Back to Back Issues Page
On Threats to America's National Existence
January 20, 2007
Subscribers Newsletter

Regarding Threats to America’s National Existence
By Vic Biorseth, Thursday, January 11, 2007
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center - http://www.catholicamericanthinker.com



The Divine Ground Of Being
Versus A
Worldly Knowledge Ground Of Being


Common Faith = Cultural Ethos = Cultural Purpose = Distinct People-hood.

The family is the primal social unit. That primal family is your family.

The family begins with a man. That man is you.

Some of us believe in God; some of us do not. Some of us believe that man is made in the image of God; some of us do not. Men and families and cultures need – from the cradle - some way to discern right from wrong, good from bad, virtue from vice, and even a purpose for being, and a direction for his very life. When this is present, the little things take care of themselves. When it is not, every little thing requires careful analysis. Belief in God establishes man as a human being and set apart from other creatures. Unbelief in God removes this distinguishing characteristic, and re-orients man in relation to the rest of creation.

In families and cultures in which Judeo-Christian religion is handed on as a Tradition and an important, integral part of familial and cultural life, the members are immediately identifiable by all outside observers as good practicing Christians and/or Jews.

In families and cultures in which Judeo-Christian religion is treated lightly if at all, and is a background item of little importance in daily life, religion begins to take on the aura of fairy tales, nice stories and quaint holidays, and the members begin to loose all distinguishing characteristics, as a distinct people.

In the Western Culture Ethos, it is the historical Revelation of God, by God, to Man, that provides a moral and correct compass by which men guide their lives. This is the ancient Judeo-Christian basis for our behavior, our sense of honor and correctness, our sense of decency and justice, and our ability to do good judgment. Go to the link for the details; I won’t belabor the point here. In America, since the Founding, the overwhelming ethos is Christian. But note well that the overwhelming quantity of our Christian Scripture was brought to Christianity by Judaism; therefore it is quite safe to say that our American national guiding ethos is Judeo-Christian. (About 75% of the Christian Bible is the Old Testament.)

It is this ethos that defines us as a people; it is what makes us American; it is what distinguishes us as a People Set Apart. This spiritual grounding, this fundamental basis for our civil law, this defining characteristic is what makes, of us, America. This is America’s Divine Ground Of Being. Besides an orientation toward what is good and noble and decent, it gives us a mission as Christians: to preach the Good News – the Gospel – to all the nations. We are called by our faith to, at the very least, spread the Gospel message to all available ears, and let the chips fall where they may. Today, in America, that religious imperative is not only resisted but opposed, publicly, legally, and strongly, by powerful people who falsely call themselves Christians. They will be addressed later; first, we need to look at external enemies who aim at elimination of American national existence.

Then we will address the internal enemies of America, who aim at the elimination of American national existence in a different way.

The Guiding Ethos of Islam

Remember the Christian direction for devotees to evangelize by preaching the Good News to all nations? Islamic evangelization is just a tad bit different.

Islam is a violent, murderous “religion.” Some of the Koranic verses and a link to an on-line Koran are supplied in the Islam and the Jews page. Don’t take my word for it; look up what Islam says about Islam. One by one, put the terms Dar Al-Islam, Dar Al-Sulh and Dar Al-Harb into your favorite search-engine key words and see what Islam teaches its devotees about them.

Islam has divided the world into the house of submission (Islam) and the house of war, which is where all of us non-Moslems live. The whole purpose for Islam, its whole reason for being, the very Divine Ground of Being for the Moslem disciple involves the expansion of the house of submission at the expense of the house of war, by the sword.

Islam’s position toward movement of individuals and whole peoples from non-Islam toward and into Islam is most clearly summarized as follows:

  1. Jihad is the primary, overriding, absolute requirement of Islam, in the Koran, in the Hadith, and in all Islamic theology and teaching. There is an internal Jihad, or struggle, and an external Jihad. The meaning of Jihad can be summarized into one, short, simple sentence, as follows:
    Submit to Islam or die.
  2. External Jihad not only allows, but absolutely requires of the devotee that he lie in the service of Jihad. Therefore, for Islam, negotiation is merely a tool by which to provide for a period of temporary peace allowing time for a better Islamic war position or military opportunity.
  3. These rules of Jihad are set forth in the Koran and therefore can not ever be modified in any way, because they are believed, by devotees, to be the unchangeable word of Allah.
That is what we, and all the rest of the world, are facing.

Here’s just one related quote, of many, from Iran’s President Ahmadinejad:

I must say that you have chosen a very valuable title for your gathering [World Without Zionism]. Many are sowing the seeds of defeat and despair in this all-out war between the Islamic world and the Infidel Front, hoping to dishearten the Islamic world. Such people are using words like "it's not possible". They say how could we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realized.
There, in a nutshell, we have the long term strategy of the Iranian government. These are not merely the harmless ramblings or personal opinion of a politically posturing public figure. They are the clear, repeated, publicly stated strategic intentions of one nation towards other sovereign countries, including most particularly, please note, the United States of America. The strategic goal is a world without America. This is no drill.

These same monsters keep openly telling the world about their intention to implement their version of the final solution for Israel and the Jews. Yet all we hear from our disgusting Leftist dominated SLIMC are reports of how “alarmed” and “concerned” they all are regarding Israel’s proactive defense plans, and her refusal to sit down and “negotiate” with Hezbollah and the other Islamic terrorist organizations and states who have all solemnly sworn to destroy her and kill all her people.

The longer term strategic plan of Iran, which is to say Hezbollah, involves the establishment of a Shiite Caliphate dominating territory from the Mediterranean Sea to India. Of course, that will involve some intermediary arguments to be settled with a few Sunni here and there, but that is the current long term plan. The only short-term problem with the overall strategy involves the non-sharia Democratic governments to Iran’s West and East, in Iraq and in Afghanistan; but Iran has every reason to expect that those problems will go away on their own, just as they did in Vietnam, when a Democratic Party-controlled congress simply cut off budgetary funding of American forces at risk in the field. No ammo, no fuel and no supply leaves no viable American military option other than to cut and run.

That describes the leading-edge Shiite Islamic faction aiming at American destruction; we also have the leading-edge Sunni faction aimed at the same thing.

Iraq is now an Islamic magnet, drawing foreign Jihadists from all over the world. Whether President Bush’s state/military/intelligence team planned it that way from the start, I don’t know, but the simple fact is, that is where they are predominantly all going, intending to defeat “America.” There, as opposed to here. That’s the way AlQueda (and others) wants it. Evidence of this was abundantly available even before the infamous terror-master Zarqawi got his comeuppance. Last July, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 man in Al Qaeda, wrote a 6,000-word letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the Al Queda chieftain in Iraq. It was captured by U.S. forces and analyzed by the intelligence community. Democrats and journalists love to scoff at President Bush's claim that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, but apparently Zawahiri absolutely agreed with Bush:

