#1 The Founding of the Nation

Founding Fathers #1 The signers

Founding Fathers #2 Sept. 17, 1787

Founding Fathers #3 Human Nature

HUMAN NATURE AND THE FORMULATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
Foreword. On this past September 17, the U. S. Constitution became 230 years of age, an unprecedented length of time for a governing document. However, while the Constitution has served the nation well for this lengthy period, it has for several decades — beginning primarily from the era of President Wilson and continuing through the era of President Obama — come under attack, as evidenced by recent riots and campus disruptions when other forms of government — including those recognized as fascist, statist or anarchist — are being advocated.
The advocates of another form of government have been successful to a great extent, one might speculate, because there has been little effort expended in our educational systems, or otherwise, to explain to the general public the philosophies which shaped our Constitution.
This report is an attempt to fill that void, at least locally, with particular emphasis on how the framers dealt with human nature, as they understood it, in governmental affairs.
A Realistic View of Human Nature, a Primary Concern of the Framers. Author/talk show host Kirby Anderson points out that James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, argued in Federalist 51 that government must be based on a realistic view of human nature, and that “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men [in contrast with monarchies and religious-based government], the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
While in an effort to wisely structure provisions of a Constitution the framers referenced some of the great thinkers of their era — Blackstone (for his “Commentaries”), Lock, Montesquieu and others – researchers have found that, by far, the reference most cited was the Bible. It was from that source that the framers accepted the Bible’s portrayal of human nature and factored it into the design of government. That portrayal was that man, while capable of doing good, has a sinful nature of which only one of many manifestations was, as cited by Bible.org, “people are selfish and they_ do what is good for themselves.” Incorporating a realistic and unchanginq view of human nature, as the Framers understood it, in the design of the Constitution may have been a major factor in that document remaining in operation for 230 years, and continuing this day, through a myriad of change.
Madison’s Plan. Madison, in coping with man’s flawed human nature, divided the the problem of dealing with tyranny into broad categories: (1) government tyranny stemming from abusive government authority_ (addressed in Federalist #47-51), and (2) the tyranny of the majority vote of people (addressed in Federalist #10). What follows are excerpts from Anderson’s description of Madison’s plan to deal with both forms of tyranny, excerpts the reader may find both enlightening and fascinating:
Madison concluded from his study of governments that they were destroyed by factions. He believed this factionalism was due to “the propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities” (Federalist #10) which he believed were “sown in the nature of man.” Government, he concluded, must be based upon a more realistic view which also accounts for this sinful side of human nature.
Madison realized the futility of trying to remove passions (human sinfulness) from the population. Therefore, he proposed that human nature be set against human nature. This was done by separating various institutional power structure. First, the church was separated from the state so that ecclesiastical functions and government functions would not interfere with religious and political liberty. Second, the federal government was divided into three equal branches. executive, legislative and judicial. Third, the federal government was delegated certain powers while the rest of the powers resided in the state governments.
The separation of powers allows each branch of government to provide a check on the other. According to Madison, the Constitution provides a framework of supplying “opposite and rival interests” (Federalist #51) through a series of checks and balances. This theory of countervailing ambition” both prevented tyranny and provided liberty. It was a system in which bad people could do the least harm and good people had the freedom to do good works.
The Framer’s Concept of Democracy. Just as the framers structured government to cope with the flawed human nature of elected officials (discussed above), so too did they formulate constitutional provisions to cope with flawed human nature of voters.
The framers were wary of the passions of direct democracy, and wanted to encourage a politics of thoughtful opinion through a representative process. An analysis found in The U. S Constitution Online illustrates how they applied their wariness to government:
One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in may ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. [As discussed below, that method was changed by Amendment.]
Spalding notes also that the process by which the Constitution itself is amended is ultimately based on state approval. He then concludes : “It is striking that in this powerful national government, there is not a single official chosen b a national constituency
“A Republic — If You Can Keep it!” The reader will recall the response of Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Constitution in 1787 to the question about what kind of government the signers had given us. His response, pertinent to the above discussion, was: “A republic — if you can keep it.” The definition of a “Republic” as published in the Noah Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 and probably consistent with the understanding of the Framers is: “A state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.”
The Electoral College. The wisdom of having “electors,” chosen by states, to elect a president and vice president at an Electoral College, as the Constitution provides — rather than having all the people via a popular vote make the decisions — becomes readily apparent in light of the nation’s experience during the most recent presidential election. Had presidents been elected then via a popular vote instead of via the Electoral College vote, the nation would have elected as president a person who by an ever-growing number of citizens is regarded as corrupt, decadent, immoral and otherwise flawed.
The Selection of U. S. Senators. Madison, being concerned that the federal legislature could predominate over Other branches of government, proposed in Federalist 51 that the remedy for this predominance was, in stark contrast with the unicameral arrangement of a parliament, to divide the legislature into different houses and make them, by different modes of election. as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions will allow. Thus the Constitution originally provided that Representatives were chosen by one mode; Senators by another. A practical illustration of the application of the framer’s philosophy can be noted by the following passage from Wikipedia:
Originally, a Senator was elected by the legislature of a state, and was expected to represent the State within the Federal government. This was expected to help keep the balance between Federal and state authority. Also it was believed that while an unqualified candidate might win a popular-vote majority through demagoguery or superficial qualities, whereas the legislature, which could deliberate on its choice, and whose members had been selected by their constituents and had experience in politics, would be safe from such folly. Finally, election by the legislature was expected to insulate Senators from the distraction of public campaigning for election or re-election, leaving them free to concentrate on the great business Of the Federal government.
Hugh Problems Began to Emerge. According to Wikipedia, the election of Senators by legislatures generally occurred without major problems up to the mid-1850g when the sectional crisis over slavery led to increasing partisanship and strife. Some states — such as Indiana, California and Delaware — were unable to elect Senators for periods of around two years. And there were other problems. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1991 and 1905.
To cope with these problems, several states had resorted to using unofficial referendums for the people to use to express to their legislatures their choices of Senators.
These and other problems prompted people to make changes via constitutional amendment.
Contrary to the Plan of the Framers, Amendment XVII was Passed. To cope with problems described above, the nation, in 1913, adopted Amendment XVII which provided that a state’s U. S. Senator would be elected by the popular-vote of the people in ä given state, even though it was contrary to the intentions of the Framers which were (1) to avoid or to minimize popular vote, and (2) to have unduplicated methods of electing individuals to the various branches of government; i.e., Electoral College elects President; Legislature elects Senators; people elect Representatives.
But Then New Problems Emerged. It may be instructive to consider how ObamaCare would have fared if Senators were elected by legislatures, as originally prescribed, rather than by popular vote as the Amendment prescribes. ObamaCare, in the eyes of many has attained the standing of an entitlement program and as difficult to deal with as Social Security and other such programs. Columnist Steve Heber offers the following observations about the present state of affairs regarding ObamaCare:
Many Of you have watched, perhaps in disgust, many of our senators being “bought off’ so they could pass the health care bill. This is the result of changing how our bicameral system works designed by our founders. Had those senators been representing their states. had they been looking at how this bill will affect their state budget. we WOU14 he looking at an entirely different outcome.
The Emergent Alternative View of Human Nature and Governance. With a rising secularist movement and lessening — if not repudiation — of the teachings of the Bible, an alternative description of human nature— has emerged along with consideration of other forms of government. Columnist Dennis Prager was able to describe in practical and meaningful terms the differences between the emergent “left” (regarded as tantamount to Secular Humanism) and the “right” (generally regarded as being consistent with the views of the framers). Following is a sampling of the points made by Prager:
LEFTISECULAR HUMANIST
*People are basically good
*Liberals argue that poverty, despair and homelessness cause poor people to riot and commit violent crime
*Since people are basically good, thoir acts of evil must be explained by factors beyond their control; their behavior is not really their fault.
*There is no transcendent source of morality. Man is God, and therefore each human being is the author of his or her own moral standards.
RIGHT/TRADITIONAL VALVES
*Man is born morally flawed — not necessarily born evil. But surely not born good.
*Conservatives blame those who engage in violent behavior more than liberals do.
*People who do evil are to be blamed because they made bad choices — and they did so because they either have little Self control or a dysfunctional conscience
*There are moral truths, objective moral standards. to which every person is accountable. In America, this refers to the God of the Bible, and to Judeo-Christian values
The Emergence of Fascism. Various court rulings, the curricula of universities and public schools, the culture promoted by the entertainment industry and other sources now promote yet other ideologies incompatible with the traditional Judeo-Christian ideology upon which much of our Constitution is based. In addition to Secular Humanism (noted above), another competing ideology is now in the news — thanks to today’s rioting and campus disruption — is that of fascism which refers to a “powerful centralized state.” It is no longer limited to the Hitler and Mussolini. Columnist Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, contends that “liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s fascism.” He also notes there are prominent individuals and organizations supporting fascism. Revealing views remarkable similar to Goldberg’s stunning contention are the views Of Dinesh DSousa whose new book, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left, which documents the main thrust Of both writers and which is sure to rub Democrats wrong!
While the efficiencies of fascism can be recognized, Goldberg points a danger possibly not adequately understood: “A system which imposes a vast complex of decrees upon a people while subjecting them to confiscatory taxes to support the immense activities of the government cannot be operated except by an absolute government that has the power to enforce compliance.” Is this not the case with virtually all dictators, especially in communist countries? Did not President Obama, via Executive Orders and other devises, show signs of behaving like a dictator?

