the Civil War and resultant emacipation of Black slaves from their White, Native American and Black owners.

For most of this nation's history, there was public recognition of the Christian basis of our laws and customs, with ongoing public prayers and other religious-based activities at public events in public buildings. Christianity is still the "majority religion" in the USA.

Since about 1948 there has been a steady and growing attack on the religious history and practices of the American People, with special assaults being made on Christianity (Although not on the Jewish Faith or, especially, the newer and aggressive followers of Islam). (Two of the stranger aspects of this is the approval of Jewish and Muslim symbols in the New York City schools while Christian symbols are excluded AND the removal of Christmas from public schools while California students are required to practice Islamic rituals in class.)

At this time religious leaders are forbidden to use their facilities to declare the orthodoxy or moral standing or social-worth of political candidates, organizations and parties or face punishment by having tax-exempt status removed. This, in essence, is a limitation on the "free exercise of religion" and the establishment of an "anti-religious/secular/atheist state church" with the power to tax and to limit what is considered religious teaching. Such limits and government practices are forbidden by the First Amendment.

The proclaimed initiative of Pastor Luke Emnich of West Bend and others across the USA to challenge the tax code punishments of free speech and free exercise of religion are to be applauded and defended.

I only wish that my Church would join in on this issue.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Punish Financial Offenders

The plan(s) for dealing with the current, financial, disaster are essentially secret. However, I have not heard the President, or any Member of the Congress or anyone else in a position of authority or influence call for: The firing of the CEOs and all boards-of-directors members of "Fannie Mae", "Fannie Mack" AND of all companies who contributed to this disaster, to be implemented without any termination pay, stock benefits or other rewards for them; And, such legal measures as would recover from those persons, as individuals, every last cent they have to repay the People for their misconduct, It might be well to also ban them from any positions of financial trust for not less than 20-years

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The End Of British Law Has Begun--Warning

Even after the foundation of this nation, we still relied on British (English) law as to procedures, definitions, citations (Until we had our own) and all the convolutions which so appeal to judges. Even in the recent "hand-gun decision", some of the arguments presented to the Supreme Court of the USA were those in British law or directly based on such. Why? Because the flow of such a legal system was towards one law for all under it.

The elimination of "benefit of clergy", sanctuary, trial-by-combat and trials before the House of Lords for peers all moved all of the Queen's subjects towards equality under law.

Now, Muslims have their own legal system (Sharia) inflicted on themselves for domestic case (Where Muslim women complaining of mistreatment have few, if any, real rights (Especially with the pro-Sharia cooperation of the Police) and the judgments of Islamic judges enforced by the British courts. Now, Muslim men are effectively beyond the reach of democratically passed domestic-relations laws binding on other British subjects. (Family pressures, with the usual Islamic threats of murder and beating, as well as that of police will insure that women "volunteer" to accept Sharia jurisdiction.)

I do wonder how long it will be before Muslims maintain a legal claim that their Mosques are secure from even warrant-based searches for fugitives and their stores of weapons.

For those in the USA, the Commonwealth and other nations with British based law systems, the degeneration of the UK's law away from "equal justice under law" should be a warning. For the British, it may be a sign that they truly need: A new government; A new Chief Justice; And, a new Archbishop of Canterbury. For the Scots, it may mean that even more serious consideration be given to disunion.

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Left's Envy Of Gov. Palin

It is good that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel printed Ms. Ellen Bravo's anti-Palin column ("Palin: Is this good for women? No...; 7 September 2008; Page-3J; Please see below for "it") as it so clearly shows the primary motivation for the unfeminine-feminists attacks on Governor Palin, which is collective and individual envy.

As a group, those professional-feminists (As opposed to feminine professionals) envy the choice of the Republican Party, as opposed to "their" Party, to nominate a woman to the second highest elective office in the nation---With a very good choice of occupying the highest such office. (They might have predicted this after the appointment of a woman to the highest Cabinet post, that of Secretary of State, by the present Administration.)

Both as a group and, more certainly as individuals, those limited persons envy a complete woman---Successful in business, marriage, politics, family life (With some of the same problems and challenges which face real women), sport and spirit. Every word those empty critics write or speak reeks of jealousy of a better person, and woman, than they are.

There is, of course, a considerable measure of fear in such attacks: Fear that the American People will realize what a "real woman" is and elect her to the Vice-Presidency of the USA.

(The editors' descriptive note regarding Ms. Bravo neglected to mention that she teaches "Women's Studies", that most empty and artificial of academic non-disciplines, at UW-Milwaukee. Her poll of "friends" as a base for making conclusions gives some indication of the level of her scientific-academic thinking, which does not bode well for the academic reputation and standing of UW-Milwaukee and of the welfare of the students who err in enrolling in any of Ms. Bravo's courses. Ms. Bravo is, of course, fortunate that her mother was pro-life.)