"I want to be the first to congratulate you for ... fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and which is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."
Zawahiri outlined a four-part incremental strategy.
  1. The first stage is to expel the Americans from Iraq.
  2. The second stage is to establish a Caliphate -- a Taliban-style dictatorship -- within Iraq.
  3. The third stage is to expand the Caliphate to Iraq's neighbors.
  4. The fourth stage is to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, and then to expand the Islamist dictatorship to Egypt and Lebanon.
Which shows that obtaining safe bases for training, equipping and sending “martyr” teams to attack America and American interests are not the sole interests of Al Queda. Now, Zarqawi knew that expelling the Americans from Iraq is easier said than done. He tacitly acknowledges this, but holds out hope we'll cut and run of our own accord:
"Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us."
Zawahiri concedes that if the Americans left immediately, Al Queda isn't powerful or popular enough to take over Iraq, and so, ideally, there should be a coalition government that Al Queda could later subvert. Which leads to the point of Zawahiri's letter. He gently admonishes Zarqawi for using tactics (including video-recorded beheadings) that alienate the Iraqi populace.
"Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages."
Showing himself to be a “moderate” and kinder, gentler form of Moslem, Zawahiri suggested Zarqawi just shoot them instead:
"We can kill the captives by bullet. That would achieve that which is sought after without exposing ourselves to the questions and answering to doubts. We don't need this."
Zawahiri, a Sunni, agrees the Shiites are heretics who must ultimately be dealt with:
"The collision between any state based on the model of prophecy with the Shiites is a matter that will happen sooner or later."
But dealing with the Shiites should wait until Al Queda is stronger, because attacks on Shiite civilians are alienating even Sunni Muslims:
"Many of your Muslim admirers among the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shiites. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques. ... My opinion is that this matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it."
The attacks are impractical:
"Can the mujahideen kill all of the Shiites in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that?"
Zawahiri reminded Zarqawi that 100 important (Sunni) Al Qaeda leaders were currently in Shiite Iran.
"Even if we attack the Shiites out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take counter measures? And do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting (both of) us?"
But the real reason Zarqawi was attacking Shiite civilians primarily was because those were the only people he could get at. Attacks on U.S. and Iraqi soldiers had been sending his fighters to Allah rather faster than any of them wanted to go. A secondary reason was to incite sectarian violence and destroy any “Democratic” harmony among the Iraqi population.

Zawahiri told Zarqawi that the American occupation of Iraq has provided Islamic militants with an historic opportunity to win popular support for Islam. True, Al Qaeda is getting very badly beaten up, both militarily and politically, in Iraq. But as Zawahiri reminded Zarqawi:

"More than half this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media."
We have it from his own mouth. Just like the Communists back in Vietnam, the strongest ally the Moslems have in this war is, once again, the American SLIMC and the then-as-now thoroughly Leftist Democratic Party.

At the moment, the strongest ally the West has against the relentless onslaught of Islam is the factionalism within Islam itself, and most especially the Sunni-Shia split. Because Islam is such a violent and murderous ideology or false religion, we may expect periodic bouts of war and killing on a grand scale between various Islamic factions.

A second potential ally from within Islam exists in the backs of the minds of Moslems, and in their souls. I admit I have no evidence of this, only a strong suspicion. It involves a great fear or dread of coming under absolute Islamic Sharia law. I believe most Moslems do not want to live under Sharia, and will, to some degree, resist coming under it. Probably few who lived under Taliban rule would ever voluntarily choose to go back to that.

It is the idea, the clearly false ideology of Islam itself that is at the root of all of this world mayhem. In this regard, Islam is no different than Marxism or any of its sub-variant forms, including Socialism, Communism, Fascism and Nazism. Just like Islam, all of these are false fronts; the whole hidden purpose of the “system” or “ideology” is to be a strategic tool to allow someone who is not in power to get into power, and stay there. Just like Marxism, Islam is a handy tool for the most ruthless among us; it is a way for them to recruit armies of fervent followers from among the masses. Marxism falsely claimed and still claims to be the champion of the lower class working man, the up-lifter of the exploited, the enemy of upper classes and “exploiters” of workers. Islam falsely claims to provide a path to Heaven and an eternity of screwing multiple perpetual virgins, for those who submit and wield the sword in the name of Allah.

In every single case, in Marxist-thought dominated lands the working man turned out to be seriously worse off than similar working men in non Marxist-thought dominated lands. In every single case, all social progress and simple freedoms and rights of all men seriously regressed in Islamic lands governed under Islamic Sharia law, and progress in virtually all areas of human endeavor slowed, stopped or even reversed. The proof of the recipe is in the final pudding.

I submit that there is not one whit of difference between such men as Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Mao, Ho, Fidel, Bin Ladin, Sadam, Ahmadinejad, etc. None of them were ever truly religious devotees of any kind, or even strict believers in whatever ideology they pretended to champion and represent. All of them went through the motions of paying lip-service to Politburos or Congresses or Manifestos or Parliaments or Internationals, or they went through the motions of prayer in mosques and in public, studied and pretended devotion to the Koran, quoted long strings of verses, preached sermons, or whatever. But the whole goal, the total plan, was to ever increasingly get themselves closer to, or actually into, the position of being able to say, to one and all,

”Do as I say or I’ll kill you.”
That’s it. That’s what it’s really all about. Everything else is eye candy.

The modern day typical Islamic petty bureaucrat saying ”Submit and pay the Dhimi tax” is absolutely no different than the old time typical Marxist petty bureaucrat saying ”Shut up and get on the cattle car.”

Sharia and Islam

We spoke above about Jihad and the Koranic imperative to bring the whole world into submission to Islam. But the terms Dar Al-Islam, or House of Submission, and Darl Al-Harb, or House of War, may not be found in the Koran, or in the Hadith. The only ancient source to which they might claim a weak relation is the quote of Mohammed, Unbelief is one community. To me, from my outsider perspective as a devout thinking Catholic it would appear that some parts of Sharia, or Islamic Law, are not necessarily orthodox (original) Islamic teaching. Nevertheless, these “Houses” or domains are today tightly bound into Sharia. There is still a chicken-egg question in my mind regarding whether Sharia is based upon Islam, or Islam is based upon Sharia. It appears that Sharia is the foundation upon which Islam is built, and is continually built up.

Today, the simple fact is that Sharia drives Jihad, and is the legal force that seeks, by it’s very definition, our national destruction, and ultimately the destruction of all nations. Every recognized traditional Islamic legal school, and, I would almost bet, any preacher or teacher in any recognized Islamic Mosque, in America or anywhere else, will profess and teach the legal imperative that the House of Islam must evangelize, conquer or kill all non-Moslems, and bring all non-Moslem territories into the House of Islam. In a nutshell, the legal imperative of the devotee is to:

Persuade, dominate, or kill.
That’s the heart of Sharia. There is no “shaking the dust” here, no free will involved, no real choice in the matter. Forget the ancient Greek contributions of ethos, logos and pathos; there will be no critical thinking allowed here. Just persuade, dominate or kill. Very simple. The killing part of it makes no distinction between men, women or children. Killing a non-Moslem, or thousands of them, or millions of them, is not murder, in Sharia. The ultimate end goal is One World, or Ummah, in complete submission to Allah and to the descendent of Mohammed. Of course, the final struggle will be between the Shia an Sunni claimants to that title.

The long-term strategy of Sharia is to eliminate all nations and all belief systems, dominate the whole world and bring all who live into submission to Islam. Everything else, including acts of terrorism, is merely a tactic of use at the moment. The terrorists are not strictly “terrorists” as such; they are Jihadists taking advantage of an existing tactical opportunity. The various terrorists represent a small part of the larger Sharia-driven Jihadist strategy.

In our “Global War On Terror” we are expending huge resources on one small part of an enormous threat. Or on several small hot-spots, as they crop up; some in America, some overseas. That is not to say we should abandon our current military action against terrorism, but that we need to open our eyes and broaden our scope to take in the larger strategy of Sharia-driven Jihad against us. We will always need to go after terrorists, terror bases and WMD development with vigor.

