Injudicious Religious Activism — Left wing churches ignore the law, engage in the equivalent of judicial activism.

Injudicious Religious Activism

Left wing churches ignore the law, engage in the equivalent of judicial activism.

Read More…

function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) { if (type == “comments”) { extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID)); } else { extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID)); } if( document.getElementById ) { if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) { if( entryLink != 0 ) { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”; htmlObj.blur(); } else { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } }
The Wall Street Journal, in its July 20, 2007, edition printed an article based on a Time Magazine story in the July 30 edition.  The first two paragraphs are the following:

Sanctuary Drive Could Bolster Religious Left
TIME—JULY 30

A movement to give sanctuary in churches to illegal immigrants threatened with deportation might bring new firepower to the long-quiescent religious left, writes David Van Biema in Time. Inspired by churches who offered sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing civil wars in the 1980s, members of a range of religious faiths have launched the New Sanctuary Movement in cities around the U.S. The effort has been small-scale, housing eight undocumented immigrants in churches in five U.S. cities. (While immigration authorities legally can raid a church, they rarely do.) NSM activists say four more congregations will house immigrants in August, and the mainline Protestant United Church of Christ has resolved to work with it.

A few observations:

First, deciding to break the law of the land solely on the basis of what an individual or a group, including a church, thinks the law ought to be is essentially what activist judges do when they ignore the Constitution or statute law and, in effect, legislate from the bench.

Second, such action undermines respect for all of the law.  When people see others break the law with impunity or create new law via judicial opinion, they wonder why they should obey laws that displease them. 

Liberals make a big to-do about majority rule and the sovereignty of public opinion.  In the case of sheltering illegals against lawful deportation, clearly the public is overwhelmingly opposed to these churches’ actions.

Third, one of the entities backing the campaign to break the immigration laws is the United Church of Christ.  One wonders by what right they employ the name of Jesus Christ.  The words of Jesus and the Apostle Paul are in direct contradiction to their campaign.

Then [Jesus] said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.  For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.  This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (Romans 13:1-7)

Back to summary…

Advertisements

They Don’t Really Support The Troops, And Now, They Slander Them

They Don’t Really Support The Troops, And Now, They Slander Them

olhjkn

“Those on the cutting edge of progressive opinion are beginning to give up on even pretending to support the troops. Instead, they now slander the troops.”

by William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
07/30/2007, Volume 012, Issue 43
h/t John Gill

Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq, emerged on the American political scene two years ago. Distraught and unstable, she was shamelessly exploited by opponents of George W. Bush and the war while such exploitation seemed to pay political benefits. When she became an embarrassment, she, like others before her, was tossed onto the trash heap of history by her progressive minders.

Sheehan was useful to the antiwar left in a particular way. As Jonathan Cohn put it in the September 12, 2005, New Republic, “Sheehan’s value isn’t as a barometer of public opinion or as a source of foreign policy wisdom. It’s as proof of one very simple point: that a person can criticize the war and still support the troops.”

(Read More)

Posted by Pat Dollard 19 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

The Democrats Want You…to shut your traps

Democrats Overtly Support Terrorists against US Citizens

Democrats Overtly Support Terrorists against US Citizens

<br</br<br</brby Sher Zieve
 

Just when we thought Congress could not become more demented—it has. As the Democrat-run Senate and House of Representatives are experiencing their lowest approval rating in recent recorded history (Zogby polling ranks said approval at only 14%), with the stroke of 2 pens Democrat leaders have removed provisions from legislation that would have protected US citizens from being sued for reporting potential terrorist activities. This is the latest addition to the ever growing Democrat Death Wish List that its leaders have been preparing since taking Congressional leadership in 2006. In this latest fiasco, leader of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stripped out the provision that would have allowed limited immunity for reports of witnessed suspicious behavior. Reps. Peter King’s (R-NY) and Steve Pearce (R-NM) had drafted the ‘John Doe Protection Amendment’ after the infamous Flying Imams simulated airline hijacking behaviors.