Is Palin good for women? No
Her extremist positions are nothing like what women need
Posted: Sept. 6, 2008

Many pundits have labeled John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for the vice presidential slot on the Republican ticket as an off-message roll of the dice, based on a hasty vetting. In fact, it was probably the most calculated political move he’s made.
101157Election 2008
Today's News
and Features
Long race becomes a sprint: Wisconsin gets attention as parties lobby to swing voters
Nader: Independent candidate campaigns at UWM
Deep bench: Republicans keep an eye out for 2010 candidates
More: Political updates from the AP
DC Notes: Police lobby for more Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
Today's Analysis and Opinions
Weintraub: Families get ready for their close-ups
Nichols: Small-town America is home for Sarah Palin
Roe: Is Palin good for women? Yes
Bravo: Is Palin good for women? No
Sunday Symposium: The Presidential Campaign
Blogs: Best of the Wisconsin Blogs
More Coverage

SPECIAL SECTION: Complete coverage of the 2008 race for president

Also see:
State Politics
State, Local Races
All Politics Blog

McCain has a big problem: How does a die-hard conservative who’s championed every failed policy of the last eight years (tax cuts for the rich, the war in Iraq, the power of Big Oil) win the presidency against an inspiring proponent of change? He can’t win by relying solely on the conservative base, and yet he can’t win without them. He has to keep his mantle as a maverick while assuring the Big Boys he has no intention of bucking them.

His only chance of victory is to appeal to women disappointed about Hillary Clinton’s loss, to white working class voters and to independents, without alienating conservative extremists.

Former Hewlett Packard CEO and McCain finance chair Carly Fiorina might have sparked some women, but she’d antagonize the conservatives with her support for abortion rights and for requiring insurance policies that include Viagra to also cover birth control. The evangelicals would have had a similar reaction to Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, both of whom are pro-choice. Mitt Romney appealed to the base but would have been a finger in the eye to women and white workers — another four houses to account for.

Presto! Sarah Palin, a woman who uses the language of feminism while promoting a staunch evangelical conservative agenda: anti-abortion even in the case of rape and incest, pro-gun, pro-creationism, anti-gay rights, anti-sex education. A woman who introduces her husband as a proud member of the Steelworkers Union while working to open Alaska to Big Oil. A politician who claims to be an environmentalist while denying that global warming is “man-made.” Someone who thinks that the war in Iraq is “God’s task.” A mayor who threatened to fire a town librarian who refused to censor certain books.

In the eyes of John McCain, Palin brings another big plus. The press has bought into the Republican talking points and cloaked her, too, in the maverick mode. Like McCain, she stood her ground on certain reform issues. But on all the big questions of the day, both Palin and McCain walk lockstep with George W. Bush and against the interests of women and working people in general.

McCain is trying to pass off Palin as a career mom who knows the difficulties of balancing job and family — hoping women won’t notice the ticket’s opposition to every measure that would ease those difficulties, from expanding family leave to paid sick days to equal pay.

The real question isn’t why McCain chose Palin, but why the media continues to give them both cover, pasting on the “maverick” and “moderate” labels as if listing these terms were equivalent to listing party affiliation and state.

Recently, I conducted an informal poll among friends, all smart, politically aware people who keep up with the news. A dozen of the 15 people I asked had never seen the clip of a befuddled McCain stroking his chin when a reporter asked about his position on a proposal to require insurance companies that cover Viagra to cover contraceptive products, reminding him that he’d voted against it.

“I certainly do not want to discuss that issue,” McCain replied. “I don’t know enough about it to give you an informed answer because I don’t recall the vote.”

Had that clip — or any of numerous examples of McCain’s other extremist positions and slip-ups — been played more than 600 times in four days, as the “Dean scream” was, today’s polls would be very different.

McCain is counting on women to be cheap and superficial about his selection. Even more, he’s counting on a docile media to be his ally as he tries to present Palin as a feisty hockey mom to distract attention from the pair’s extremist substance.

It’s high time for the public to meet the real John McCain and the real Sarah Palin.

Ellen Bravo is an author and longtime activist on working women’s issues. Her Web site is

Friday, September 05, 2008

Blame Not GOP/Bush For Unemployment #s

If blame can be assigned to the current, cyclical, unemployment rate it should be given to those (Especially the Democrat controlled Congress AND such newspapers which support an essentially open borders policy) who oppose the full control of our borders and mass expulsion of illegal immigrants. After all, such illegals as have been invading the USA cause a net loss to the economy, national income, criminal justice and other social costs, balance-of-payments very much in excess of any contributions they make.

Such illegal immigration costs US citizens (Who are among the hardest workers in the world) many jobs by direct and illegal employment. The costs to the economy also results in the exportation of jobs and the movement of employers to "cheaper" parts of the USA or totally "off-shore".