But, these are mere battles, and until we recognize who and what we are up against, we are not really waging war. All that we are doing, really, is fire-fighting. Islam is an idea, a giant, menacing ideology, driven by its own unholy law to grow, and to forever seek out new ways of destroying us. Many of our future killers are being taught blind submission to Sharia right here in America, legally. The teaching is universal, throughout all of Islam, wherever Islam is taught. It is the Islamic ideology that must be fought; the real war is over the minds of men.

The real question is how to move the Moslem from the guiding ethos of Islam to another guiding ethos.

As for our military options, they should be aimed at Sharia. We cannot openly oppose Islam in America without violating our own Constitution. But we can openly oppose Sharia, which so clearly and openly aims at our national destruction, and the destruction of our Constitution, which everyone in high office and everyone in uniform has solemnly sworn to defend.

When Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) took his oath of office while holding a Koran, he was lying, one way or another. Either he has no intention of “defending the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” or he is not really a Moslem properly dedicated to bringing the entire world, including the United States of America, out of the House of War and into the House of Islam, by persuasion, domination or physical elimination. Again, lying in the service of Jihad is allowed, and even expected, in the deceptive, treacherous “religion” of Islam.

We should declare that any land ruled by Sharia will be treated as militarily hostile to America, and act accordingly. I submit that direct military action in such cases would not be preemptive, because Sharia (and Islam, really) has already declared war on us, long ago, and will not relent of it. That’s really why so many of us died on September 11, 2001. Islam did not consider 09/11 to have been any kind of “preemptive” strike against us. To them, it was just another little skirmish in their on-going relentless war of conquest against The House Of War.

American Mosques or other institutions that teach Sharia should be permanently closed, and the teachers imprisoned and ultimately deported. Sharia should be suppressed in America, and Sharia governments should be destroyed overseas. Nuclear or other WMD in existence or under development in Islamic lands should be struck whenever positively identified, without waiting to see what might be done with them. They have already declared their hostile intentions, they keep repeating their hostile intentions, over and over again. We need to listen to them, take their words to heart, believe what they say they intend to do to us, and to the world, and we need to act accordingly.

Korea and Vietnam have proved in our time the ancient war advice that comes down through the ages saying He who defends may merely survive, but he who attacks may win. If a purely defensive strategy may never win, and the enemy is relentless, then eventually the purely defensive strategy will loose. We are in a war not of our choosing, but a real war. If we do not even recognize it as a real war then we will loose it. If we do recognize it as a real war, then we must fight it as a real war, which means waging war with aggression and purpose rather than timidity, defensiveness and carefully measured responses. The ”Limited War” strategy yields every military initiative and advantage to the enemy right up front.

The fight for freedom of men’s minds and souls from Islam can only be conducted by peaceful evangelization. Promoting the return of critical thinking to a prominent place in society can go a long way to help in this area. I believe (admittedly with no evidence) that a majority of Moslems, while they may not say so out loud, have no real desire, for themselves or for their families, to ever live under strict Sharia law.

The Guiding Ethos of BMDFP and Men Of The World

When different Nations or Peoples or Cultures go to war with each other, it is imminently predictable that the one with the strongest Guiding Ethos will eventually prevail. A strong guiding ethos gives a nation or a people a sense of purpose and direction; the lack of a strong guiding ethos makes a nation or a people more randomly oriented, purposeless and, really, pointless. A people with no real direction or purpose will eventually be swallowed up or destroyed utterly by a purpose-driven people.

That Islam is a geo-political ideology masquerading as a religion is of less relevance than the fact that there exists such a thing as massive, strong religious devotion within the House of Islam. The devout Moslem may be said to have a Divine Ground Of Being that provides for him an automatic sense of purpose and direction. The fact that this Divine Ground Of Being is completely false doesn’t matter at all, when the only opposition to it has No discernable common ground of being whatsoever.

Our individual, familial and cultural relationship with God is a free-will sort of thing. Scripture itself has proved again and again that whenever a people turn their faces away from God, they will be allowed to suffer the consequences.

So it might behoove us to take a closer look at exactly who we are, and why we are. I have elsewhere said that if Islam is a so-called religion of peace then it has a damned funny way of showing it. It is equally true that if we are a so-called Christian people then we have a damned funny way of showing that.

Our Image, as portrayed to the World and our Children

Of course, an active prayer life is of vital importance, and there are many among us who are devout, faithful and charitable in their personal lives. But when God looks down upon us all, collectively, as a People, what does He see?

We must appear to be a ship full of fools.

The most important American political contest, ever, is the current one between our long established national defining Westerrn Civilization Ethos and the rising national defining ethos of BMDFP and The World.

The “Entertainment” we put on stage and broadcast to the whole world is a good indication of our own cultural self-image. Almost every main theme of almost every “show” involves the notion that pleasure and/or gratification of some sort, most usually of a sexual nature, is the prime motivational factor and driving force of life, and the most important factor in providing a sense of direction and purpose for life itself. Hedonism and nihilism literally dominates, where it does not completely drive out, Judeo-Christian principles and moral norms.

Just look at some typical presentations of Seinfeld, Friends, Sex In The City, Family Guy, The Simpson’s, The L-word (gee, I wonder what that means), Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, Desperate Housewives, Everybody Loves Raymond – you pick the show – and see what gets the most (and most favorable) treatment, between sexual gratification and Judeo-Christian faith and principle.

There is, and there has always been, a constant social argument going on between what I call the spokesmen for GodHoly Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Church Fathers, The Great Councils, and various priests, ministers and rabbis of various Judeo-Christian denominations and factions – and the spokesmen for The WorldDarwinism, Freudianism, Marxism, Femi-Nazism, Homo-Nazism and Eco-Nazism. It is crystal clear that, in the perpetual social argument between the spokesmen for God and the spokesmen for The World, “entertainment” has come down on the side of The World. Even producers such as Disney put out children’s fare that is, in essence, Liberal, super-tolerant, inclusive, politically-correct, Leftist-slanted and indoctrinating, with carefully embedded double-meaning “entertainment” for the adult viewers. They can’t even leave innocent little children out of the contest. Or perhaps the children are the target.

When Entertainment Spokesmen present the argument that they are only giving the public what they want, they are lying. They very artfully create public demand, and feed it, and profit by it. Working in service to The World, they kill two birds with one stone by simultaneously trivializing religion and religion-based principle, and building up The World and all its pleasures, in the hearts and minds of men.

True believers know that the most important intellectual gentlemanly arguments on Earth, affecting everlasting destiny, are going on between the various denominations and factions among the true spokesmen for God. Everything else is temporary. Nevertheless, on the American stage, big screen and small screen, the spokesmen for God have abandoned or been driven from the field, and The World has already won the bigger, un-gentlemanly argument. Hands down. Just turn on your TV.

It’s been said that a man is what he thinks he is, and it may be said that a nation is what it thinks it is. If our overall national Divine Ground Of Being is to be replaced by a collective sense of seeking to be better and more frequent practitioners of sex in some form, will “America” still exist? And if it does, is it to receive guidance and a national sense of proper direction and purpose from a new national ethos of BMDFP and American entertainment?

American Celebrity Vs. American National Existence

We have before us the tit-for-tat brouhaha involving Rosie, The Donald and Baba Wawa, so I’ll use them as examples. I don’t think anything at all needs to be said about Rosie; she reveals her true nature every time she opens her filthy mouth. But, what is The Donald’s chief claim to fame? He is lionized by business, the media, show-biz and big-shot celebrities as some kind of great Capitalist guru, everybody wants, and indeed competes, to be his Apprentice or his Intern in order to learn from the great role model Manager and Entrepreneur himself. But exactly what kind of a role model is he?