#2 The Changing of the American Culture

THE DOMINANCE OF THE “LEFT” IN TODAY’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Democrats Disassociate Themselves From Their Past. Democrats no longer honor — as they once did —
their party’s founders, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. That’s because Jefferson’s views are no longer in
vogue. Note, for example, that it was Jefferson who stated, “The government is best which governs least,” a
thought which doesn’t square with the ever-present promotion of big — if not gargantuan — government
advocated by Democrats.
Also, Jefferson had a concern about government catering to special interests. It was Jefferson who led
the Anti-Federalist movement against the ratification of the Constitution because he feared those elected
would become pawns for special interests, using their constituencies to perpetuate their offices. Jefferson was
proven right! Even so, for all to see, Democrats engage in emotional — often demagogic — appeals to special
interests such as minorities, women, LGBT groups, open-border groups and the like.
And note the present hostility of Democrats toward religion. The party has gone from President
Roosevelt proclaiming the need to save “Christian Civilization” in World War Il speeches to an attempt two
conventions ago to ban the mention of God in the Democrat platform.
Note also that one of the past heroes of Democrats, John F. Kennedy, is now out-of-tune in at least two
respects with Democrats: (1) Kennedy advocated reducing taxes as a means of making the economy grow, end
(2) counter to the entitlement philosophy promoted today, admonished Americans, “Ask not what your
country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.”
Emergence of the Term “Left.” Given such departures from Democrat beliefs such as those discussed
above, the terms “progressive,” and “liberal” – which had been used in the past — are now no longer
appropriate. Since the beliefs of the past are now in conflict with present Democrat values, new terminology
had to be introduced into the vernacular. Current terminology is “left” and “leftist.’
Conservapedia website states, “A leftist supports collectivism, more government control of the
economy, direct government control over social policy, including Federal control over education at all levels,
lower military spending, censorship of religion, a living constitution, same sex “marriages,” a more unisex
society, globalism, transnationalism, feminism, the homosexual agenda, taxpayer-funded abortion, and
censorship of Christianity in public places.”
Representative Government Now More Tenuous. According to the above description, centralized
government controls virtually “everything.” Columnist Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, contends that
“liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably
similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.”
To provide some historical perspective for that contention, it should be noted that, according to
Conservapedia, “In the 1920’s Mussolini had adopted the Planned Capitalist State. And he gave it the name
“fascism.’ Hitler adopted the same idea and called it National Socialism. Mussolini and Hitler both realized that
a system which imposes a vast complex of decrees upon a people while subjecting them to confiscatory taxes
to support the immense activities of the government cannot be operated except by an absolute government
that has the power to enforce compliance. Prior to World War Il, this type of system had spread all over
Europe.
Those policies and principles even had a significant appeal in America about the same period. Goldberg
notes that among its advocates were prominent individuals and entities such as John Dewey (influential in
education), Woodrow Wilson, the New York Times, the Ivy League professoriate, and liberal of Hollywood.
Some trivia worthy of some mention was that an early version of the Cole Porter song “You’re the Top”
(possibly known by some of the more senior club members) had the following lyrics:

You’re the top!
You’re the Great Houdini!
You’re the top!
You are Mussolini!

But when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, Americans began to turn on him. This story reveals the tenuous
nature of representative government — even in America — regardless of the time period.

The Differences Between the Political Left and Right. Columnist Dennis Prager was able to describe in
practical and meaningful terms the differences between the political left and the political right. This was done
in a series of 6 op-ed pieces. Following are excerpts from Prager’s analysis:
Difference #1: Is Man Basically Good?

LEFT
People are basically good

Liberals argue that poverty, despair and homelessness
cause poor people to riot and commit violent crime.
Since people are basically good, their acts of evil must
be explained by factors beyond their control; their
behavior is is not really their fault

RIGHT

Man is born morally flawed — not necessarily born evil.
But surely not born good. The root system of the West
(Christian & Jewish beliefs) never held that we are naturally
good
Conservatives blame those who engage in violent behavior
more than liberals do.
People who do evil are to be blamed because they made
bad choices — and they did so because they either have
little self-control or a dysfunctional conscience

Difference #2: What Are Ways to Improve Society?

The way to a better world is almost through doing battle The way to a better world is through moral improvement of
with society’s moral defects — sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. the individual, by each person doing battle with his
own defects
Liberals are more preoccupied with politics Conservatives are less involved with politics
Children are taught to focus on social issues; when they get to Freedom requires self
control college, they will be taught about need to fight “white privilege” and “rape
culture”
The result is they become passionate about carbon
emissions, sexism and “white privilege,” but they cheat on
tests at unprecedentedly high levels

Difference #3: What is the Role of Government?

By focusing on conservatives as being “sexist,” “bigoted,”
‘racist” etc. , they deflect attention from their positions
Without the belief in an ever-expanding state, there is no
left
The state should be the most powerful force in society — in
education, health care and other areas without competition

Without the left’s attacks on the character of conservatives,
Americans would not vote Democrat in the numbers they
do
Without a belief in limited government, there is no conservatism
The individual is the essential component of a good
society. Government’s role should be limited to absolute
necessities like national defense, help for citizens who
cannot be helped by other citizens.