 

Now that the Democrats have deleted and destroyed any protections for US citizens who would report potential terrorist activities, the terrorists are free to pursue their evil intent and mission with full support from the Democrat Congress. Suffice it to say, we-the-people had no participation in this suicide pact decision. Congressman Steve Pearce commented that the Democrats had to make a choice as to “whether they are going to side with the American people or with the terrorists” and Rep. King noted: “This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists.” And, in true Democrat anti-American/anti-we-the-people fashion Congressional Democrats chose the terrorists’ side. As was to be expected, both the ACLU and CAIR (the pro-Hamas Council on American-Islamic Relations) are thrilled by this patently insane decision.

 

Note: This is what the 2006 Congressional elections have wrought. Instead of only appeasing our enemies, the MoveOn.org Democrat leaders are now actively working for the Islamist terrorist enemies. House and Senate Democrats have now overtly—and with no apologies to the American people—taken another huge step toward effectively handing the United States of America over to the terrorists. Their suicide treaty is almost complete. Is there anyone out there who still remembers when these sorts of behaviors were considered treason?

 

With the Democrats’ new absence of fear of anyone stopping their treachery, they have now been unleashed to do whatever it takes to end this country. This is not an exaggeration. In fact, considering the dire consequences of the Democrats’ pro-terrorist vote, it is an understatement. Much the same as our US Border Patrol Agents now fear reprisal for doing their jobs—Agents Ramos and Compean are bearing the brunt of pro-illegals obsessive US Attorney prosecutions—the American people must now face lawsuits or even jail if they report suspicious potential terrorist activity! What in the name of any common sense—at all—is going on with our ostensible ‘leaders’? Have they finally, completely and irrevocably lost their minds? Do they believe they have a God-given right to support the enemies of humanity—whoever and whatever they are? Note: I do not believe God condones anti-human behavior. Or is it that our leaders have sunk into some dark abyss and are forcing the American people to join them and participate in their own self-destruction?
 

As was the Illegal Immigrant Amnesty bill, the John Doe Protection Amendment is a non-partisan issue. All of us—Republican, Democrat and Independent—are impacted by not being allowed to report probable terrorist activities. If we don’t, we and our loved ones could very likely die. If we do, we are now being told by Congressional leaders that if we do so we could face financial ruin, jail time or both. If this doesn’t make sense to you, contact your Senators and House Representatives and advise them that your life is worth at least as much as are theirs. You might also tell them that if they do not resuscitate the John Doe Amendment and continue to vote against your right to self-protection, they will be voted out of office. By the way, has anyone out there considered using the public’s right to recall rogue elected officials?

 

This latest insane anti-US citizen protection decision badly and possibly irreversibly impacts the American people—directly. Is this any way to run a county? No. But, it is the most flagrant and definitive pronouncement, yet, to end it.



References:

 

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=942668

 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

 

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
 

http://www.freeborderagents.com/

 

New Media Alliance Television

Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org). The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

Most Iranians oppose regime

Most Iranians oppose regime

Many would endorse ‘Velvet Revolution’ or even foreign military intervention

By Bob Unruh, © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose people in Iran by a 6-4 majority are in support of having him removed from power by foreign military action

A new survey reveals that 92 percent of the subjects of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s totalitarian government do not believe their nation’s role is positive, and two-thirds would support a “Velvet Revolution” to remove him from power.

The survey, by the Center For the Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights, found that almost six out of 10 Iranians would support a foreign military action for the purpose of taking Ahmadinejad out of the role as dictator. CONTINUE

Posted by Ted Belman @ 11:49 am |

The ‘Bumper Sticker’ That Blows Up

Peace is the Wrong Objective

Peace is the Wrong Objective

By Salomon Benzimra

I would like to sketch out the basis of any agreement in the future that, in my view, could bring a lasting peace in the Middle East.