The record seems to show that he operates his big deals by a particular formula that many would consider to show poor morals and low scruples, as follows:

  1. Shop for a “troubled” business in a good market that can be had for a song, using as much OPM (Other People’s Money) as possible.
  2. Acquire the business (or management authority over it), cut staff and unprofitable parts of the business, and expenses, to the bone.
  3. Don’t pay the company’s bills.
  4. When the wolf is right at the door, seek protection in the bankruptcy laws.
  5. Emerge from bankruptcy in a powerful competitive position, because all long-term debt is reduced to pennies-on-the-dollar or eliminated.
  6. Drive competition into the ground because they still have to pay all their bills – old ones as well as new ones – and can’t afford to cut prices or raise quality to the same level as The Donald’s new prize.
  7. Watch the stock go up, pocket more smitherillions, and graciously accept all the congratulations and public adulation.
Of course, all that happens in the rarified atmosphere of the Kazillionaires; but from my lowly perspective, we call the guy who doesn’t pay his bills a deadbeat, and when he uses trickery to get out of paying his debts, we call him a scoundrel. That’s the real difference between the big time celebrity and the common man.

But what The Donald’s latest public cat fight was about involved his clemency toward Miss USA after her “role model” image slipped. The highly publicized scandal involved illicit drugs and homosexual entanglements with an underage girl (yet another of The Donald’s contestants, this one in Miss Teen USA) and who knows what else. One TV interview on the topic brought in a past “Miss USA,” which automatically granted her super-celebrity-hood. She felt that Miss USA should have lost her crown, but now that she has kept it, she shouldn’t pose for Playboy, yet; not until after her year of being Miss USA. Then, just like the speaker, she should go ahead and pose for Playboy. It’s a role model issue, see? Once the year us up, she doesn’t have to be a role model anymore; it’s all just for show, after all, and there are some serious bucks to be made in America’s unregulated, state and court-protected masturbation industry. And these gals need to make that money before things begin to sag.

Baba Wawa’s claim to fame involves her past probing, deeply philosophical live on-camera TV interviews with nobility, statesmen and dignitaries, in which she asked big questions such as, What’s your favorite color?, and, If you were an animal, what animal would you be?, and so forth. Really. That’s how she got to be a freaking multi-zillionaire celebrity.

Her precarious position between The Donald and Rosie appears to be what was once described by Ben Franklin as the position of the Mugwump. Which is to say, the guy on the fence with his mug hanging over one side and his wump hanging over the other. She loves The Donald, her dear friend, and she loves Rosie. She hired Rosie. The mere fact that she hired Rosie should tell you everything you need to know about her character and her values.

There is not one whit of moral difference between these three celebrities. None of them are particularly shocked by illegal drug use, none of them are appalled by public homosexuality let alone any other form of illicit sexual gratification, none of them see anything wrong with using power or position or money or celebrity to hurt someone else, none of them drive their lives by any Judeo-Christian ethos. They are all birds of a feather. They have no recognition or even comprehension of sin, and they are primarily motivated by self-gratification, pure and simple. They all operate under the guiding ethos of – you guessed it -- BMDFP and most big-time American celebrities. They are purposeless people, or all their purposes are purely Worldly. They live pointless existences.

They have no interest in or even recognition of any Divine Ground Of Being for America as a nation, or how they contribute to its destruction. By their life examples, they move us all toward randomness and non-people-hood.

American Mass Media Vs. American National Existence

Sigh. Where to begin?

Well, you could look at what the SLIMC did to us, as a nation, in the Vietnam War. You could look at Mainstream Media Versus Truth for some of the more gross examples of shows like 60 Minutes, 20/20 and Dateline fraudulently manufacturing false evidence in order to broadcast massive, flagrant categorical lies, in order to hurt American industry. You could look at Old Traitor Memories for how Cronkite sought to motivate the news media to do to Iraq what he and his contemporaries did to South Vietnam. You could look at Tet Lie Redux to see how the media is emulating Cronkite and his buddies from the Vietnam War era. You could look at MSM Lies And Liars for some more media whoppers.

Or you could just sit back and take note of the entire mainstream news media’s absolute, hateful, fixation and pure obsession with President George W. Bush. They absolutely despise him. It’s universal. It’s downright demented. Every single day, one or more of them calls the President a liar, and that very statement is itself a lie, which makes liars of them all. They can point to not even one single statement he ever made that was a lie. Not one. And yet, daily, we hear from them that he is a liar. His whole governing strategy, his whole cabinet, his whole everything is based on lies, and he is a liar. I’ll bet you a nickel someone in the media will call him a liar today, and that the charge will be vague and unspecific. I’ll bet you another nickel that none of them will ever produce evidence that anything they say he lied about was a lie. They are, themselves, liars. If they state, as fact, that he is a liar, and they cannot show their statement to be true, then they are liars.

No one should be surprised by any of this. Look at the “News” being reported out of Iraq. That the mainstream media will lie for its own purposes is on record. Reuters is now known more for its purposely faked and doctored “news” photos than for anything else. AP fabricated at least 60 stories, over two years, all made up out of nothing, based solely and exclusively on the supposed “testimony” of one and only one source, a man named Jamil Hussein, who no one can talk to. How convenient for AP. All of this fakery was and is used by the media to produce bad news, exclusively, out of Iraq, to help turn the American people against the war effort. They see it as their job.

A major tool of the SLIMC today is the Instant Public Popularity Poll, which is helping enormously to mentally converting us all from being a Republic to being some sort of Parliamentary Commonwealth, or worse, a pure Democracy. The quickie-poll gets us all used to two things:

  1. Being told very quickly what we think about something.
  2. The notion that the majority rules, in virtually everything.
This is very dangerous, in several ways. The whole idea of our Constitutional Republic, our three supposedly co-equal branches of government and the mechanisms by which we elect our Representatives is supposed to forge us into a nation of laws, and not merely of men. Our laws are not supposed to be increasingly and hopelessly numerous, or easily tampered with and changed, all on mere popular whim.

If today we vote in a ban on smoking in and around all public facilities, some among us might say they disagree with the way that vote went, but most likely they would quickly add, well, the majority rules. We shouldn’t be so cavalier about this. Would, and should, that be our typical reaction when the vote is on abortion? How about infanticide? How about when we take a vote on whether to use genocide to ethnically cleanse all the blacks out of our population? Could a good and decent man say, in good conscience, I disagree with the way that vote went, but hey, the majority rules?

When our form of government has been allowed by its participants to degenerate to the point that law is established, not by elected Representation, not by Legislation, but by mere popular vote, then we will have become a nation of men, and we will have ceased being a nation of laws. And we will be on our way to the anything-goes-anarchy of mob rule, which is what pure Democracy is. What do we stand for? What is our Purpose? Whatever the majority mood of the moment is. When everybody is the ruler, there is no rule, and there is no order. When everybody makes the law, there is no law.

Some things should never even appear on any ballot. Some things should never need to be addressed in civil law at all. When we were, collectively, a clearly recognizable American People, we voted in our Representatives and then trusted them to follow their good and well formed consciences, which, we had every reason to hope, would coincide with our overall Common American National Guiding Ethos. We need to return to our old Americanism, and our media is not helping.