Difference #4: How Does One Know What’s Right and What’s Wrong?

There is no transcendent source of morality. Man is God, and There are moral truths, objective moral standards, to
which therefore each human being is the author of his or her own every person is accountable. In America, this
refers to moral standards. the God of the Bible, and to Judeo-Christian values
Feelings often supplant reason, not just to moral truths.
Feelings for the poor, minorities, downtrodden, gays
and others are frequently all that is necessary to
formulate policy As important as feelings may be,
feelings are just not as important as standards in making
social policy

Prager has come to the conclusion that these divisions in America cannot be reconciled. He believed at
one time that, although the left and right had serious policy differences, they each had the same vision for
America. But no more. He now believes “right and left do not want the same for America.”
The Rise of Secular Humanism. Various court rulings, the curricula of universities and public schools, the
culture promoted by the entertainment industry and other sources now promote an ideology incompatible
with the traditional Judeo-Christian ideology which has served the nation so well. This development has, in
turn, enhanced the standing of a competing ideology, one known as Secular Humanism, an ideology which has
been codified in a document known as the Humanist Manifesto of which there have been several versions,
dating back to the early 1900s
Following are excerpts from the Humanist Manifesto of 2000. The reader may be stunned at the extent
to which this ideology, once considered but a fringe movement, has now come to represent the dominating
ideology of the left.
ATHEISM.
We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to
the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not
deity. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. The unique message of humanism on
the current world scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism.
EVOLUTION
Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.
Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. The scientific theory of
evolution, however, provides a more parsimonious account of human origins and is based upon evidence drawn from a
wide range of science!
AMORALITY
We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational,
needs no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stem from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole
basis Of life. In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religious and
puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct.
SOCIALISTIC ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT
We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human
history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world
community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of
world law and world order based upon transnational federal government. The world needs at some point in the future to
establish an effective World Parliament and elected to based on population — which represents the people, not their
governments.

We recommend an international system of taxation, This world community must renounce the resort to violence
and force as a method of solving international disputes. War is obsolete.

IS Lying now accepted as a virtue?

(Are Democrats and Republicans Equally Guilty of Lying?)
Foreword. There have been verbal attacks on elected officials and candidates for office, by both
individuals and the media, which have no basis in fact. They are lies! Yet lying seems to be accepted — if not
praised — in much of today’s culture.
Why is that? This report attempts to provide some answers to that question.
The Sullivan Rule. One of the first requirements to understand the answers to that question is to have
some understanding of the “Sullivan Rule” – at least as it pertains to public figures, such as elected officials.
Veteran reporter Charley Reese, shortly before he died, made the following observations in an op-ed piece in
2004:
When I was a young reporter, there was only one defense against a charge of libel: the truth. Before
you accused anyone of any wrongdoing, you had to have evidence that would stand up in court. Even if you
“knew” the party was guilty, if you couldn’t prove it, then you wrote nothing.
During the 1960s, however, the Supreme Court changed the rules. The so-called Sullivan rule set up
two unequal classes of people: public figures and private people. The old rule, that the only defense against
libel was the truth, still applied to private people. However, if you were a public figure, you had to prove not
only that the libelous statement was false, but also that it was published with malice. Since malice is a state of
mind, that is very difficult to do.
This one Supreme Court decision — which has, like so many of the court’s decisions, no basis in he
Constitution — ushered in what I call the era of cheap-shop journalism.
This made it open season on celebrities and public officials. It is one reason I believe that it has become
increasingly difficult to persuade decent and honest people to run for public office. They know their privacy can
be invaded and that they can be pilloried by the press with no real recourse.
Importance of This Report. Columnist David Limbaugh probably reflects the sentiments of virtually all
conservative Republicans when he says in regard to the claim that both parties equally lie. Concerned about
the deleterious effect of lying by elected officials on the best interests of the nation, he says, “This is an
insidious path we’re on, for when you effectively glorify lying in politics, you are disenfranchising the people.
Do Democrats and Republicans Equally Lie? A rhetorical question for the reader: Can he or she cite any
incidents of lying on the part of Republicans equal in number or in seriousness to the following partial list of
some of the more notorious acts of lying or deception by Democrats of rank:
• The primary election of 1948 when Lyndon Johnson — who was complicit in the cover up of fraud —
won his race by 87 votes which suddenly appeared several days after the conclusion of the election.
• Bill Clinton lying under oath in a court proceeding about his affair with an intern.
• Obama’s lies too numerous to mention, including lies about Americans being able to keep their
insurance and their doctors, and many other lies suggesting he is a pathological liar Hillary Clinton’s
lies — also too numerous and well-publicized to mention here.
• Harry Reid, while Senate majority leader, lying about Romney not paying taxes.
• Four of IllinoiS last 7 governors were convicted and sent to prison.
Why the Seeming Toleration of Hillary Clinton’s Lies? Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, in an
op-ed piece titled “Hillary and the Liberal Way of Lying,” offers the following rationale to the question just
posed: “For you and me, the Clinton lies were statements demonstrably at variance with the truth But to the
“initiated” [those smart enough to see through it all] lying was for the greater good, usually to fend off some
form of Republican malevolence . . . Why moralize when they [her supporters] could collude?”

Perception v. Truth Regarding Racial Matters. Columnist Dennis Praeger submits some observations
regarding the damage which follows when perception is substituted for truth: “Many blacks see racism almost
everywhere — especially in arrest, conviction, incarceration rates, and in white police interactions with blacks.
On the other hand, whites (especially whites who are not on the left) think that white racism has largely been
conquered.”
Continues Praeger: “It is difficult to overstate how damaging [the reliance upon perception alone] is. It
denies the very existence of the two pillars of civilization — objective truth and moral truth.” With the left,
neither truth nor morality exists. Like truth, morality is just perception. Consequently, in the aftermath of the
riots which followed Ferguson’s grand just decision, there is only black perception and white perception
The Application of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals by Leftists. Alinsky’s book has been and continues to be
the “Bible” for much of the left, including Obama, Hillary Clinton and other leftists. Consistent with much of the
foregoing, Alinsky states that the organizer or politician “does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative
and changing.” Is it possible that Alinsky’s teaching accounts for much of the lying at or approaching a
pathological level by Obama and Clinton?
But Alinsky’s advice extends beyond merely defining truth; it extends to aggressive tactics which have
been used by leftists for their purposes. Columnist Pete Peterson, writing in the Wall Street Journal, describes
some of the tactics he had noted:
Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, sent
letters to seven university presidents, ostensibly seeking information on their professors who had given
congressional testimony that failed to endorse the left’s wisdom about climate change, a favorite agenda item
for leftists. But the inquiry was not for information; it was for the purpose of intimidating, as Alinsky advocated.
This tactic of targeting institutions and their leaders (the presidents) — instead of the professors — is pure
Alinsky.
And so are the scare tactics. such as asking, without a basis for doing so, if the professors had accepted
funding from oil companies, and then following the initial inquiry with phone calls. A relevant Alinsky rule now
comes into play: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. “
An yet another Alinsky rules comes into play. Alinsky recommended irreverence, ridicule and
deception, saying, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.”
How did Alinsky’s tactics gain such traction specifically with the left? To understand the answer, one
must be aware that when there is a fair debate forum, the conservatives, being more realistic and logical and
less emotional, may have the stronger argument. The left, not always able to respond to intellectual challenge,
is forced to employ Alinsky tactics.
Conclusions. Limbaugh contends,”lt’s inevitable that the side that believes in moral relativism and the
end-justifies-the-means would lie more often.” Currently, one side exhibits more and more hostility toward the
Judeo-Christian tenets, while the other side is aware of and can feel pangs of conscience by the
Commandment, “Do Not Bear False Witness,” which Praeger contends should be controlling in all situations,
saying:

The most important ingredient to building a moral society is truth, both inside and outside the
courtroom. The prohibition against “bearing false witness” does not only demand that truth reign supreme in a
trial, but that it is a societal value throughout the culture. Bad things happen when people believe lies. With truth,
we can build a decent society. Without it, even the other nine commandments won’t help.