I would preface any tentative agreement on the Middle East with a real Declaration of Principles (DoP).  Not the kind of Declaration that initiated the Oslo Accords in 1993, with its 17 Articles and its many Annexes where the words “truth”, “facts”, “justice” and “history” are nowhere to be seen.  No, the new DoP should invoke universally accepted values that extend across cultures, religions and beliefs, and which should be acknowledged before dealing with operating procedures.  These are the four (4) principles that should be established in the DoP:
1. Peace is not the objective to be pursued; peace is only the expected outcome of the pursuit of a more important objective.  In the past 14 years, we have seen a multitude of Middle East “peace plans” and as many failures to implement them.  All these plans set “peace” as the objective, often peace at any cost even if it flew in the face of reality.  No wonder they all failed.  Real peace should be more than a cessation of hostilities.  There was some sort of a phony “peace” in the early 1800s between slaves and their masters in the southern U.S. states.  I think everyone would agree that this is not the kind of “peace” that should be sought because what was missing was the notion of justice. Thomas Aquinas would agree: “Peace is the work of justice indirectly, in so far as justice removes the obstacles to peace.”
2. Justice should be upheld as a precondition to peace.  We cannot imagine a long-lasting peace where basic principles of justice are trampled.  We are not talking here about local judicial decisions but universal principles as they have been recognized by international bodies in the relations between nations and peoples.  But as in any court of law, justice cannot be served if the evidence is hidden or mangled, hence the need to identify factual truths.  Justice and truth are indissociable.  Benjamin Disraeli put it in a more dynamic form: “Justice is Truth in Action”
3. Factual truths are the necessary foundation of justice.  This is the anchor point to which the whole process should be tied.  I am not as naïve as to believe that truth always prevails in courts of law.  Too often the rhetoric of skillful lawyers has the upper hand.  This is unfortunate but in the vast majority of cases judicial decisions respect the truth of the evidence submitted to the court.  In international affairs, diplomats rely more on ambiguities (often of their own making) than on the plain truth, which in part explains many of the hot spots in the world today, the Middle East being a prime example.  Here, we must be aware of the current penchant for “truth relativism”: you have your truth; I have mine; both are equally true, even if they are incompatible!  This nonsense is particularly dear to those intent on obfuscating reality, and we see its deleterious effect in daily events where appeasement is the norm in the guise of “fairness” and a misplaced “evenhandedness.”  The Talmud warned us that “if you add to truth, you subtract from it.”  The DoP should emphasize the primacy of factual truths related to recent historical events, especially when they are fully documented as to leave little or no doubt on their authenticity.  “Truth should not be mingled, obscured or discolored by passion and interest” (Jonathan Swift).  There is a healthy “cold impartiality” of factual truths, as long as they are not used selectively.
4. No disposition derived from these principles should be applied selectively.  It is well known that the selective application of the law is plain injustice.  Inasmuch as the principles listed in the DoP are universal in nature, their selective application should be immediately detected and rejected.  How many times have we seen basic truths trampled shamelessly or simply ignored for political expediency!   The fault also lies on those silent voices who did not rise up when they should.  As Winston Churchill pointed out in a speech at the House of Commons in 1916, “The truth is incontrovertible.  Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is.”  Any informed observer would agree that panic, ignorance and malice are all staples of current Middle East “peace processes.”
To summarize the DoP:  rather than focusing on peace, I would propose the following sequence: a) identify factual truths;  b) rely on universal principles of justice to be applied non-selectively;  c) expect – and promote – a peaceful outcome to the conflict.  In that order.
Contrast this with the ongoing “two-state solution”, a pre-determined outcome which has been used as a founding principle to a “peace” that will never be reached.  Last week, as soon as Tony Blair was selected as the new envoy to the Middle East, he rushed to declare:

“The absolute priority is to try to give effect to what is now the consensus across the international community – that the only way of bringing stability and peace to the Middle East is a two-state solution.”  

Failure guaranteed before he even starts.
Some may argue that this DoP is not conducive to peace in the region.  Let them state openly that truth is irrelevant and that it deserves to be trampled for the sake of political expediency.  Surely, they should have the courage to stand behind their indefensible position.