Free Speech Is In Real Danger at MIZZOU!

I’m sure most of the people in America are aware of the threat to free speech at United States universities. Also, there still is an attitude of racism that is all too prevalent. But…the “dialog” is dangerously threatening the exercise of free speech.

A good editorial has been written in the New York Times expressing the idea that even though differences exist between the political left and right, there is a need for reinstituting a spirit of listening in an understanding way to opposing views. I recommend that we, Americans, read that editorial, “MIZZOU, Yale, and Free Speech,” http://nyti.ms/1kOWJBY. There is a book that pertains strongly to this discussion—Jonathan Haidt’s book, “The Righteous Mind.” In that book, Mr. Haidt shows the differences between the thinking of the liberal and the conservative; the book promotes a spirit of listening to the other side of a lively debate without hating one another.

There is also another problem that is being caused by uproar over social issues on American campuses—that is the loss of educational activity it spawns. In the 1960’s when the uproar over political views and the Viet Nam war were raging at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, I was very happy that I was a student at Colorado A&M. At least there, I could study and learn without wasting my time protesting.

Disparate Impact—A Weapon of the Feds

The Federal government is fond of using “disparate impact” as an excuse for taking authority and decision-making away from states and municipalities in the name of political correctness and with the goal of increasing the strangle hold it has on those lesser polities.

The concept of disparate impact (unequal or incongruent effect) is the idea that some rules and regulations agreed upon by local government agencies cause undue harm and personal intrusion to various ethnic, economic, and religious groups.

In order to undo these intrusions, the Feds use the judicial organization to declare these rules (unacceptable to the Federal government) unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) because of the disparate impact the rules have on the target ethnic or religious group.

Examples of use of the disparate impact concept include the laws passed by states for voter identification, various zoning laws, employment, and housing regulations. The Feds often claim that regulations in these areas discriminate unfairly and disproportionately against persons or groups in certain protected classes. These classes of people include people with characteristics of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, and other traits, as well.  

All this disparate impact policy seems good and fair; but…the concept is being greatly overused. Of course, we must all remember that part of the function of the Supreme Court and the lesser courts of the land is to see that minority groups do not suffer the loss of their legitimate civil rights at the hands of an uncaring, selfish, and inconsiderate, majority. Nevertheless, I feel that MY rights and privileges are being disparately impacted by a “politically correct” judicial system that is seeing the concept of disparate impact as a tool to advance the pet schemes of a far-left, liberal, group of elite power managers and people-planners. I think that the principle of majority rule in our supposedly democratic society should have some impact of its own.

One example of a place where I strongly believe the idea of “disparate impact” has been abused is in the situation involving voter identification laws. I believe that photo-ID and other measures to ensure voter identification works no “disparate impact” on anyone. All legitimate voters in the United States can obtain state-issued ID cards without any difficulty. To declare that minority people cannot obtain ID cards easily is not true. I strongly suspect that those who would oppose voter ID laws are those who would like to have many Latino votes, even if those votes were cast by ineligible voters.

Another area where the idea of “disparate impact” has been abused is in the situation of same-sex marriage. If same-sex people want to live together, then, they can do so. But, to denigrate the time-tested institution of marriage because of the wishes of a very small minority of Americans is just foolish and extremely unfair to a large majority of us who revere marriage as the cornerstone of a healthy society.

How to Pick Out a President

My wife, Nancy, is a guest writer on this blog.

We should not pick a President on the following characteristics:
 
v  A sense of humor and a likeable smile. (Remember we did that last time.)

v  Arrogance and pride are not good qualities in a president. Those qualities lead to bad decisions.

v  A candidate whose plans are so broad they have no specific thoughts. Did we ever ask what change Obama would bring or what hope?

v  A candidate who would lead us down a dark path such as socialism. We went down that path with Marx about 100 years ago.  Lenin and Stalin who championed that path brought death and poverty to their people. Stalin killed an estimated 10,000,000 people.