WELL-KNOWN PSYCHIATRIST CONTENDS LIBERAL/LEFTIST MINDS

UNDERSTANDABLE ONLY AS “DISORDERS OF THE PSYCHE”

Foreword. What can account for the lying, uncivilized and undemocratic behavior of the left?
Psychiatrist Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, a
book released in 2011, provides some insightful information. Although his identified subject is the “liberal
mind,” his book should be construed to include today’s “leftists” – a term in today’s vernacular – and described in
the above report.
He is an experienced psychiatrist who, for decades, has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients
as a board certified clinical psychiatrist, and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a
boardcertified forensic psychiatrist.
At a time when efforts are made to destroy our form of government of government, to deny a president
opportunity to appoint judges, to establish open borders against the will of the people, to establish “fake news”
outlets in place of journalists, to engage in behavior described in a Trump Derangement Syndrome (discussed
below), and a host of other such objectives, it is important to attain a psychological understanding of what drives
the beliefs and actions of participants in the above mentioned efforts. The following comments of Dr. Rossiter
may be helpful in that regard.

COMMENTS OF A NOTED PSYCHIATRIST

The following quote Rossiters book provides helpful background about what he terms Modern
Liberalism’s “irrationality:” “The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding
that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s
distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So
extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its
relentless protests and demand become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind,
its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.”
From the World Net Daily website are some thoughts (shown in italics) from Rossiter’s book:
Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most
important important principles on which our freedoms are founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel
against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to
grave. “
A social scientist who understand human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary
cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do,” he says. “A political leader who understands human nature
will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose
economic equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not
create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character
and reduces them to wards of the state — a liberals do. “
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys of weakness and feeling of inferiority in the population by: (1)
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization, (2) satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence
and compensation, (3) augmenting primitive feelings of envy, and (4) rejecting the sovereignty of the individual,
subordinating him to the will of government.
Narcissism and Lying as Mental Disorders. A survey of comments made by professional in the
psychiatric community reveals there are varying classifications or degrees of narcissism, one of which was
described by Dr Rossiter as follows.
the sociopath, and often the narcissist, who lies as a way of life has not acquired a normal conscience that
prohibits lying … Much lying is an expression of the persistence into adulthood of childhood demandingness
.. .ChiIdhood demandingness is demagogued by politicians always ready to lie to voters about what they
[voters] can have at another’s expense, what they “need.”
Author David Kupelian synthesizes his interviews with psychiatrists on the subject of narcissim:
For a super-ambitious and vainglorious person such as Obama, lying is a vital and creative process. Lies open
doors that would otherwise remain shut .. .0rdinary people don’t possess this power, as they are constrained

from such brazen lying by their conscience and/or the fear of being caught. But a highly narcissistic person
like Obama feels he has freedom .. .to lie, and thereby impose his will one us.
Obama Back in the News. Every president since at least World War Il has refrained from getting directly
involved in partisan politics after leaving office, choosing to give the new president a chance to succeed. But
recently, Obama has chosen to become involved. Consequently, the following comments of Rossiter are timely
and may be relevant to other politicians:

His developmental history may easily evoke sympathy for a biracial little boy raised in a white family and
repeatedly subjected to varying degrees of prejudice, rejection and neglect at the hand of those on whom he was most
dependent.
His duplicitous biological father deserted him early; his self-involved mother pursued her interests at
length to her son’s neglect, contaminating his early social and spiritual life with her marriage to an Indonesian
Muslim, immersing him is an authoritarian religion whose radical fringe celebrates destructiveness, and
eventually rejecting him by assigning his care to his grandparents, whose collectivist politics taught him to
despise capitalism.
With indoctrination in the principles of injustice-collecting by a radical black communist during his
adolescence, Obama was well on his way, by early adulthood, to a political philosophy ultimately founded on
anger at the world of his formative years, and on envy of all those who had a better life than his.
Obama’s personal tragedy is now becoming manifest, as it must, in the unfolding failures of his
domestic and foreign policies; they are inevitable consequences of the irrational foundations on which his own
political principles and those of modern liberalism rest.
Conclusion. Columnist David Limbaugh contends, “It’s inevitable that the side that believes in moral
relativism and the end-justifies-the-means would lie more often.” Currently, one side exhibits more and more
hostility toward the Judeo-Christian tenets, while the other side is aware of and feels pangs of conscience by the
Commandment, “Do Not Bear False Witness.” Prager contends the latter should be controlling is all situations:
The most important ingredient to building a moral society is truth, both inside and outside a courtroom.
The prohibition against “bearing false witness” does not only demand that truth reign supreme in a trial, but that
is is a societal value throughout the culture. Bad things happen when people believe lies. With truth, we can
build a decent society. Without it, even the other nine commandments won’t help.
RESPECTED COLUMNIST: “WHATEVER THE LEFT TOUCHES,
IT RUINS”
Columnist Dennis Prager contends “whatever the left touches, it ruins” and submits an op-ed piece in support of
that contention. Excerpts follow:
The “near destruction of most American universities” is one piece of evidence. “When you attend an
American university, you are taught to have contempt for America and its founders, to prefer socialism to
capitalism, to divide human beings by race and ethnicity You are taught to shut down those who differ with you,
not debate them.”
The left has ruined most the arts which, generally, were intended to “elevate” the viewers and listeners,
but “elevate” is a meaningless term to the left which is comfortable with depictions of urine and other ugly
sights. The left is increasingly poisoning sports.
Much of mainstream protestanism and the Catholic church have become left-wing advocacy groups.
The left is destroying the unique American commitment to free speech.
The left has poisoned race relations. “The black left and white left constantly poison young minds with hate-
filled diatribes against whites, “white privilege,” “black dorms, black dorms; lies about Ferguson, etc.’
“The left has made innumerable women unhappy, even depressed, with its decades of lying about how female
sexual nature and male sexual nature are identical — leading to a ‘hookup’ culture”
“In some ways scariest of all, the left is poisoning our children with its commitment to ending male and female
as distinct categories.”