Dangerous Times for Pure Popular Rule

These are indeed interesting times, as in the ancient Chinese curse. They may be likened to the times that try men’s souls, as Payne would put it. But we’ve survived other terrible times. When our first Constitution was ratified, due to the politics of the day and the political power of the Planters, it contained a potentially fatal flaw in Article IV Section 2, to whit,

No Person held in Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Thus, in the one document that grants the most freedom to the lowly, we find a politically-expedient clause affirming and continuing human slavery. That was the best that a collection of learned, moral men, conscious of their citizen Representation, could do at that time. I submit that a popular vote would not have made the matter better, and our nation as we know it might not have even properly have come into being. It was a terrible thing, yes; but those were terrible times, worse than these.

That moral issue led inexorably to our Civil War. Emancipation, and the end of that terrible nation-tearing war, brought us more terrible times, at least partially because Lincoln didn’t survive to properly oversee his Southern Reconstruction. It went wrong right from the start. The Thirteenth Amendment repealed Article IV Section 2, and outlawed Slavery and Involuntary Servitude in the United States of America and all places subject to their jurisdiction. But, in the same time frame, the Fourteenth Amendment, granting full citizenship and voting rights to freed slaves, denied the vote, and the ability to run for or hold any office, to all Civil War veterans from the South. It canceled all debts owed to any Southern state. The Confederate dollar was, of course, worthless.

So, the South had thousands upon thousands upon thousands of penniless, half-starved war veterans, severely wounded among them, forced to take not only an oath of allegiance, but another purposely shameful oath renouncing the Southern “insurrection,” then struggling however they could to return to their burned-out homes, only to find that they could not vote or hold office or be represented by anyone. Now, all of these men were not Planters, and not all of them had ever owned slaves. Many of them, like their Northern counterparts, went off to war because of a sense of threat to home and family and neighborhood. And some went because it seemed to be the thing to do for a young man at that time.

And there was another variety of war veteran now in the typical Southern town. They were Northerners, known as Carpet Baggers, because of the luggage made out of carpet that was popular at the time. Many of these were vengeful men full of hate for Southerners because of war experiences. There was a lot of that on both sides. The Carpet Baggers were there to get some revenge, and to make their fortunes, because they could compete in any economic market they chose with a great advantage over the native population, which was impoverished, and completely un-represented in government.

Those were indeed terrible times, much worse than these. Human life was very cheap. Both sides were comprised of very experienced war veterans heavily experienced in killing, and they did not hesitate to waylay each other. This was the environment from which sprang the Klan, a residue of which is still with us today. There were some Northern Republicans who were, believe it or not, just as evil. Carpet Baggers intended to rub Southern noses in the dirt; they delighted in running black candidates for office, or in running themselves, and being elected by the combined Carpet Bagger and black majority, since none of the white Southern natives could vote.

There is a purpose in this little reflection on a particularly terrible period of American history, due mostly to a piss-poor Vice President becoming an even worse President. That purpose is to get you to think about just how horrible it might have been if some of these decisions, the “Jim Crow” laws, the Fourteenth Amendment and so forth, and any other popular issues at the time, might have been determined by popular vote rather than by deliberative, somewhat removed and less emotional legislative bodies. The “Trend” over several decades now, pushed by the Elites and the Democrats, is toward an ever increasingly Open Society, in which Everyone Decides Everything By Vote. In this model, the Southern Civil War veterans would have been granted the vote. Think local. At different historical times, whole populations might have been voted out of existence, over nothing more than a terrible, vengeful mood of the moment among the majority of the moment. This is exactly what the original design of our Republic was intended to prevent. We need to return to being a nation of laws, and not merely of men. Rule of law means stability; rule of mood means periodic chaos.

God help us all when the majority always rules on every issue.

Pseudo-Science Vs. American National Existence

Those of you who have been with me for awhile know about my increasing disrespect for a seeming majority among those who call themselves scientists. The true scientists always seem to be the exception to the rule, and even among those who can be seen to do good science, there often can be discerned a queasiness or even cowardice when asked to speak on any religious topic. It seems to be an almost universal given that one may not discuss or even hold any religious conviction and still call himself a scientist.

Question: Where does it say that? Answer: Nowhere.

This is a hangover from the old philosophical split discussed on the Modernist Heresy page. If eminent theologians may be found who are quite comfortable discussing the intricacies of astrophysics, then it seems reasonable to assume that there might be a similar number of eminent astrophysicists who might be equally comfortable discussing the minutia of Judeo-Christian Revelation. Yet that does not seem to be the case. There is an unwritten law among “scientists” that relegates devotees of any religion to non-scientific status, and labels them incapable of objectivity demanded of science. This is, of course, a purely social law, and there is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is designed, intended and used to promote and defend a particular faith-based belief system: Atheism. The atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, yet believes it, on faith alone, and may be said to be a faithful person, and a devotee to a particular faith-based belief system. Which, of course, colors his objectivity.

That “science” is today almost totally dominated by this faith-based belief system is evident everywhere. Scientific devotees absolutely limit their scientific inquiries to The World, i.e., material, and cannot, by the strongest dogma of their belief system, even entertain thoughts about anything other-worldly or un-natural or super-natural or immaterial. It may be said to be religiously prohibited.

This is the predominant pseudo-scientific thinking that directly attacks the American Divine Ground Of Being. There is nothing scientific about it. Von Hayek dubbed it Scientism, and it’s findings Scientisitic.

Things have gotten a lot worse since then. There now exists a huge pile of widely recognized and uncontested “scientific facts” that cannot possibly be true. Some of these are even widely recognized, and uncontested, as actual Scientific Theories, despite not having been elevated to that level in the usual scientific way. Can there be any wonder that “science” is loosing respect?

Of course, the cornerstone of Scientism was and remains Darwinism, espousing Darwin’s conjecture as a genuine Scientific Theory despite lack of evidence and the fact that it’s never even been observed, let alone measured or tested or peer-reviewed, by anyone, ever. No evidence has ever been produced showing any new species evolving out of any other species, or mass mutating out of any other species. What supports it is not scientific law, but civil law. Darwinism is legally required to be taught in government schools, and counter-theories are specifically prohibited by civil law from being taught in government schools. You might have thought they were “public” schools, but they are not. They are State controlled schools. (The Leviathan State Cometh?)

You can see more on this in the previously published Scientism article.

We have, of course, the HIV to AIDS link fraud, elaborated upon at the HIV=AIDS Myth page. If Darwin’s “theory” was voted into being by a gaggle of TTRSTF, it has nothing on the HIV=AIDS fraud, which was simply declared into being by a government bureaucrat, with absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up, and with no opposition from science. The motivation for this massive fraud came out of the Homo-Nazi movement.

And that movement got its biggest boost from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) who, not by any science, but by vote, officially declared to the world that they had forever “cured” homosexuality everywhere and in all cases. They actually voted to declare homosexuality not to be a perversion or an abnormality or a problem of any kind. Yep. Well, the majority rules, you know. You can read the details in the Freudianism page. After congratulating each other on their fine science and drinking a toast to themselves, they then went back to work toward voting in a massive, global cure for pedophilia. Stay tuned.

”Science” is guilty of sins of omission as well as commission. Where scientists themselves are not the perpetrators of bad science, they frequently do not challenge the ones who do. Absolute myths, such as the Human Population Problem still stand as truisms in the public consciousness. The same can be said (and is said in the Eco-Nazism page) about our “limited” resources in danger of running out, the whole nonsensical notion of man-induced global warming, the myth that man can do something to control or change the climate, the notion that we’ll all die in ten years unless Gore is elected, and so forth, is all largely left unchallenged by scientists who know better.

The Population Problem, of course, once believed, prompted it’s sure fire cure via Secularism-sponsored Artificial Contraception, and even Human Abortion. Which should tell us something about what we have become.

