Twenty-Eighth Amendment

Paul R. Hollrah, O.E.

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment

November 24, 2009

As a measure of how far Islam has come in its stated goal of subjugating and/or destroying the Christian world, consider what Winston Churchill wrote in The River War (First Edition, Vol. II). He said:

"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, (Islam) is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

If Churchill were alive today he would be horrified to see that Christianity has not been "sheltered in the strong arms of science," as he predicted, and that the civilization of modern Europe has all but fallen to the forces of Islam. If he could see the streets of London, Liverpool, and Manchester today, teeming with hordes of Muslims, the unintended consequence of the British colonial era, and if he could see the extent to which Muslim populations on the European mainland are within striking distance of having effective political majorities, he would see it all as an act of war and take steps to counter it.

Former president Theodore Roosevelt expressed, albeit unwittingly, the American view of conquest by immigration in a January 3, 1919 letter to the American Defense Society. He said:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

 

"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

The sentiments expressed by Roosevelt have not changed much in the last ninety years; they fairly represent the feelings of the vast majority of Americans...then and now. He would not understand how our treasured religious liberties have been used as a Trojan horse to undermine American society, not in the interest of freedom of religion, but most often to promote freedom from religion.

Yet, while American liberals continue their relentless attack on anything remotely connected to Christianity...even to the point of prohibiting the use of red and green paper at a pre-Christmas public school fundraising event...they lean over backward to accommodate the religious demands of Muslims, such as providing foot-washing facilities in public places, setting aside class time for Muslim prayer, and making dress code allowances for Muslim girls and women.

In his discussion of religious liberty in his best-selling book, Liberty and Tyranny, conservative commentator Mark R. Levin, tells us:

 

"A theocracy is not established if certain public schools allow their students to pray at the beginning of the day, or participate in Christmas or Easter assemblies; or if certain school districts transport parochial students to their religious schools as part of the district's bus route; or certain communities choose to construct a manger scene on the grounds of their town hall or display the Ten Commandments above their courthouse steps.

 

"The individual is not required to change his religious affiliation or even accept God's existence. He is not required to worship against his beliefs or even worship at all. Some might be uncomfortable or offended by these events, but individuals are uncomfortable all the time over all kinds of government activities. Some might oppose the use of their tax dollars to support these events. So what? Individuals oppose the manner in which government uses their tax dollars all the time. That does not make the uses unconstitutional.

"While all religions may not have similar access to these public places, they are largely free to conduct themselves as they wish, uninhibited by the community, as long as they do not engage in criminal or immoral practices…"

 

But it is the violent and criminal acts of Muslims...acts which they see as religious imperatives, while to Christians and Jews they are repugnant acts of violence...that concern us most. We are told again and again that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims want nothing more than to live in peace. Although this may be true in most cases, it is entirely irrelevant so long as peace-loving Muslims fail to stand up and expose the radicals in their midst. The Muslim who claims to love peace, but who ignores the radicalism he sees and hears in his mosque is just as guilty of terrorism as those who carry out terrorist attacks against innocents.

 

Today, it is the fanatics who rule Islam; who war against non-Muslims; who slaughter Christians and Jews around the world; who bomb, behead, murder, and honor-kill; who take over mosque after mosque and radicalize its members; who stone and hang rape victims and homosexuals; and who teach young men that they will have eternal joy in paradise...to say nothing of seventy-two virgins...if only they will strap bombs to their bodies and detonate them in crowded marketplaces. These are the things that the Koran teaches.

 

So, given the non-Christian, non-Judeo teachings of the Koran, what do we do about the millions of Muslims who are now flocking to our shores? Is it possible for Christians and Jews to coexist with Muslims if they are prohibited by the Koran from tolerating and accepting the religious teachings of the Christians and Jews who were here before them? How can we accept Muslims as Americans if they are unable, by adherence to the Koran, to assimilate fully into our society?

 

When the Founding Fathers drafted the First Amendment they had not the slightest inkling that one day an alien culture would come to our shores...an alien culture whose adherents feel free to capture innocent non-believers and slice their heads off, unrestrained by religious dictates or doctrines. Nor could they envision a time when an alien sub-culture would insist upon the right to murder wives, daughters, and sisters for no reason other than the cleansing of their family name.