What to look for:

v  A candidate should be one who tells the truth, not one who is a known liar or makes promises so big that what they say cannot possibly happen. (Al Gore said he invented the internet and was going to cure cancer during his presidency.)

v  A candidate should be one who can get along with other people, because, when president, he/she will need to work with Congress and other politicians. It is beneficial to the whole nation for the leader to be able to consider other people’s views.

v  A candidate should be one who has specific plans for his/her presidency, and who has some administrative experience of how to get it done.  He/she should have a plan on how to apply it.

v  A candidate should knows what the real issues are and where our danger or strength lies.

v  Most important: a candidate should know God and be willing lead us into godly ways, because our most recent path has been toward sin and evil.

 

 

Has America Become More Liberal?

On June 29, 1915, the New York Times ran a series of articles on the subject of this blog post. Below are some excerpts from two of the authors: Akhil Amar and Russell Moore.

America and its Constitution have been moving leftward from the founding to the present.

After ousting a hereditary monarch and an unelected Parliament, revolutionaries in the 1770s initially crafted the Articles of Confederation, a pact that emphasized states’ rights, almost to the exclusion of government by a central staff. A decade later, Americans tossed that overboard to create a liberal, egalitarian national government featuring far more central power to tax and regulate and far more democracy.

Reforms included an elected House, and an end to religious qualifications, and property qualifications for federal public service — all of which came from a stunning series of votes across the continent permitting unprecedented political participation and extraordinary free speech. A Bill of Rights, demanded by the populace, quickly supplemented the original plan, promising a range of liberal rights including free expression, religious equality and safeguards for criminal defendants.

Slavery and racism were the snakes in this Edenic garden, and in the 1860s a new generation of liberal reformers — self-described radical Republicans — arose to right old wrongs and move the Constitution further left. Three Reconstruction amendments promised racial equality, broader liberty and enhanced federal power to protect both. A half-century later, another generation of liberal reformers — self-described progressives — added another cluster of amendments that further expanded federal power, democratized and nationalized the Senate, enfranchised women and openly endorsed redistributive taxation.

A half century after that, in the 1960s, yet another generation of liberal reformers added another cluster of liberal amendments, extending democracy to the poor, the young and the District of Columbia (a largely black city). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  As these mid-century amendments were unfolding, the Warren Court revolutionized judicial doctrine by bringing it into alignment with a generally liberal Constitution.

The current era — the Age of Barack Obama and Anthony Kennedy — fits into a larger pattern. Barack Obama, a Black, left-of-center lawyer from Illinois was elected and re-elected in a manner that redeemed the deepest spirit of the 15th Amendment (black suffrage) and the 19th Amendment (women suffrage).

A majority of white men voted against Obama, but thanks to the earlier leftist amendments that allowed others to vote, Obama won, and two of his nominees sit on the current Supreme Court. Mainstream Protestants no longer dominate America’s highest offices. (Anthony Kennedy is a Catholic, as are five other justices; the other three are Jewish.) Obamacare is a culmination of the project of earlier constitutional progressives, who championed redistributive federal policies.

Does this all mean that America has permanently adopted a liberalism that is “cast in concrete?” Are we forever destined to more and more progressivism in government and “political correctness?”

History doesn’t work in the linear way conservatives fear that it will, forever changing the way we live. The 1960s brought real change in American culture in some ways good and in some ways bad, but it hardly brought the dawning of the Age of Aquarius the counter-culture expected. The Reagan years likewise brought about some lasting changes but it did not usher in the theocracy of television evangelists some hysterical progressives claimed was coming. Cultural revolutions tend to overreach, and generations tend to swing back and forth on cultural issues.

As a social conservative, I am hopeful because I think much of the culture — especially as it relates to the sexual revolution — is simply unsustainable. These developments are unsustainable because many of them are rooted in a view of human nature that often ignores biology, history and tradition as well as moral theology.