Then of course there is the Science-Democracy Obversion and the resultant Redirection reported and elaborated upon by our friends over at SANE, and their NuVo response to it. NuVo, you will recall, was the Null Vote Initiative, with the motto, ”Don’t vote; it only encourages them.” We’ve had quite a discussion on all of that; my last comments and contacts on it were in my Christmas 2006 message, and then in the NuVo Consequences article. I’ve heard nothing since, and those comments have not been updated at the SANE site either. So I’m assuming, by this time, that they are simply allowing the NuVo Initiative to just die a quiet death, since they have no viable alternative for our unique American Constitutional Republic in the absence of a sovereign citizen casting a vote. While I liked the clear logic describing the problem, and I saw that our mission statements were compatible, I thought the NuVo Initiative part of it was dumb right from the start, unless there was more to it. It looks like I was right the first time, and nothing more is forthcoming regarding NuVo.

Separation of Church and State Vs.
American National Existence

Constitution of the United States of America; Amendment I:

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.
There’s nothing tough about this; you don’t have to be a legal scholar to understand the simple English of it. The clause in question is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
You can see at once that this clause places two legal restrictions upon the Congress, and no legal restrictions upon anyone other than Congress. The Congress is legally prohibited from:
  1. Legislating, regulating or otherwise establishing legal preeminence of any religion as any sort of official religion of the state.
  2. Legislating, regulating or otherwise establishing any rule or law Interfering in any way with any American citizen’s free and open exercise of religion.
Note well that, nowhere in this clause, nowhere in this Amendment, and nowhere in the entire Constitution, do the words Separation Of Church And State appear. The so-called “Constitutional Principle” of Separation Of Church And State may not properly be called a Constitutional Principle since it may not be found anywhere in the Constitution. The Establishment Clause says nothing whatsoever about any such separation. The language is crystal clear.

The intention of the Founders was similarly crystal clear. Most of the Colonies-becoming-States already had legally established official State Religions in their pre-existing formational Constitutions or Charters, and they (at first) fully intended to keep them. The Delegates from the individual Colonies were seeking to prohibit the larger Federal Government form legally establishing some official National religion right over the top of their own existing, legally established, official State religions.

That was the whole purpose for the Establishment Clause being put into the First Amendment of the National Constitution. The Framers sought two things: First, to prohibit any Federal legal requirement for citizens to join any religion other than the Colonial one to which they already belonged. Second, to have religious toleration established in Federal law for open practice or “Exercise” of their existing official and legal Colonial religions. Here are our founding era official State religions:

Rhode IslandBaptist
PennsylvaniaQuaker
MarylandRoman Catholic
Connecticut Congregational
Georgia Church of England
Massachusetts Congregational
North Carolina Church of England
New Hampshire Congregational
South Carolina Church of England
Virginia Church of England
Florida Catholic (Spanish era) Church of England (British era)
West Indies Church of England

The issue drew attention and much thought to the voluntary and free-will nature of Christian faith required of salvation, and fed the notion of freedom of religion. Over time the individual Sates each had their own “Disestablishment” movements in favor of the proven wisdom of the National Establishment Clause; today, every State has similar clauses in their own State Constitutions. The notion that the Framers intended any sort of restriction at all on any Church or Synagogue, or on any minister or theologian, is just plain ludicrous. Nor did they intend to put any restrictions on themselves regarding their public endorsements, who they supported, who contributed to their campaigns or anything else.

Legislators and Presidents and Justices were perfectly free to quote Scripture, teach Sunday School, pray in public, lead public prayer, give government dollars to Churches and Church groups and organizations, or anything else they wanted to do. And they did these things. The Clause wasn’t intended to restrict religion, but to free it. It placed two and only two very specific restrictions on Congress, and absolutely no restrictions on anyone else.

Jefferson’s Wall

Thomas Jefferson has been taking a bum rap for a long time now, as somehow having created this “Constitutional” principle called Separation of Church and State. He did no such thing. He wrote a private letter to some Connecticut Baptists using the phrase in full support of what you just read above. Here’s Jefferson’s letter:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Again, this was a private letter, not any kind of law, and President Jefferson did not intend for any part of it to ever be construed as any new law or in any way become legally binding on anyone. Even if it literally did become binding, if you read it, you see that it says exactly and precisely what the Establishment Clause says. Few documents in history have been more misrepresented than this one. Obviously, President Jefferson wasn’t too crazy about the Church of England, but his letter shows that he respected the rights of those who claimed it as their own.

Later that year President Jefferson signed into law a tax exemption for Churches in Alexandria County. The following year he made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians in which he pledged federal money to erect Catholic Church for them and to provide some support their priest. Now, Jefferson wasn’t particularly fond of the Catholic Church. In fact, he wasn’t too fond of Protestantism either. (He was a Deist.)

But it’s worth noting here that President Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father most central to this whole issue, as President, spent American tax dollars to support a Church, granted tax-free status to some other Churches, and clearly showed in his correspondence his belief in God, and his sense of duty to protect American religious freedom and independence from government.

Justice Black’s Dumb Assed Interpretation

The first Amendment, as written, bans laws that would establish a state religion; it has now been interpreted to place a wall of separation between the Church and the state. This is an invention. Jefferson, the first to use the term, intended this “wall” to protect religions from government; today’s officials interpret its intention to be to protect government from religion. They’ve turned it upside down. In the 1947 Everson case the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporated” the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and extended the meaning of “establishment” to include “aid” to religion or religions. See?

Justice Black, for the majority:

“The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religions organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by laws was intended to erect a “wall of separation between Church and State.””
(Emphasis added.) He just made that up out of thin air.

The Black Court Majority was either very, very dumb, or evil. Jefferson’s wall of separation certainly did not mean that the government or members of the Government were thereafter prohibited from supporting or practicing or publicly espousing religion, or teaching Sunday School in their spare time.

The Founders used to begin all proceedings, public or private, with prayer, and they did so on the day following the ratification of the Bill of Rights; they certainly did not intend to place themselves or their successors in the position of not being able to pray publicly, invoke the name of God in public speeches, quote Scripture to any audience including school children, or teach religion in their spare time, perhaps at a public school. What they did intend was to not legislate religion, and to not allow the government to hinder or restrict or control religion or religious expression. Period.

We don’t really have a crime problem, as such. We have a morality problem. Separation of Church and state provides an excuse for a pure form of part-time atheism called secularism, which supports its parent religion of atheism, which simultaneously promotes evil and directly attacks all tradition, orthodoxy and mainstream religions that oppose evil. This is a direct attack on our national Divine Ground Of Being.

Secularism is evil, pure and simple. State secularism must begin to be widely recognized for what it is, which is a religious persuasion officially established, promoted and enforced by the state; not by Congress, mind you, but by the Court. Its main agenda is religious cleansing, concentrating on Christianity, and, for the secularists, the ends justify the means.

Secularism - separation of religion and anything at all - is immoral. And, if you are any variety of mainstream monotheist, then secularism is also against your religion. Currently, it is also the law of the land.

Consider how the Secularists / Wall-Of-Separationists quite regularly ask you to put your faith aside when you step up to the blackboard, or podium, or jury box, or microphone, or voting booth, or whatever. I submit for your consideration the notion that putting your faith aside for any reason, in any environment, for even an instant, is very strictly against your religion, if you have a real religion. It cannot be claimed that it should be done for any higher purpose, for there is and can be no higher purpose.