I sometimes wonder which congress-critters and newspaper publishers and senior editors have personal investments in those few industries who actually make money from the employment (And, often, abuse) of illegal immigrants

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Logical Extention Of "Hate Speech" Laws/Codes

The ongoing Islamic attacks on Western Civilization (Or, what is left of it) is not limited to bombs-and-bullets. That attack also includes attacks on free speech and anyone's free press as illustrated by the copyrighted article reproduced below. Free inquiry, for all the harm it causes from time-to-time, is a better defense for civilization than the limits imposed by the mad-Mullahs or their front-organization henchmen.

If you think your newspaper or your favorite university or college is protected from such attacks, you have been out of contact with the reality of today's alleged journalism and of academic settings. In those institutions any, however politely reasoned, questioning or criticism of Islam will bring retribution or, much more dangerous, voluntary self-editing-out of such materials from lecture rooms and newspapers' editorials and news reports.

The same dynamic holds true, to some extent, as to other subjects such as: Affirmative Action; Human impact on climate changes; The limits of Darwin's theories; Demonstrable differences between men-and-women; The extent that racial differences impact on our crime rates and the like impact of both legal and, more specially, illegal immigrants on crime and other social charges; The role male homosexuals have in spreading STDs, TB and other diseases; The validity of "probability" as to on-the-street and in-the-airports evaluation of select persons (ie Arab and Black males, Ages 16-30 years) as potential threats to others; AND, too many like topics to list here.

If you support "hate speech laws/codes", you are most likely contributing to the death of free speech, a free press and academic freedom.

As far as the French (And Muslim) lawyers noted below: Tues-les tous! Dieu Redonnatdea les sein!

September 04, 2008, 0:00 a.m.

Eurotrashing Free Speech---NRO
How some Europeans and the U.N. are helping Islamists undermine freedom.

By Clifford D. May

In Europe, free speech may end with neither a bang nor a whimper — but with a lawyerly assist.

It was three years ago this month that the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published twelve editorial cartoons satirizing Islamist terrorism. Some Muslim organizations objected. Protests were organized. Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran were set ablaze. Dozens of people were killed. The cartoonists and their editors received death threats from such characters as Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza.

Kurt Westergaard is the artist who drew the most iconic and controversial cartoon: He depicted Mohammed with his turban turned into a bomb, its fuse lit. His message was clear: Here is how Mohammed appears to those who learn about Islam from suicide bombers. Westergaard is neither apologetic nor regretful. But he has said as clearly as he can that his drawing was aimed “at fanatic Islamist terrorists — a small part of Islam.”

Westergaard has required police protection ever since. Last year he had to leave his home after Danish intelligence learned of a “concrete” assassination plot. Earlier this year, he also was forced to leave the hotel in which he had been staying because he posed “too much of a security risk” to other guests and staff.

And then, in June, a “prosecutor general” in Jordan — a Muslim nation usually described as moderate — issued a subpoena demanding Westergaard face a lawsuit in an Amman courtroom.

The 73-year-old cartoonist does not plan to submit. He said that although it ought to be obvious that “my problem is with terrorists not Muslims,” people are free to interpret his work as they wish. “Disagreement is very important and if we disagree,” he told a reporter, “it does not mean that we have to sue each other and kill each other.”

Apparently, it is not only Islamists who find that logic unpersuasive. The English language Daily Jordan Times reports that attorney Osama Bitar, an attorney affiliated with the lawsuit (on behalf of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us” campaign — such an inspiring name!) has been in contact with French attorneys who “have expressed their support for the campaign and its lawsuit against Westergaard.”

“The lawyers are studying the possibility of filing a lawsuit against the cartoonist in accordance with French and international law such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Bitar. He added that the French attorneys also are considering contacting colleagues in other European countries to file separate lawsuits against Westergaard.

Bitar enthused: “The idea of European lawyers joining us in the campaign and supporting our efforts is tremendous. We are defending Islam in a civilized way and are trying to hold those responsible for the caricatures accountable according to the law.”

Additional legal assistance may be on the way. The United Nations General Assembly is considering a resolution sponsored by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The ostensible purpose of “Combating Defamation of Religion” — yet another inspiring name! — is to stamp out “incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.” As for other religions, rest assured this resolution will guarantee them as much protection and respect as Christianity, Judaism, Baha’i, and Hinduism now receive in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any of the other sponsoring nations.

While General Assembly resolutions do not actually have the force of law, they provide diplomatic cover for tyrants eager to muzzle critics, and they are routinely cited by leftist “human rights” groups and journalists as though they were international law.

Felice Gaer, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan federal body, says it’s clear that the OIC countries are attempting to “mainstream” prohibitions on any speech that could be considered critical of Islam.

“They are turning freedom of expression into restriction of expression,” she said.

And the European Center for Law and Justice has filed a brief with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights warning that such resolutions “are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression.” The brief argues that the resolution is incompatible with any serious conception of free speech, that it substitutes instead “a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech.”

It’s encouraging to know that some Europeans are concerned. It will be instructive to see what they do when it becomes clear — as I’ll bet you a Euro it will — that the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights — won’t lift a finger.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.