Moreover, a view of progress that ignores the limits of human nature and civilization often leads to the sort of excessive pride or arrogance that overreaches and self-contradicts.

Social conservatives must recognize the bend of the present culture but not over-interpret it as the bend of history itself. We must articulate why we believe, for instance, that children need both a mother and a father and why laissez-faire sexuality hurts people, families and communities. But we must do so by seeking to persuade those who fundamentally disagree with us, not just by screaming at them. And we must keep a witness going for future generations who may well be damaged by the choices of their parents. They may be seeking a different, more ancient, path.

The Abortion Industry Reaches a New Low in Ethical Behavior

Certain institutions in our country have reached a new moral low in basic integrity. The recent revelation of the sale of baby body parts by Planned Parenthood is absolutely scathing to my conscience. I just cannot imagine how a mother can have her unborn baby dismembered, in the first place; but, then, extracting parts of the innocent baby’s body and selling them at the hands of profit-seeking intermediaries is the epitome of blatant evil! How much farther can human morals sink?

Two videos have been released of senior Planned Parenthood abortion executives explaining in lurid detail, while chomping on salad and wine, how Planned Parenthood abortionists “crush” babies, using a “less crunchy” method of abortion in order to avoid harming organs destined for sale.

It’s despicable.

Yet, in response to the natural backlash of the American people, Planned Parenthood – the largest abortion business in America – has happily admitted it conducts this gruesome, inhuman practice.  It claims it is following “the highest ethical and legal standards.”

Planned Parenthood claims that is does not “profit in any way” from this grotesque business practice.  In fact, Planned Parenthood’s first response to the videos was to assert, “There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for…Planned Parenthood.” Does anyone in their right mind believe that Planned Parenthood is transferring these body parts to researchers around the country out of the goodness of their hearts?

New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and apparently admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

The footage shockingly depicts the top medical official at the Planned Parenthood corporation munching on her salad while she discusses the sale of body parts of unborn children victimized by abortions. She brazenly describes how the heads of unborn babies killed in abortions command top dollar. http://bit.ly/1VFG6Hm

For my readers in Colorado, Colorado Citizens For Life reported on July 15, 2015 that on January 10, 2013, Colorado State University purchased fetal body parts from Planned Parenthood's flagship abortion facility in San Jose, California via a company called StemExpress.  In total, nine specimens were harvested from eight different aborted babies killed in abortions at that Planned Parenthood clinic and the purchase order reveals CSU bought two body parts, including an aborted baby’s liver.

At the time, Stem Express paid Planned Parenthood $50 per specimen, which means that in one day they received $450. Additionally, StemExpress harvested body parts from Planned Parenthood facilities in Fresno, Sacramento, and Stockton. http://bit.ly/1Mt4nNK

Planned Parenthood performs about 40% of the abortions done in the United States annually. According to Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter, 60%-70% of the organization’s patients agree to have their babies’ body parts harvested. Dr. Deborah Nucatola estimates that the body parts sell for about $30-$100 each. Those figures indicate that Planned Parenthood probably brings in about $23 million/year selling baby body parts. http://bit.ly/1Mt4nNK

Dr. Nucatola, the first planned Parenthood doctor caught arranging for the sale of aborted baby body parts not only makes a big salary from the abortion corporation, a new report from the Daily Caller indicates she runs a consulting business on the side. Via that consulting firm, Dr. Nucatola http://bit.ly/1DnD2Er made another $207,000 in 2007, according to IRS records.

New information is coming to light about the amount of money Nucatola makes. As the Daily Caller reports, Nucatola makes a lucrative amount of money from the abortion giant via her salary (which is likely in the $150,000-$250,000 range), but also additional money from Planned Parenthood on the side as a consultant.

Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles paid Nucatola $203,180 as an independent contractor through Imagyn, according to its 2007 IRS 990 form. Nucatola’s LinkedIn profile indicates that she was medical director at Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo at the time.