FOUNDER OF PLAYBOY DIES, BUT LEGACY CONTINUES, EVEN GROWS

Death Triggers Interest in His Legacy: Rampant, Unrestrained Pornography
Foreword. On September 27, 2017, at the age of 91, the founder of Playboy magazine, Hugh Hefner,
died. Beginning in 1953 with pictures of a naked Marilyn Monroe, the magazine grew in circulation to more
than 7 million in 1970, but then dropped because of competition.
During an interview in 1992 with the New York Times (and reported by the Austin American-Statesman
in connection with the death), he was asked of what he was proudest, to which his response — to the
satisfaction of libertines and advocates of immorality — was: “That I changed attitudes toward sex. That nice
people can live together now. That I decontaminated the notion of premarital sex. That gives me great
satisfaction.” But that same year (perhaps during the same reported interview), he, having been
married three times, tearfully noted, “I’ve spent so much of my life looking for love in all the wrong
places.
Patrick Trueman, as former Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Department of
Justice, and as current president of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, has credentials to make
pertinent observations about Hefner and his legacy. Trueman contends, “Without Hefner, pornography may
never have gone mainstream. Hefner was not a revolutionary folk hero or champion of free speech.” And, as
will be revealed in this report, there are reports of deleterious effects of pornography on marriages, other
human relationships, and even brain tissue. There are also reports of its possible effects on violence. But, notes
talk show host/author Kirby Anderson:
“It’s a problem no one want to talk about. Everyone knows it’s a problem, a very big problem.
But few truly understand how immense it has become. It’s the quintessential elephant in the room.
With the expansion of the internet to smartphones and other mobile devices, pornography has
spread like a pandemic.”
Following is a discussion of several topics related to the expansion and the effects of pornography.
Stunning Revenue. According to Anderson, “revenue from Internet porn exceeds by nearly a 2 to 1
ration, the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC. And sales of pornographic material on the Internet
surpass the cumulative sales of all other products sold online.
Possible Links to Brain Damage. Trueman reports, “Research is showing that pornography is
neurologically detrimental. A 2014 study found that increased pornography use is linked to decreased brain
matter in the areas of motivation and decision-making, impaired impulse control, and desensitization of sexual
reward.
Possible Links to Violence. Trueman also reports, “Studies also show that the sexual tastes of those who
start out consuming mainstream pornography can shift taking them on a path that leads to violent and other
extreme forms of pornography. Perhaps most alarming of all, research shows that pornography is linked to
increased sexual violence. A meta-analysis of 46 studies reported that the effects of exposure material are
“clear and consistent, and that pornography use puts people at increased risk for committing sexual offenses
and accepting rape myths.”
Pornography Laws “in the Weeds.” Author Robert Jensen of the National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence explains some of the confusing legal terminology regarding sexually explicit material:
Two terms often used in common parlance for sexually explicit material — obscene and indecent — have specific
meanings in the law. “”0bscenity”” is the category of sexual material that the courts have deemed to be outside full
protection of the First Amendment and subject to regulation by the state. Obscene material is defined as that which
appeals to the prurient interest in sex, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, and lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value (Miller v. California, 1973). “lndecency” is a term from broadcasting (radio and over-
the-aid television) that defines an even broader category that can be regulated.
A separate category is child pornography – material that is either made using children or, in the digital age, made
through the use technology that makes it appear the sexual activity uses children. The former is illegal without question
(New York v. Ferber, 1982); the status of the second remains uncertain but, for the moment, legal (Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition, 2002)

Except for Child Porn, Pornography Laws Not Enforced. Washington Times writer Robert Knight reports,
“The reason that even corporate giants now peddle obscenity is that the Justice Department, beginning in the
Clinton years, stopped enforcing the law.” (Information about current enforcement practices of the Trump
administration was not available.)
The Role of Alfred Kinsey in Today’s Sexual Revolution. Author Richard Brown asserts, “If Hugh Hefner
was the poster boy of the sexual revolution, Alfred Kinsey was the father of the revolution.” Many club
members will be able to recall a 1948 book called The Kinsey Report, the effect of which, according to a
Houston Chronicle reporter was, “For better or worse, Americans never thought about sex the same.” But
Kinsey’s data were flawed because, according to critics, he sought out homosexuals, prisoners, and anyone on
the fringes of perverted sexuality, Nevertheless, attorneys have been using that flawed data in court cases,
including the famous Lawrence case which led to same-sex marriages.

ALABAMA VOTERS APPROVE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING POSTING OF TEN COMMANDMENTS

Foreword. In June of 2005 the Supreme Court issued two rulings regarding the display of the Ten
Commandments. In one case, McCreary County v. ACLU, involving the display of the Ten Commandments in
two Kentucky court houses, the court said the displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment which, according to court interpretation, prohibits government from endorsing or supporting one
religion above others. Consequently, those displays had to be removed.
The other Ten Commandments case, Van Orden v. Perry, involved a statute containing the Ten
Commandments donated to the Texas government and placed on the 22 acre grounds outside the state
capitol. A Texas court had ruled that the replica, given by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961 and placed
among more than a dozen non-religious monuments, did net violate the Establishment clause. The Supreme
Court agreed with that conclusion.
In other words, the Ten Commandments and even biblical verses could be displayed if they are in a
historical context as they are in the Supreme Court and other federal buildings. Consequently, the
Commandments on the Texas capitol grounds did not have to be removed.
Alabama’s Constitutional Amendment. On November 6, 2018, Alabama voters went to the polls to
vote not only on various state and national candidates for office, but also on a Constitutional Amendment
authorizing the display of the Ten Commandments on state property and property owned or administered by a
public school or public body. As should be expected, the Amendment specifies certain of the
characteristic of the display on the Texas grounds be included with Alabama display, as can be noted in the
following description:
Amendment 1 does two things. First, it provides that a person is free to worship God as he or she chooses,
and that a person’s religious beliefs will have no effect on his or her civil or political rights. Second, it makes
clear that the Ten Commandments may be displayed on public property so long as the display meets
constitutional requirements, such as being displayed along with historical or educational items. Amendment I
also provides that no public funds may be used to defend this amendment in court.
Court Involvement in Display Issues. Lower courts have issued a number of rulings regarding various
displays of the Ten Commandment; however, according to Austin Cline in a 2017 article, the Supreme Court,
“in their only actual ruling on this issue [the religious nature of the Commandments} prior to 2005 was the
1980 case of Stone v. Graham in which it “announced a three-part test for determining whether a statue is
permissible under the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.” That test — which came to be known as the
“Lemon Test’ because the name of one of the litigants was “Lemon” – is as follows:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that
neither advances nor inhibits religion ; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government
entanglement with religion.” Lemon v. Kurtzman (citations omitted). If a statute violates any of these three
principles, it must be struck down under the Establishment Clause.
Constitutional law professor John Eidsmoe contends that if Alabama voters approve the proposed
Amendment (which they did), there will likely be a court challenge based on contentions (1) that the Ten
Commandments display constitutes a religious document that has no place in the public arena, and (2) that the
state’s Amendment singles out the Ten Commandments for legal protection, thus illegally preferring the
Commandments over other religious documents. But Eidsmoe also contends there are valid ground for
defending and upholding the Ten Commandments Amendment on non-religious grounds, citing the following
points which, it should be noted, show the Commandments to be something other than — or in addition to —
pure religion. His points follow:
• Martin Luther contended the Commandments summarized natural law principles that were written on
the heart at the time of creation, hence is non-denominational. (This would be consistent with
language in the Declaration)
• The Ten Commandments are not exclusively religious they “have an undeniable historical meaning”
contend both Justice Rehnquist and Justice Breyer.