 

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution tells us,

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

If Islam, as we know it today, had existed in the day of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and had Muslims been present in large numbers during the early years of our Republic, religious liberty would today be an entirely different matter. So perhaps it is now time for a Twenty-Eighth Amendment, to read:

 

"The right of the People to be secure in their persons and property shall not be abridged, and no person, or group of persons, may interfere or attempt to interfere in the right of others to pursue life, liberty, religious practice, or freedom of expression. No religious sect or denomination may advocate violent opposition to any other religious sect or denomination, or to the members thereof. Any religious sect or denomination which utilizes its religious freedoms in pursuit of political ends averse to the general welfare, at home or abroad, shall be in violation of this provision, shall forfeit the right to peaceably assemble, and shall not maintain places of worship."

 

Pope Benedict XVI has extended the hand of friendship to Islam, asking nothing in return but global reciprocity...the right of Christians and Jews to practice their religion in Muslim states, just as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion throughout the Christian world. Judging by the response, to date, there is little hope for the Pope's initiative. If we are to save our nation from total Islamization we must first have a president and congressional majorities who see the Islamic threat clearly and objectively.

 

Now that Obama has decided to give the 9/11 terrorists full constitutional rights in our American courts, it is all but a certainty that the greatest casualty will be a large measure of the goodwill that the American people have extended to the people of Islam.

Genuine Realism

Genuine Realism—A Sequel to "Wishful Thinking Realists"

Paul Eidelberg


Is it realistic to believe that while Islam is conquering Europe and spreading throughout America that there is an economic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, indeed, that making Palestinians prosperous will transform them into bourgeois democrats?   Is it not the case that many Islamic terrorists, including those that destroyed the World Trades Center, came from middle class families?

Is it realistic to think that a few million "Palestinians" are going turn their back on 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth?   Is it realistic to believe that these Palestinians are going to trash their fourteen-century religion, overcome its equally long hatred of Jews, and genuflect to Bibi, who insists that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state?  This strikes me as a page from Alice-in-Wonderland—to put it kindly.

Of course, Bibi and his allies may be disingenuous, merely playing the "politics of peace."   Many politicians and pundits pose as "politically correct" because they lack the courage to be politically incorrect.  Like Hamlet said of men's conscience, "Islam doth make cowards of them all."  It takes intellectual probity to see Islam for what it is.  This is especially, but not exclusively, true of superficial secularists.  It's difficult for such secularists to take any religion seriously, especially one that strikes them as utterly alien and irrational.

If you ask any religious Jew whether genuine peace is possible between Israel and the Palestinians, I dare say nine out of ten will say no, and he will add that those who think otherwise are not realistic.

To clinch the argument, a large majority of Israel's own Arab citizens, who enjoy a relatively high standard of living and possess educational and professional opportunities unequalled in the Islamic world, identify with Israel's enemies and are therefore committed to Israel's demise—contrary to their own economic interests.

Genuine realism requires a candid theological understanding of Islam correlated with a candid review of Islamic history—a correlation of the Quran's venomous hatred of "infidels" and Islam's genocidal slaughter of Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Armenian communities.

Genuine realists like philosopher Lee Harris and psychiatrist Wafa Sultan know that Islam's ethos of Jihad makes it an enemy of civilization.

Genuine realists know there are no evidentiary grounds to expect the Palestinians to renounce that Islamic ethos—the precondition of peace—and become bourgeois democrats, unless you so devastate them as to eradicate their desire to wage war for a hundred years—as the Allied powers did to Germany.

As indicated in "Wishful Thinking Realists," the economic approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on a Marxist mode of thought: the primacy of economics over religion.  Marxism involves a simplistic view of human nature.  By the way, one reason why Bibi is so lucid is because he is rather superficial.   Consider his insistence on "reciprocity" in negotiating with the Palestinian Authority.  What can these Arabs give Israel that is comparable to Israel's heartland, Judea and Samaria?  Assume Bibi knows this.  Then his talk about reciprocity is "politically correct" flapdoodle, which Arabs must surely laugh to scorn.

His talk about "reciprocity" has nothing to do with realism. If Bibi were a realist, he would know that a non-compromising approach to dealing with non-compromising Muslims is the only genuine realism.  Secure in his prestige as an orator, however, Bibi talks foreign policy; he does not make foreign—certainly not a Jewish foreign policy.