In summary of this horrendous market for baby body parts, I quote the statement made by Brit Hume on FOX NEWS Special Report on 19 July 2015,

“Whatever comes of the revelations about Planned Parenthood and its participation in the traffic in fetal body parts, those revelations will have achieved one thing, they have parted the veil of antiseptic tidiness behind which the abortion industry has so long operated. The sight of the senior Planned Parenthood official and doctor, to boot, discussing the market for fetal body parts in between bites of salad and sips of wine was stomach turning. That’s because it laid bare the essential brutal nature of abortion. Let’s be blunt. Abortion involves the extraction and killing of a human life. Within a couple weeks of the beginning of a pregnancy, the baby has a beating heart. Five weeks in, its hands and legs begin to grow. It is these tiny creatures and ones that are far more developed that are pulled from a mother’s womb and crushed with forceps. Oh, but so carefully lest body parts, which can later be sold and preserved are not damaged. This gruesome procedure shows the extent to which we, as a people have been anesthetized by the estimated 55 million abortions since the Supreme Court discovered a constitutional right to that procedure 42 years ago.

“Will we, as a nation come to look upon that decision and what it has done to us, not to mention the 55 million dead with horror and regret. One can only hope we will.”

 

 

SCOTUS Rules the Country (from the Left)

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has, in late decades grabbed so much power that it now seems to be the supreme ruler of the land. Unfortunately, it leans so far to the left that it threatens to turn our country into another socialist horror, the likes of which, are ruling the roosts of Europe. The court endorses and encourages the Progressive Left of America at every opportunity! Two examples have worked their way to the surface during the past several months:

The First is in the way the court has endorsed the ObamaCare law. Ever since the court found the right to abortion in the 14^th Amendment in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the trend to the Progressive Left has been rapidly advancing. Now, with the left’s victory in King v. Burwell, there can be no longer any doubt about the way the Court is modeling our society in favor of European socialism. In that latter decision, the Court has decided that the written laws do not pertain any more. They have ruled that the thoughts and the intentions of the legislators who wrote the ObamaCare law, i.e., their original intent, has more credence and authority than what they actually wrote of their own free will. There could not have been any uncertainty about what their intention was when they wrote that “government subsidies are to be given only to applicants in states where the states do not set up their own insurance exchanges.” But…it could not be clearer that the Democrat steamroller that wrote that law meant the clause as a threat to the states to force them into establishing health insurance exchanges themselves. But the problem was that 26 states would not rise to the bait; and they refused to establish those state exchanges. When the ploy of the Democrats did not work, they tried to slither out of the condition they created on their own. Instead of allowing the Congress to change the situation to make ObamaCare work, the Supreme Court in its wisdom decided to take the situation into their own hands and endorse the “original intent” of the law they were sure the Democrats really wanted in the first place, by endorsing the bad arrangement and changing the law to the Progressive version. The IRS was emboldened to continue awarding the proposed subsidies to all comers to the law.

It is very interesting that the Supreme Court is quick to look at the “original intent” of the Democrats who wrote ObamaCare, while, at the same time, they are loathe to consider the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution on numerous issues relating to interpretation of that document. For example, where did commerce clause of the Constitution ever get the interpretation that the government could claim almost total sovereignty over business in the United States?  And…where did the justices of the Court ever find the original intent of the constitutional authors, which would eventually allow the people the right to abortions? Other examples abound about the Court’s caprice in making expedient and unwise decisions.

The Second way the court has moved our country out of line with common sense and common decency is manifest in the decision  in favor of same-sex marriage. This decision is in obvious violation of centuries-old admonitions about homosexuality, found in Leviticus 18 and 19 and in Romans 1. The lack of observance of these clear guidelines from the Bible flies in the face of scientific social research which shows that same-sex marriage and the raising of children in same-sex households is bad for the country.