• The Ten Commandments are a moral, civil and criminal code, as well as a religious document They are
the basic principles of Western law
• The Ten Commandments do not belong to any single religion. They are sometimes identified with
Christianity, but Moses received them on behalf of the Hebrews, and even Muslims and other religions
accept them.
Religious Reasons to Justify Posting- In addition to the non-religious justifications for posting, are a
number reasons based on religion; however, those reasons, to be successful, will necessitate a reversal of
several holdings of the court, including the Everson case whence came the ruling based in large part on
Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, familiar to most club members. Following are some related points:
The Constitution states in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof Author David Lowenthal contends that to understand the meaning of
“Establishment” one should be aware that at the time the Constitution was being drafted, several states
actually had “religious establishments,” i.e., denominations. The framers wanted to be sure those state
establishment would not be subject to modification or removal. Virtually all states — even today – have in their
constitutions a reference to “God.
• The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist made the following explanation about the Establishment Clause: “It
forbade the establishment of a national religion and forbade preference among religious sects or
denominations. [The Clause] did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion There is
simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build the “wall of separation”
that was constitutionalized in Everson… The “wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor
based on bad history . . .1t should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. Judge Robert Bork observed, “The
framers and ratifiers could not conceivably have anticipated that the Supreme Court, sitting in a courtroom
with a painting of Moses and the Ten Commandments, would hold it an unconstitutional establishment of
religion for a high school to have a copy of the Ten Commandments on a wall.”
• It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public
square and the public schools, it is, ironically, replaced (at least informally) by other religions, including Secular
Humanism — with its atheism, open borders and moral values based on “human experience” – which is
specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court.
EPILOG

The reader, as he or she reflects on this report, is asked to reflect on two questions: (1) Does the void
created by the removal of the Ten Commandments from public display or even their recognition contribute to
the present disintegration of families and society, to the increasing immorality, lawlessness, violence and lack
of civility, and to other such problems? and (2) In the absence of the Ten Commandments, from what source
do our legislators, citizens and school children develop a sense of good behavior and moral values?

THE ROLE OF THE COURTS

THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN THE INEXORABLE DRIFT OF THE NATION TOWARD TOTAL SECULARIZATION

The First Amendment. In pertinent part, the First Amendment in the Constitution provides: “Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … “
It is the meaning of the phrase “establishment of religion” which has proven to be so controversial.
Author David Lowenthal contends that to understand the meaning of that phrase, one should be aware that at
the time the Constitution was being drafted, several states actually had “religious establishments” (like in
England), and the framers wanted to be sure that those establishments would not be subject to modification or
abolishment by the new Congress. (But it should be noted that within a few decades all state constitutions had
non-establishment and free exercise provisions in them.)
Lowenthal contends that an “establishment of religion” never meant, nor could mean, an establishment
of religion generally His contention is given support by the fact that Congress in the very year the First
Amendment was adopted, passed the Northwest Ordinance which states that, when a territory applies for
admission as a state, certain criteria – one of which was “religion” – must have been met. This mean a
prospective state must have in its constitution a provision consistent with Article III of the Ordinance which
provided: “Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and happiness of mankind,
schools and the means of education shall forever by encouraged.”
Former Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a 1985 case, provided a meaning of the “establishment” clause
based on historical facts: “It forbade the establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among
religious sects or denominations … The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between
religion and irreligion… There is simply no historical for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the
“wall of separation” (contrary to current belief) that was constitutionalized in the Everson case.” (See Wallace v.
Jeffrey)
The late Justice Scalia made a similar observation when he said, “To tell you the truth there is no place
for [requiring neutrality regarding religion] in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from? To be sure,
you can’t favor one denomination over another but you can’t favor religion over non-religion?” [The questions are
rhetorical]
Following are several reports on certain historical developments which may provide the reader with
some insights into what may be regarded as hostility toward religion of today.
The Drafting of the First Amendment. How the wording of the First Amendment came about can be
understood by noting the following sequence of events:
Madison’s original proposal in the House was to forbid the establishment of “any national religion,” but
his proposal was rejected.
A House committee dropped the word “national” from Madison’s proposal, leaving it to read “No religion
shall be established by law.” But once the modifier “national” was removed, a ban could be read to cover
what the states as well as Congress might do. The result could be to abolish state establishments –
which the anti-federalists wished to retain.
In response to concerns that the cause of religion in states may be adversely affected by language,
Madison then proposed “No national religion shall be established by law.”
After more deliberations, the House concluded with “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or
to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” This version did not directly
assault state establishments by making them unconstitutional, but neither did it explicitly exclude
Congress from disbanding state establishments.
The final Senate version contained almost the same language and was similarly flawed.
It was in the House-Senate conference committee which propounded a version, later accepted by
Congress, which satisfied the states-righters: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The addition of the word “respecting” may be
significant. Its meaning seems to signify that Congress may not legislate either to establish a national
religion or to disestablish a state religion. As Laurence Tribe has observed, “[a] growing body of
evidence suggests that the Framers principally intended the Establishment of Religion Clause to perform
two functions: to protect state religious establishments from national displacement, and to prevent the
national government from aiding some, but not all, religions.

The Prerogatives of the States During the Founding. Although states have adopted non-
establishment provisions (as reported above), all 50 states still retain some acknowledgment of a Supreme

Being or God in their constitutions (generally the Preamble section). In view of these references, the question as
to how the reference to the U. S. Congress” shall make no law. “should now be interpreted. That matter will