I ask you to take a moment to quietly think about the idea of separation of Church and, not only state, but, anything at all. What moral purpose could there possibly be for you to put aside and disregard your deep religious beliefs, for a moment, or for an issue, or in an environment? Pick a time frame, pick a topic, pick a place, and think about it; perform a thought experiment. After having put aside your religious beliefs and your faith-based moral standards, and having considered the secular topic or made the secular decision or done the secular business, in the end, have your religious teachings and moral standards regarding the apparently vitally important secular topic changed? If not, then, why did you disregard them?

Question: Why would you ever be asked to put your religion aside?

Answer: To get you to choose or decide or vote for something against your religion.

There is and can be no other reason. Think about it.

American Politicians Vs. American National Existence

It bears repeating:

Common Faith = Cultural Ethos = Cultural Purpose = Distinct People-hood.

Politicians can be tricky fellows; chameleon-like, they change colors to match the current venue or audience. The whole strategic purpose driving a political career is to gain popular approval. Changing color for a given audience is a tactical ploy. The astute observer will note wildly differing speech content and political posturing by the same candidate, when he has his turn at the podium at:

  1. The Playboy Mansion.
  2. The American Legion.
  3. The National Abortion Rights League.
  4. The National Conference of Baptist Ministers.
  5. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.
  6. The Anti-Defamation League.
  7. The National Gay and Lesbian Rights Association.
  8. The 700 Club.
  9. The NAACP.
  10. NOW.
  11. Life International.
  12. The 82nd Airborne Division.
  13. Eternal Word Television Network.
  14. Conference of the ACLU.
  15. Catholics and Evangelicals Together.
  16. etc.
Some politicians master the chameleon tactic, and they can gain votes in any venue. They are quite few, and, eventually, most of the people will catch on to them. So another method is needed to resolve the problem.

And exactly what is the problem?

  1. The underlying set of principles by which most Americans guide their lives and raise their families is firmly established in the traditions and ethos of Westerrn Civilization.
  2. A very significant number of very powerful American politicians absolutely despise and oppose those traditions and that guiding ethos.
And so another option is available: the Big Tent political option, in which the politician cherry-picks from among diverse minorities enough minorities to hopefully comprise enough of a majority to get in or stay in office. It works very well at the local levels, less well the higher one rises. It’s very difficult, but not impossible, to be a winning strategy at the national level. It works best when there is a third party candidate to draw votes from the Western Civilization candidate or position.

What we are talking about here is the American Divine Ground Of Being, and people who despise it and seek to destroy it. They seek to change us all from what we are to something less than that. Our natural and traditional and predominant sense of purpose and direction is to be changed, to suite someone who opposes it.

Yet, even among those politicians who have mastered Big Tent politics, there is always a bit of the chameleon present. Because we are overwhelmingly Christian by population, it is a universal given that all politicians will, as they must, at least portray themselves to be some sort of Christian (or practicing Jew), even when they actually despise Christianity and all that it stands for. I don’t think you will find any loudly proclaiming atheist anywhere in high political office, at the national level, and probably not at the state level.

But are they really believing as well as practicing Christians and Jews? Let’s look at a few of them.

Jiminy Carter has been called the most Evangelical President in history, and was a Southern Baptist until about 2000, when he left that denomination apparently because they renounced Mormonism, which he defends. Or defended. He was a pro-abortion governor, but became a pro-life President, except when he addressed feminist groups, when he was pro-abortion again. You can read about his pro-sodomy stand and his championing of open homosexuality in the Thinking Catholic page.

His thoroughly Marxist, Planned Economy governing style brought us economic depression, double-digit unemployment, well into double-digit mortgage and other interest rates, double digit inflation, wage freezes, price freezes, and a lot of disrespect overseas. He had 52 embassy hostages taken and held for 444 days in Tehran, causing him to cancel the Olympics, to teach Russia a lesson or something.

We would have to check with his Pastor to find out if his specific denomination and individual Church preaches the goodness and acceptability of open homosexuality the way he does. He has attacked those who oppose open homosexuality as homophobes, and those who hold strongly to their faith-based morals as the Religious Right in a pejorative way, which tends to identify him more with the Anti-Christ Left than with any real Church. It appears that he does not share the same common Western Culture guiding ethos that supports the American Divine Ground Of Being. He apparently has another purpose and direction.

Regarding the Presidents Clinton, Billary was purported to be a Southern Baptist, and Hillary is purported to be a Methodist. Or that is what they pretend to be. Neither of those Faith Traditions are known to be rabidly pro-abortion or pro-sodomy, so we would need to talk to their Pastors about what those denominations teach about “putting your faith and morals aside for a higher purpose”, if that’s what the Clintons were pretending to be doing. Billary did his best to homosexuallize the military, but was forced by Congress to settle for a “don’t ask, don’t tell” wink-wink under-cover merging of “closet” homosexuals into military units. His only possible purpose in this was to injure, as much as possible, military unit cohesion.

But, to prove how tolerant and inclusive and non-divisive they were, they both found a way to come forward and sacrilegiously receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church, on camera, of course. Neither the Southern Baptist nor the Methodist persuasions are noted for teaching belief in the True Presence of the Body of Christ in the Roman Catholic Eucharist, so we have to wonder what was going on here. By this action, the Communicant makes three distinct statements:

  1. I am fully reconciled with my brothers and with God, I am in a state of Grace, which means I am not in a state of Mortal Sin.
  2. I fully believe in and I discern the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ truly present in this Eucharist.
  3. I am fully Catholic, I embrace all Church teaching, recognizing that I become one with what I eat: the larger Body Of Christ, which is the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think either one of them ever considered let alone embraced any of those three points. This means, according to Scripture, they have already eaten their own judgment.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread an drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
1 Cor 11:27-29.
Pretty strong Words. If either Clinton did discern the Body in the Catholic Eucharist, then, why are they not now Catholic? Exactly what faith do they profess? All faiths at once? If their faith life is random, that explains their public behavior; they do not live a purpose-driven life like the rest of us

Not that any of this means anything to the Clintons, or that they believe any of it, or that any of this is of the slightest importance to them, except in regards to political expediency.

We would have to check with their Pastors to find out if their specific denominations and individual Churches preach the goodness and acceptability of such things as abortion and open homosexuality the way they do. They have attack those who oppose open homosexuality as homophobes, those who oppose abortion, and those who hold strongly to their faith-based morals as the Religious Right Wing in a pejorative way, which tends to identify them more with the Anti-Christ Left than with any real Church. It appears that they do not share the same common Western Culture guiding ethos that supports the American Divine Ground Of Being. They apparently have another purpose and another direction.

In John Kerry we have our nations most self-decorated Vietnam War hero, possibly our highest self-decorated hero ever, video-taped Capital Hill liar, champion and sponsor of abortion, who actually pretends to be Catholic. You can read about his Vietnam “testimony” before congress in the Vietnam War page; and more recent updates at Kerry’s Lies Return and at Kerry Lies Again. He went to Europe to confer with and receive orders from his Vietnamese Communist bosses while the war was still going on, and he is currently figured prominently among the other Communist “hero” displays in Communist Vietnam’s War Hero Museum. His film crew / supporting cast – excuse me, I meant to say his boat-crew-minus-one band of brothers shot all the heroic Vietnam film footage you saw in his last political campaign, and all the faked Vietnam news interviews with himself. It was all done with his own personal super-8 camera. Didn’t they do a great job?

Of course, there’s Teddy (hic) Kennedy to consider. Quite possibly The Murderer Of Chappaquiddick, chief sponsor, champion, defender and lover of abortion, sodomy, you name it – and purported Catholic – what else needs to be said about him?