Many liberal thinkers have questioned the damage that is claimed for same-sex marriage by conservatives in our nation. They ask, “How can same-sex marriage possibly harm the heterosexual unions, which classically have been the norm in this country?” The answer is as follows: Same-sex marriages are notoriously prone to infidelity between the partners. This has been graphically shown in studies done in the Netherlands and confirmed elsewhere. Studies have shown that monogamy is not the practiced situation in those marriages. The most conservative data show that 50% of same-sex marriages contain multiple out-of-wedlock sexual partners. When same-sex marriages are given the status of legitimate marriage, their moral practices in those marriages will logically be transferred to the general society along with their marital legitimacy—this will damage the moral and practical behavior of all marriages, further damaging the whole institution of marriage.

Liberal thinkers also are under the impression that legitimization of same-sex marriages will also benefit the children being raised in same-sex homes. Extensive data is now available showing that that impression is false. Children in same-sex marriages have been shown to manifest a whole litany of undesirable characteristics, e.g., out of wedlock pregnancy, criminal behavior, school drop-out, welfare dependency, etc., etc.

Our country no longer can claim to be a land ruled by laws. Rather, we are a land ruled by political power. Common decency is now in abeyance.

Look in the Right Place for the Source of Islamic Violence

In the wake of the shootings in Chattanooga and other killings carried out by Muslims in the United States, we hear a lot about how the government is trying to blame domestic violence on ISIS, al Qaeda, and maybe other foreign field Islamic groups. The government and its endorsers are even stretching to blame “social media” for the problem. There may be some truth in some of that effort; but I would posit that the search for causes should start right here, at home. The root cause of this Islamic violence is found in the pages of the Qur’an, the Muslims’ guidebook.  

I have personally read the Qur’an carefully and completely. I have compiled a list of ayahs in the Qur’an calling down violence for various reasons. I have noted the references below; and I can attest to you that they are truly in that document. I did not get them from any secondary source. I would invite each of my readers to read the Qur’an carefully to check the references below. In the language of the Qur’an, the term “surah” means “chapter;” and the term “ayah” means “verse.” In other words, “Surah 2:54” means, “chapter 2, and verse 54.”