be discussed later, after a sampling of provisions referring to deity in state constitutions is shown:
Texas Preamble (1845): “We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging with gratitude, the grace and
beneficence of GOD … “
New York Preamble (1846): “We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to
secure its blessings … “
Massachusetts Preamble (1780): “We, ………………… the people of Massachusetts, acknowledge with grateful hearts, the goodness
of the Great Legislator of the Universe …………………….. in the course of His Providence, an opportunity … and devoutly implore His
direction … “
California Preamble (1879): “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedoms … “
The Evolution of the First Amendment Begins. Author Vaughn Shatzer reports that Christopher
Langdell, who became Dean of the Harvard Law School in 1870, believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution, and
also believed that, as man evolved, his laws must also evolve. Consequently, he established the case law study
method – which meant that the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries and the study of original documents would
no longer be at the heart of the study of law. The result was a loss of a perspective of law consistent with a strict
construction of the Constitution. According to Wikipedia, that method is based on the principle that “rather than
studying highly abstract summaries of legal rules (the technique used in most countries), the best way to learn
American law is to read the actual judicial opinions.” With respect to the study of the Constitution, that approach
may run counter to Scalia’s search for the “original meaning.”
The Evolution of the First Amendment During the Second Half of the 20th Century. It was the
Everson v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision of 1947 which established the “separation of church and
state” doctrine. The decision, written by Justice Hugo Black, was and is controversial in several respects as will
be explained.
Let us first consider how a provision expressly forbidding Congress from establishing a religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, can, for example, come to be thought to prohibit a 3rd grader from sending
to his classmates at school Christmas candy and wishes.
The answer is that the author of that opinion ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the
“establishment” clause also applicable to the states, and hence to the third grader. The ruling was made without
rationale or explanation; it was simply decreed.
The Everson case involves a New Jersey statute that permitted local school districts to create their own
rules for transporting children to and from school. A local board of education relied on public buses for that
purpose and reimbursed parents for their children’s fares. Some of the money went to parents who enrolled their
children in Catholic schools which, as one would expect, instructed these students in Catholic doctrine.
In his opinion, Black, citing Jefferson’s “separation of church and state phrase, stated in the Everson
case, “That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach!”
But contrary to what may have been the only possible conclusion, the court majority – in a 5-4 vote – did
not find any breach of the Establishment Clause. Unbelievably, Black concluded: “New Jersey has not breached
[the wall] here!”
Noting the inconsistency of that conclusion with the text of the written opinion, Justice Jackson, one of
the 4 dissenting Justices, observed: ” … the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising
separation of church and state, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion.
What is the precedent of this case: Public funds cannot be used for religious purposes? Public funds can
be used for religious purpose, such as reimbursement of Catholic parents? The inconsistency produced an
opinion of a dual and conflicting nature. Columnist Tony Blankley noted in this regard that, “Today, Everson is
remembered more for the “wall” metaphor than for the fact that state funds were used to reimburse parents of
Catholic students.” But at the time the court’s opinion was published, the main concern was about the precedent
established when Catholic parents were reimbursed with state funds; however, somehow, for reasons explained
later, the main concern “morphed” into a concern about the “wall” as it is understood today.
Justice Jackson’s Motives. What motives could Black have had in writing an opinion whose dual
nature was so obvious. Or did Black have in mind a purging of 9ll religion from the public square and the public
schools – and to do so without a constitutional amendment?
One answer may be provided by author Mark Levin who points out there may have been dark motives
behind Black’s opinion. Levin notes that Black “had been a member of the KKK in the 1920s when the Klan was
deeply resentful of the growing influence of Catholicism in the United States.
Black’s biographer, Roger K. Newman, contends Black wrote the opinion as he did “for the purpose of
undercutting the true meaning of the religion clauses.”
There were intense pressures on Black at the time he wrote the opinion. Reacting to that aspect of the
opinion which enabled parents of parochial students to be reimbursed with state funds for travel expenses, one
protestant minister, reflecting the views of his supporters, complained, “We consider this another encroaching
step toward changing the Constitution in a manner to give the Catholic Church a privileged position.”

The Evolution of the First Amendment Since the Beginning of the 21 st Century. According to
Heritage Foundation’s book, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, contemporaneous history strongly indicates
that most Framers supported religion, not for credal purposes, but because it promoted civic virtue among the
people, which they thought was a necessary element for the maintenance of republican self-government. (Is that
not a persuasive argument in today’s world?)
Nonetheless, many decades later and far removed from the Founding, the Supreme Court chose to base
its conception of the original understanding of the Establishment of Religion Clause on a mere phrase from a
letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Thus, it can be said that the modern view of the
Religion Clause began with Everson where the Court adopted a “separation of church and state” interpretation of
that clause.
According to Heritage, most church-state scholars agree that current Establishment Clause
jurisprudence lacks coherence and consistency. Many examples of inconsistency can be heard on the news.
Following are two examples: Prayers at high school football games are invalid but the bailiffs call, “God Save
this Honorable Court,” may be heard within the chambers of the Supreme Court. In two cases decided the same
day in June of 2005, the Court, invoking the Lemon test, ruled a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse
communicated a religious purpose, thus violating the Establishment Clause, while a Ten Commandments display
erected on the grounds of Texas’ capitol did not violate that clause.
Inconsistencies regarding “exceptions” are apparent. Following are some examples: (1) a Muslim inmate
in a Texas prison obtained an exception from a regulation concerning beards on grounds that wearing of a beard
was an expression of faith; (2) The Fifth Circuit denied a request by a religiously affiliated organization for an
exemption from a HHS requirement that that organization fill out forms in connection with contraception
insurance coverage; (3) The Supreme Court did not grant an exemption from generally applicable drug laws to
members of a Native American religion which used peyote in is religious services; (4) The Ninth Circuit held that
ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifices in religious services did violate the First Amendment (sacrifices could
continue); (5) As is discussed in the next report, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case in which
pharmacists who objected on religious grounds the selling of abortifacients were not able to obtain an exception
from the Ninth Circuit. (They must therefore violate their consciences or lose their employment)
Failure of Educational Institutions to Teach the Founding. Author Matthew Spalding reports, “High
schools largely ignore, minimize or disparage the story of America’s founding in the classroom. Students can
graduate from the top colleges and universities in America without taking a single course in U. S. History.”
Former Speaker of the House (and teacher) Newt Gingrich has a plausible explanation for this void: “The secular
left has a problem. They dislike – and many case fear – America’s religious heritage. But how can they talk about
America without talking about the role of faith in shaping our country? The answer is: The can’t. So many simply
ignore the topic of American History altogether.” Justice Scalia said, “Most students at elite law schools have
never read The Federalist Papers. “
School Choice. While there is a widely-recognized void in the teaching about the founding of the nation
and the importance promulgating the Judeo-Christian values of our founders, a growing number of parents want
such instruction for their children. Consequently, there is now growing interest at both the national and state
levels in providing school choice.
Significantly, the Supreme Court has approved public funding for school choice. The Heritage
Foundation reports, “After a long series of cases dealing with aid to religious schools, a majority of the Court has
embraced the principle that there is no Establishment Clause violation if the state gives tuition aid (e.g. tuition
vouchers) directly to parents who can decide which schools their children will attend, whether religiously affiliated
or not, rather than giving the aid directly to the religious school. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)”

EPILOG

Author Bruce Short has this sobering assessment of the role of religion in today’s American life:
Whatever the reasons given by the Supreme Court for its actions in Everson, the truth of the matter is that the
Court simply decided that it was time for the federal courts to force the transformation of American culture and its
institutions … a transformation in which Justice Black’s “wall of separation” language was to be interpreted eventually
as requiring the elimination of all traces of a Christian world view from government schools, and, more generally, the
public policies of the federal government and the states.
But is the resulting license what America really wants? Especially when the result is like what David Kupelian described
in The Snapping of the American Mind: “With the Left’s wild celebration of sexual anarchy, its intimidating culture of
political correctness, and its incomprehension of the fundamental sacredness of human life, it is also, whether
intentionally or not, promoting widespread dependency, debauchery, family breakdown, crime, corruption, addiction,
despair, and suicide.” To which list can be added “violence.”

THE LEFTWARD DRIFT OF EDUCATION

COURTS AND THE TEACHER-PUPIL, PARENT~CHILD RELATIONSHIP
Can “Respect for Authority” no Longer be Inculcated in the Young?
Foreword. During the months of February, March and April, numerous “walkouts” by students
throughout the nation and even locally – such as Austin, Leander and Georgetown – ostensibly in support of gun
control took place. There were also student walkouts for other reasons, such as the ones reportedly on April 11
to protest legal abortions and government funding to Planned Parenthood. And there could be even more
walkouts for a host of other political. reasons.

