Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Stealing Elections & Treason

In November, 2012 we will have an election of greatest import in a very divided nation.

If, and only if, the Democrats attempt to steal that election (As they did the last senatorial election in Minnesota and the last gubernatorial election in the State of Washington) I will consider that action a direct attack on the USA and, therefore, an act of treason. .

Prime suspects and candidates for punishment for that most horrid crime would  be all members of the DNC, Democrat Members of the Congress and other Democrat leaders. I am willing to extend this criminal definition to lying journalists and law-distorting judges.

"The Left" should recall:
1. Most of the 1,000,000 large-caliber firearms privately held in the USA are owned by those on "The Right", who know how to use them and maintain stocks of ammunition; And,
2. Those persons are smart and motivated enough to construct alternative weapons  which "The Left" can be expected to be too lazy to do as they usually wait for someone else to do work for them.

On the other hand, any "Left" riots, upon the expected victories of the Republicans, can be dealt with by specially marking such traitors with .32" (The size of "OO" buckshot), 9mm, .36", ,45" and like holes.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Death Penalty, Chaput, The Church & The PEOPLE

I have mixed feelings on Capitol Punishment. If there was a way of determining guilt or innocence, beyond any doubt I would favor it for all unlawful killings---Including that by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. Baring that, I note that I am more-or-less content with the law in Wisconsin where there has been no legal executions for more than 150-years.

However, Archbishop Chaput (In his "Justice and Death"; NCR; Sept. 23, 2012; Page-8) AND all who join him as to opposing to all or most use of the death penalty on the following grounds.
1. Jesus The Christ did not address this issue; His :"Forgive them..." statement appears to apply only to him as the Son Of God.
2. Saint Paul certainly approved of that penalty even if it were justly applied to him.
3. As my evangelical friends would state "Opposition to the death penalty is unscriptural".
4. The early "Fathers Of The Church" were divided on this issue and have left us no definitive resolution.
5. In providing an effective defense for the Church and its members , St. Bernard of Clairvaux supported the just use of deadly force. [It appears that the State has the right to defend its members by the same force as do individuals resisting criminal attacks as provided for under Natural Law, as individuals OR as the State in this democracy in such jurisdictions as that penalty represents the will of the People.]

The Archbishop is also wrong as to convicting and executing mentally ill. After many, many,efforts to find a better test for either and both the best test known to us is: Did the defendant know the difference between right and wrong?". As challenges to the conviction of such as Terrance Williams are core to the too many appeals allowed in such cases, it would rationally appear that he has been found to have that understanding and, according to the laws approved by the People of Pennsylvania, is justly subject to execution.

Archbishop Chaput was also very wrong in saying that the approval of the People (He used the sub-set of Catholics) for the death penalty does not make it right as the People are the State as supported by St. Paul and the civil principles of our Republic. They are not wrong because they disagree with him.

Monday, October 08, 2012

Pulpit Freedom Sunday

This last Sunday was "Pulpit Freedom Sunday". Many pastors preached on the qualities, or lack thereof, of political candidates and parties. This appears to endanger their Federal tax exemption under current law and IRS regulations. Some had the courage to record such homilies and mail them to the IRS.

I did not note this news in my local paper or the broadcast news reports. I will look for such in the next few days. I will not "hold my breath" for hope of such reporting.

Those who oppose this exercise of the free speech provisions of the Bill Of Rights' first amendment claim that it violates the "separation of church and state" provision of that Article. What such persons either forget or dishonestly fail to mention, is that the "separation clause" was inserted to prevent only the Federal Government from establishing a national, state, church as was the common practice throughout the Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic (Where it still exists) nations. In fact, some of the original States maintained official churches into the 1820s.

They also fail to note that the "separation clause" was extended to the Nation: On the basis of a private letter of Thomas Jefferson ; In opposition to then almost 200-years of official, religion-based, statements by the USA's leaders including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln; And, that majority opinion of SCOTUS in the leading court case in this matter was inflicted on us by a one-time active member of the KKK whose dislike of some Christian Churches was consistent with that terrorist organization's positions.

Since Atheism is a religion  it should not be allowed to use the IRS or the Courts to suppress other religions---Which is now the case and is an unconstitutional establishment of a national religion.

If Pastor Doe wishes to declare that Candidate Jones and his Party are morally empty and members of his church should not vote for him or then AND Pastor Roe wishes to declare the opposite from the pulpit and during religious services, both should be allowed (If not encouraged) to do so. [Certainly, many "Black" churches have had political candidates speak from their pulpits in the 2008 and earlier campaign periods---Without penalties imposed by the IRS.] 

Perhaps they should have reminded us that the original "Civil Rights Movement", of the 1840s & 1850s was forced into the public view and public square by sermons from the pulpits.  Such verbal support was supplemented by, for example, Rev. Henry W. Beecher's shipment of "Beecher's Bibles" , being breach loading carbines far in advance of then current army weapons,  to the "Free State" forces in "Bloody Kansas" where a preview of the War Between The States was a violent reality..

I am curious as to why all Christian pastors,  Rabbis and the leaders of other religions did universally forward their right to free, political, speech.

Monday, October 01, 2012

A Most Dangerous US General

The Associated Press  has reported  that USMC General John R. Allen as laid the blame for the increased "insider attacks" or "green on blue attacks" of Afghanistan's police/military personnel against that of the USA and its allies as based on the fasting of Ramadan during a period of very hot weather!

That general, by his "politically correct" but false, comments endangering the lives of our and our allies' troops AND, therefore, endangering our national security!. The real danger comes from those who (Like the traitor NIdal Hasan of Fort Hood infamy) cleave to the basic teachings of that criminal-terrorist movement known as Islam. That ideology requires its followers to wage war (Jihad which is NOT a striving for personal perfection!) against all "unbelievers" until they join Islam or accept the slave-like state of dhimmitude or are murdered.

General John R. Allen is dangerous to the USA and its troops and must be removed from any position of authority.