1.    Surah 2:54
2.    Surah 2:191
3.    Surah 2:216:218
4.    Surah 2:244 Fighting for Allah authorized.
5.    Surah 2:279
6.    Surah 3:142 Reward for fighting for Allah.
7.    Surah 3:152 Reward for annihilating the enemy.
8.    Surah 3:154 Encouragement to participate in slaughter.
9.    Surah 3:169 Those who fight for Allah live in heaven.
10.  Much of Surah 3 has to do with an encouragement to violence in the name of Allah. Rewards for faithfulness to the fighting cause of Allah is reiterated over and over.
11.  Surah 4:74 A promise of reward in bliss for those who fight and die in a struggle for Allah.
12.  Surah 4:77 Allah encouraging his followers to fight.
13.  Surah 4:89 A call to slay the hypocrites. 
14.  Surah 4:91 A call to slay your enemies.
15.  Surah 4:95; 57:10 A reward to those who strive and fight for Allah.
16.  Surah 4:104 Do not slack in following up the enemy.
17.  Surah 5:23
18.  Surah 5:33 Cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides is the punishment of infidel.
19.  Surah 5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves.
20.  Surah 5:45 The principle of eye for eye, etc.
21.  Surah 6:6 More violence endorsed.
22.  Surah 7:4 Recounting how followers of Allah have destroyed many towns on account of their sins.
23.  Surah 7:24 Allah threatening to cut of hand and foot on opposite sides and to crucify his enemies.
24.  Surah 8 This Surah is an account of the battle of Badr; and it is encouraging to those who would fight for Islam.
25.  Surah 8:12; 69:44, 46 Allah encouraging fighters and promising to cut off all the finger tips of the enemy.
26.  Surah 8:16 If followers of Allah back off the battle, they will go to hell.
27.  Surah 9:5 Muslims called to slaughter pagans.
28.  Surah 9:12-14 More call to fight and kill pagans who have broken covenant.
29.  Surah 9:20 Reward of salvation promised to those who strive with might and main and suffer exile for Allah.
30.  Surah 9:29 Fight against unbelievers until the pay the jizyah and feel subdued.
31.  Surah 9:36 Fight against the pagans.
32.  Surah 9:44 There is no exemption from fighting for Allah and giving goods and persons.
33.  Surah 9:86-89 Those who will fight are promised prosperity and eternal life.
34.  Surah 9:93-97 Rewards implied for those who go to war for Allah and do not stay behind. 
35.  Surah 9:111 Those who slay and are slain in the cause of Allah will receive paradise.
36.  Surah 9:123; 71:26 Fight the pagans.
37.  Surah 9:5 Admonition to slay, beleaguer, wait in ambush, and seize pagans.
38.  Surah 17:5 Allah and Muslims sent “terrible warfare” on their enemies.
39.  Surah 17:7 Enemies of Islam were injured by their enemies with the approval of Muslims.
40.  Surah 17:8; 61:4 Threats by Muslims to attack and injure nonbelievers.
41.  Surah 17:16 Muslims threaten to destroy an entire population of transgressors.
42.  Surah 17:58; 21:11; 21:95; 22:45; 22:48; A promise to destroy all populations or punish them by a dreadful punishment.
43.  Surah 17:68, 69 Allah will send a violent tornado with a shower of stones.
44.  Surah 17:75 Punishment meted out to people in this life; I cannot see why in the context.
45.  Surah 18:59; 19:74; 19:98 Populations of people destroyed because they committed iniquities.
46.  Surah 22:25; 69:30, 31 Unbelievers are to be punished.
47.  Surah 23:41 Allah sends a blast to destroy his enemies as rubbish.
48.  Surah 33:26,27 Muslims slaying and throwing terror into the hearts of people of the Book. Approved by Allah!
49.  Surah 38:3 Muslims destroying generations of people.
50.  Surah 47:4 Muslims called to fight and kill the enemies; eternal rewards will be for those who fight.
51.  Surah 48:25 Punishment threatened to unbelievers.
52.  Surah 48:29 Muslims are to be strong against unbelievers but compassionate to one another. The exact opposite of the Golden Rule!

Our government has its head buried in the sand; they do not recognize where the problem is coming from; and they even forbid their employees from using the term, “Islamic terrorism.”

In the Wall Street Journal article 7/18/15 “Chattanooga Shooting Suspect’s Trip to Jordan Scrutinized by Authorities,” indications emerged of some troubles at home, which probably contributed to the violent act of the shooter, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez.  His father, Youssuf Abdulazeez, was allegedly abusive toward his wife, Rasmia Abdulazeez, and their five children, according to a divorce complaint filed by the wife in February 2009 in Hamilton County chancery court in Tennessee. Ms. Abdulazeez accused her husband of repeatedly beating her and being “physically and verbally abusive towards the children,” according to the filing. She said he also sexually assaulted her and told her he intended to marry a second wife, “as permitted under certain circumstances under Islamic law,” the filing said. Later that month, however, Ms. Abdulazeez dismissed the divorce action, and the couple sought to reconcile, filing a postnuptial agreement with the court.

It is a fact that the Qur’an validates wife-beating, at times. Surah 4:34 reads in translation: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): for Allah is most high, great (above you all).”

Muslim objections to my comments above may point to the fact that in the Old Testament of the Bible used by Christians and Jews, violence is not infrequently prescribed by God, e.g., against the Amalekites, the Amorites, and other Canaanite tribes. That is quite true; but the thing that the critics do not recognize is that under the new covenant of grace in the New Testament, all that violence of the Old Testament is abrogated and henceforth, a covenant of love, mercy, forgiveness, and grace predominates. You will not find any advocacy in the New Testament for violence, polygamy, wife beating, or child abuse. We do not need to have these values introduced into our culture.