So he plays a game of "political correctness."  You can hardly expect him to say in public that Israel is confronted by a foe with which genuine peace is impossible?  He could confirm this "politically incorrect" position by recalling the Camp David Summit of July 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat s a series of concessions including Israeli withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip and 95 percent of the West Bank; the subsequent creation of an independent Palestinian state in the aforementioned areas; the dismantlement of all Israeli settlements in those areas given to the Palestinians; land compensation outside of the West Bank for settlements to remain under Israeli sovereignty; and Palestinian rule over East Jerusalem and most of the Old City (excluding the Jewish Quarter) and "religious sovereignty" on the Temple Mount. In exchange, the agreement called for Arafat to declare an end to the conflict and a prohibition of future claims on Israeli land. Arafat rejected the proposal and made no counter-offer.

There's a little secret here.

No leader of the Palestinian Arabs is going to sign a peace treaty with Israel—will recognize Israel as a Jewish state—because he knows he will be assassinated soon thereafter as was Anwar Sadat.  Does Bibi know this?  Is this why he endorsed a Palestinian State?  If so, who is Netanyahu deceiving, and how many "politically correct" pundits are keeping his secret?

If this assessment is correct, does Bibi have any constructive plans for Israel's future, plans that will preserve Israel as a Jewish polity?  I intend to address this issue on my Monday morning (November 15) report on Israel National Radio.

Political Correctness

Political Correctness Has Poisoned America

By Thomas D. Segel | Posted November 14, 2009

Harlingen, Texas, November 12, 2009:

It started out as a mild virus initiated by the left of center intellectuals of academia. But, like every virus from computer carried to influenza, it spread rapidly through schools, hospitals, civil service, the media, companies, governance and the armed forces. Political correctness has poisoned all of America.

The famed author of children's books, Anthony Browne has also written a telling examination of political correctness in The Retreat of Reason. Says Browne, "Political correctness is the 'heresy of liberalism' under which reliance on reason has been replaced on the emotional appeal of an argument.

Adopting certain positions makes the politically correct feel virtuous, even more so when they are preventing the expression of an opinion that conflicts with their own. Political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue."

Europe has seen political correctness applied everywhere. They have seen the rise of anti-Semitic attacks in England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. The politically correct "truth" of these attacks being presented to the public has been White Neo-Nazi skinheads waged the attacks. The reality is, young Muslim men perpetrated most of the attacks.

 

From the United Nations we keep hearing that Africa is getting poorer with every passing day. According to Browne, it is charged that the West not giving Africa enough economic aid causes this poverty. Again, the truth is quite a different story. Africa is getting poorer because its various governments range from corrupt to politically ignorant.

 

Back home in the United States we find ourselves infected with political correctness starting at the White House and reaching into our smallest communities. Political correctness is used to justify the excessive immigration, extravagant guest-worker programs, the overseas outsourcing of job, foolish trade policies, and even more foolish energy policies.

A left of center lap dog media has condoned excessive national debt, unemployment, oppression of taxpayers, and a collapse of the middle class by pointing its long finger at the previous administration. Again, the truth is quite different. If allowed to continue, the policies that created this sick economy and confused electorate will destroy our culture along with our economy.

There can be no greater example of political correctness than the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Congress. We are no longer fighting a global war against terror. The word 'terror' has been removed from current political language.

We must understand why the Muslim world is upset with us.

We must dialog.

We must talk unconditionally and on and on.

 

The truth is we are hated by the Muslim world. It is not only political correctness, but also political madness to hear the words of hatred aimed at the West and not accept them as reality. Even the threats of Osama bin Laden were taken from the eighth and ninth chapters of the Koran.

"When you meet the unbelievers strike them in the neck…. If you do not go out and fight, God will punish you severely…Whenever you find the polytheists, kill them, seize them, besiege them, ambush them…You who believe do not take Jews and Christians as friends…The Hour of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them".

 

Those are the words of the Koran, yet being politically correct we keep saying Islam is a great culture and a religion of peace and tolerance.

 

Ayan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim who has been amazed at western denial of radical Muslim terrorism. She says, "This is Islam. This is based on belief."

She is quoted in her book Infidel as saying of the 9-11 attacks, "It was not the lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that the vast mass of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam." Our own political correctness would not allow us to take the same view.