Question: Why are these two highly public and highly vocal obstinate unrepentant sinners, and chief public, political sponsors of abortion, not publicly excommunicated, with great fanfare?
Answer: Because their bishop has no balls.

The Church in America suffers greatly, and so does America’s National Divine Ground Of Being, due to a bunch of nut-less wonder bishops unworthy of wearing the purple. There are just a few questions I’d like to ask of the priests who give communion to the likes of Kerry and Kennedy:

  1. What the Hell is wrong with you?
  2. Where the Hell did you get your Seminary training?
  3. Who the Hell ordained you?
  4. What the Hell is wrong with him?

There are many other public voices that seem to move us toward becoming something lower, something less than what we are and what we have been. We now have General John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calling for “serious reconsideration” of Clinton’s infamous Don’t ask, don’t tell policy regarding closet homosexual perverts in the military. But he doesn’t want to abolish it; what he wants is to leave them in the military, but also to bring them out of the closet.

Right.

So lets put some lipstick on this pig and trot it out in public so the whole world can take a real good look at it. I don’t know how many months or years the good general ever spent living in common barracks, showers and sleeping in two-man pup-tents in close company with open, acting-out, in-your-face flaming faggots, but I would hazard a guess at a number between damned few and none. Maybe he would enjoy it; most of us wouldn’t. He said he had somehow found and spoken to a significant number of active, practicing homosexuals now serving in the military, and that’s how he came to his conclusion. I wonder why he didn’t speak about it with any heterosexuals now serving in the military. Perhaps he’s heterophobic. He talked about “perceptions” changing regarding homosexual acceptance, and it was based on – don’t tell me, let me guess – a poll. Our culture is evolving in that direction. Toward becoming the new Sodom. I submit that that is not evolution; it is devolution.

Since the good general is Polish, I would hazard a guess that he is, or was, a Roman Catholic. If so, he really needs to have a good long talk with a priest. The teaching has never changed.

We have before us all the direct public opposition to Bush and all his policies by nearly every single Democrat in office or hoping to be in office. Their every-day public comments about the President are absolutely inflammatory. We have the unforgettable image of Screaming Gore, literally shrieking into the microphone, about Bush, “HE BETRAYED US!” with nothing to back that up other than hot air. They all looked at the same intelligence Bush looked at, overwhelmingly voted us into the Iraq war, and then accused him of somehow tricking them all into their votes. We have the whole Plamegate affair, in which Valerie’s lying husband, the false accuser in this story, had himself published her cover-name in Who’s Who as well as on his own website, and then falsely, publicly charged the administration with leaking that name to the media, to get back at him for publicly falsely denying the contents of his own official report, which said Sadam sought nuclear fuel, just as Bush said he did.

Note well that, just about every time any of these partisan liars steps up to the microphone, how they precede their anti-Bush remarks with impossible-to-know statements about “the people” to show their own Open Society tendencies. “The People Know …”, or, “The People no longer accept …”, or, “The American People agree that …”, are the kinds of lead-ins to the political lies that typify Leftist politics today. Every one of them does it. They rely on the instant poll even more than the SLIMC does. It feeds the public perception of false popularity of a position. It greatly increases the number of times we are all told what we collectively believe, and we tend to begin to believe it ourselves. Nobody wants to be out of step with the majority.

It would be good for you to read the Bush Lied, People Died article for the list of Dems, Pelosi and the Clintons and Gore included, who all called for war with Iraq, in strong terms, long before President Bush ever did, and then called him a liar for saying precisely what they had all previously said.

Just remember that whenever someone challenges your expression of faith or your faith-based choices by labeling you Religious Right Winger, you are most likely being labeled by an Anti-Christ Left Winger.

Don’t stoop to their level. Never put your religion aside. Never.

Your well formed Christian conscience contributes to our common guiding ethos, which makes up our American National Divine Ground Of Being.

What Good Justice Calls For

First, we need to spend time considering who we are, and why we are, our purpose, and our proper direction. This is an activity best done on one’s knees. When our hearts and minds are right, we can begin to work on our families. When the hearts and minds of our families are right, they will positively affect the larger culture.

America is what we make it. Is America worth fighting for? Is anything at all worth fighting for? Is there anything worthy of self sacrifice? If not, then, why not? These are thoughts worthy of meditation. If you don’t have the answer yet, look at The Democracy / Open Society Problem and then come back here.

We need to return, as much as possible, to the original nature of our Republic, as founded, leaving out slavery, of course. We need to see ourselves as Sovereign Citizens in this land, but we need to temper that sovereignty with humility. We need to understand that we cannot each be King, we cannot each always be on the winning side, and we need to, however grudgingly, support and not oppose whoever wins high office for the duration of the term of office.

We need to take our rights very seriously, study candidates and issues, and then, after we cast our votes, put our trust in the elected to properly lead us in the proper direction, without second-guessing and nit picking his every decision. We elect leaders to lead, to make difficult decisions. Once elected, we should graciously stand back and allow them to do that.

Personally, I would like to see the XXVII Amendment repealed, and a return to Article 1 Section 3 so that the Senate would go back to being elected by State Legislatures rather than by popular vote. We need for that one legislative body to be somewhat insulated from any instant-poll driven, media-inspired, throw the bums out mob mentality of any particular political moment.

We need to turn away from the “Limited War” mentality that allowed public popularity to enter into the decision of whether we were to win or to lose, as it did in Vietnam, and as it is doing in Iraq. I’m frankly surprised the Democrats haven’t cut off military finding to our forces in Korea after all these years, and thrown the South Koreans to the wolves just as they did the South Vietnamese.

There is no option more serious than war. It should never be taken lightly by anyone. Once it is begun, whether by due deliberation, or by having been imposed upon us by the enemy, popular opinion should have nothing whatsoever to do with it’s proper prosecution. War is properly in the hands of the generals, and the generals alone; not the pollsters, not the politicians, not the media, and not even the public.

We need a Commander In Chief with guts, who is willing and able to return the military to the pure military purpose.

This means ordering all the homosexuals the Hell out of the military, by executive order. This means, do ask, and do tell. If the Courts or the Congress disagree, that would just be too bad, because that responsibility resides in the Executive branch.

He should also order all women out of all combat units, and out of all combat support units that go anywhere near combat. Our military needs female front-line grunts about like the NFL needs female linebackers. We do not need to grant any enemy the option of capturing American women. No women should be serving on combat aircraft or on any ships that go into harm’s way. No American military units, anywhere, should have mixed, co-ed-style living arrangements, with women and men sharing the same quarters. Again, if the Courts or the Congress don’t like it, that’s just too bad. It’s not their job.

We are at war with an enemy that seeks an end to our national existence.

We should carefully elect our Presidents, and then, whether our preferred candidate or not, allow him to do his job. In a similar manner, he should select generals based on quality, and then stand back and allow them to do their job.

The military needs rules of engagement that allow them to win. That means, the ability to pursue the enemy wherever he goes, to strike his supplies wherever they come from, and to grant him no refuge anywhere. The generals should be free to develop plans to strike the enemy wherever he goes, and if that means areas of Pakistan, Iran, Syria or anywhere else, then so be it. All military plans should aim at victory. If the battlefield expands, so be it. If other governments interfere, strike those governments and carry on. Victory remains the goal. It bears repeating.

We are at war with an enemy that seeks an end to our national existence.


References:



This is the free periodic e-zine of the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center.

Forward this e-mail to a friend.

All previous articles are available right here.


Back to Back Issues Page