We are now faced with the new terror attack, striking our nation in Fort Hood, Texas. American soldiers were killed or wounded at the hand of another American soldier who had told everyone he was a Muslim first and an American second. He killed crying out the words Allah Akbar, but we were told not to rush to judgment. Even the FBI said we should not consider this a terrorist attack.

Next we learned that Nidal Hasan has a history of suspicious behavior, including multiple emails to a known radial Islamic cleric. These were passed off as not even being worthy of detailed examination.

There is no doubt that political correctness has brought about a corruption of public debate. The poison of political correctness has spread itself throughout our country. The jury is still out as to it ultimately being the downfall of our society and the country.

Email:  Tom@thomasdsegel.com

Homepage:  www.thomasdsegel.com

 
 

A Turning Point, Swiftly Reached

A Turning Point, Swiftly Reached
By Alan Caruba

The November 3rd elections were a turning point, swiftly reached.

The inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama was followed by Tea Parties around the nation that aggregated into the huge September 12 rally in Washington, D.C. And barely two months later, the election of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey. In Maine, the voters repealed the authorization of same-sex marriage, an anathema as morally debased as abortion.

My mind went back to Barry Goldwater’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention in 1964. “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

That speech was given when communism, led by the Soviet Union, was challenging freedom around the world. Lyndon Johnson who had assumed office upon the assassination of John F. Kennedy had initiated the “Great Society”, a government program that was the welfare state on steroids. A war was raging in Vietnam. The civil rights movement was gaining momentum.

“This is the Republican Party, a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists,” said Goldwater.

Barely ten months after the inauguration of Barack Obama, the blinders had fallen from the eyes of his followers and others beguiled by his oratory, his promise of change that proved itself to be the takeover of the economic foundations of the nation, and his weakness in the face of a world filled with the enemies of freedom.

In 1964, Goldwater said, “We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and competitive economy and enforcing law and order.”

Today, thanks to a profligate Congress controlled by the Democrat Party since 2006, the economy is in shambles, a free and competitive economy is under attack by massive government programs intended to control one sixth of it, the destruction of private property, and borders that remain unprotected against those who would take advantage of benefits intended for our citizens while destroying their lives with illegal drugs.

“I know this freedom is not the fruit of every soil,” said Goldwater. “I know that our own freedom was achieved through centuries, by unremitting efforts by brave and wise men. I know the road to freedom is a long and a challenging road. I know also that some men may walk away from it, that some men resist challenge, accepting the false security of government paternalism.”

To read that 1964 Goldwater speech is to be astonished by its prescience and to be inspired by its faithfulness to the fundamental values of what it means to be an American.

That Americanism filled the street of Washington, D.C. and will do so again for as long as it takes to defeat “amnesty”, to defeat an apologetic and weak President schooled in the tenets of communism and dedicated to a government in complete control of our lives.

Goldwater could have been speaking of Afghanistan when he said “We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the President, who is Commander-in-Chief of our forces, refuses to say, refuses to say, mind you, whether or not the objective over there is victory.”

What followed in the wake of Johnson’s election and the subsequent terms of Richard Nixon was the death of some 53,000 young Americans sent into a war where victory remained beyond grasp because of weak leadership, of moderation, and the misjudgment of the enemy’s devotion to the cause of communism.

Today, the nation faces the horror of a nuclear-armed Iran and the determination of al Qaeda to destroy us.

Americans recoiled from Obama’s world tour of apologies for being the world’s beacon of freedom and protector of the peace. “We here in America can keep the peace only if we remain vigilant and only if we remain strong,” said Goldwater.

“Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.”

A president awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for no discernable reason has discovered a world filled with the enemies of peace and of freedom. He could well have been the subject of Goldwater’s call to Republicans and lovers of freedom.

“It is the further cause of Republicanism to restore a clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large. It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the illusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don’t rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression…and this is hogwash.”

A turning point has been reached. Americans will not accept the erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, will not accept an all-powerful federal government interposing itself between them and their physicians, will not except the taxation of energy use, and will not accept the “hogwash” of a world we’re told will yield to the soothing charade of diplomacy in the face of naked aggression.

To refresh and renew your dedication to freedom, read Barry Goldwater’s speech, as fresh today as when it was delivered:
www.washingtonpost.com/may98/Barry Goldwater’s speech

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author and business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.