How are school handling student walkouts? Do they prohibit or condone them? The Austin American-
Statesman reported that, “Across Texas, the demonstrations have met with varying degrees of resistance from

school leaders, some of whom say they won’t condone political activity that disrupts the school day. Students
from multiple school districts said on social media they were warned not to participate, and one Houston-area
district threatened three-day suspensions for students who protested.”
These protests bring to mind the student protests involving the Viet Nam war of almost 50 years ago
which brought about the Supreme Court case of 1969 styled Tinker II. Des Moines School District, a case which
brought about staggering changes in schools, including the bringing of the Constitution to public school students
and an undermining of the doctrine in loco parentis which had provided school personnel with the authority of
parents when dealing with students.
This report is presented on grounds that the rulings of the Tinker case and certain other ancillary rulings
should be critically reviewed with the objective of determining if there could be a connection between them and
the present dissatisfaction with public schools, the violence in public schools (including shootings), an
undermining of a “respect for authority” needed by individual teachers and principals, the family and society.
This report – which is comprehensive, the reader is informed – consists of the following sections: (1)
pertinent information about the Tinker case, (2) the effect of the federal government’s 2011 “Initiative”, still in
effect, aimed at “ending the school-to-prison pipeline,” and (3) excerpts from a wonderfully-written court opinion
written by Justice Thomas providing important pedagogical historical and legal information about why the
holdings of the Tinker case should be abandoned.
The Tinker Case. In 1965, a group of Des Moines principals became aware of a plan for students,
through the use of arm bands, to use the schools as a platform to protest the Vietnam war. The principals, out of
fear of disturbance, banned the use of the arm and suspended students who did not comply. Some suspended
students sued.
The District Court, using the then-prevailing “reasonableness” test, concluded the action of school
authorities was reasonable because it was based upon fear of disturbance, and dismissed the case. But the
Supreme Court, in a conclusion which was to have all sorts of ramifications, said, in reversing the District Court,
“undifferentiated fear or apprehension are not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” The
Supreme Court, also said, “Where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduction
would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the
the school, the prohibition cannot be sustained.” This meant that judges, who work in settings about as far
removed from settings of a classroom as can be imagined, will judge “appropriate discipline” in schools.
There were some dissenting opinions. Justice Stewart stated, “I cannot share the court’s uncritical
assumption that… First Amendment rights of children are co-extensive with those of adults.” Justice Black stated,
“School discipline, like parental discipline, is an integral and important part of training our children to be good
citizens.”
The Law and the Teacher-Pupil Relationship. Legal commentator Chaffee makes the following
straight-forward contention: “The central idea of our law is relation.” He explains that we speak of the law of
principal and agent, landlord and tenant, and vendor and purchases. He also points out that while the written
word will describe much of the relation between two parties, the relation is also given definition by unwritten
sources such as tradition and usage – in addition to court decisions.
Generally speaking, the in loco parentiS model gave to teachers the same authority over students as
parents over their children, which meant when there was a questioning of a teacher or parental authority the
response could be “Because I said so.” That explanation is, surprisingly, still in vogue. An op-ed piece appearing
in the March 13 issue of the Wall Street Journal spoke approvingly of the citing and application of that phrase.
And John Rosemond, a licensed psychologist who now rejects much of psychology’s teachings, approves of the
use of that phrase by parents, and has published a book with that phrase as its title.
Problems Which Have Emerged With Tinker. Up until the Tinker decision, courts were comfortable
with in loco parentis, but with the erosion of that concept, there has been considerable uncertainty about legal
matters. Courts have not in all cases given students full constitutional rights commensurate with adults, despite
the court’s language which – except for the term “appropriate discipline” (whatever that means) – suggests they
do.
Courts have already found the Tinker standards as simply being unworkable in some circumstances as
evidenced by the following exceptions to those standards: (1) when a public school student used an explicitly
“sexual metaphor” in a speech, (2) when a school newspaper is involved, and (3) when a student sign promotes
the use of illegal drugs. Justice Clarence Thomas notes with some sarcasm, “our jurisprudence now says that
students have a right to speak in schools except when they don’t.” (There may be other more recent exceptions)
The “Initiative” to Reduce Jail Populations and the “Respect for Authority.” In 2011, during the

Obama Administration, the Attorney Geneal (Eric Holder) and the Education Secretary (Arne Duncan) launched
an “Initiative” aimed at “ending the school-to-prison pipeline” by placing an onus on schools to address the
problem of juvenile delinquency. Then in January 2014, the Justice and Education Departments released a joint
“Dear Colleague” letter warning that federal officials would investigate schools that failed to address disparate
discipline rates for minority students. The intent was to help rule-breaking students avoid permanent blots on
their records by reducing referrals to law enforcement.The effect worked. In Chicago, for example, school-based
arrests dropped by 63 percent from 2012 to 2016. But there were adverse consequences.
Nikolas Cruz, the person accused of killing 14 students and 3 teachers, was a student at the high school
in Parkland, Florida, which had signed an agreement which included “a diversionary program for repeat offender
called PROMISE and listed 14 misdemeanors that were no longer subject fo school-based arrest.” This
agreement enabled Cruz – who was known to have school-based offenses, including assault and threats – to be
transferred to other schools six times in three years, but never punished. His infractions were not on his arrest
record.
Questions: Should this student – and other such students in more than 50 large school districts
participating in this program – have any “respect for authority?” Should other students, aware of these
manipulations, have “respect for authority?”

JUSTICE THOMAS’ OPINION OF THE TINKER RULING

Foreword. The 2007 Morse v: Frederick case involved a student who promoted the use of illegal drugs
by certain language on a banner which was then confiscated by the principal. The student then sued the school
for relief and sued the principal, it should be noted, for damages. The district court upheld the principal while the
ninth circuit upheld the student. The case then went to the Supreme Court where the principal was upheld
largely on grounds that the issue of the case should be an “exception” to requirement of Tinker, as was noted
above,
In an usual concurring opinion, Justice Thomas upheld the principal, but then added a special opinion
advocating the abandonment of the holdings in Tinker case which, it should be noted, was adjudicated in 1969
before Thomas was a member of the Court.
The reader is urged to note that during an earlier era, teachers were expected to inculcate good
manners and good behavior in their students. In addition, the reader is urged to reflect on the question of
whether the holdings of Tinker – which are still in effect – can have contributed to the instability and violence
existing in schools and society today.
Excerpts from Thomas’ opinion are shown below in italics.
Background. I write separately to state my view that the standard set forth in Tinker is without basis in
the Constitution.
In my view, the history of public education suggests that the First Amendment, as originally understood,
does not protect student speech in public schools. If students in public schools were originally understood as
having free-speech rights, one would have expected 19th century public schools to have respected those rights
and courts to have enforced them. They did not.
Like their private counterparts, early public schools were not places for freewheeling debates or
exploration of competing ideas. Rather, teachers instilled “a core of common values” in students and taught
them self-control.
Teachers instilled these values not only by presenting ideas but also through strict discipline. Schools
punished students for behavior the school considered disrespectful or wrong. Parkerson noted that children
were punished for idleness, talking, profanity, and slovenliness. Rules of etiquette were enforced, and courteous
behavior demanded.
In loco parentis. Through the legal doctrine of [D. loco parentis, courts upheld the right of schools to
discipline students, to enforce rules, and to maintain order. As early as 1837, state courts applied the in loco
parentis principle to public schools:

“One of the most sacred duties of parents, is to train up and qualify their children, for becoming
useful and virtuous members of society; this duty cannot be effectually performed without the
ability to command obedience, to control stubborness, to quicken diligence, and to reform bad
habits … The teacher is the substitute of the parent … and in the exercise of these delegated
duties, is invested with his power. [Court citation]
Applying in loco parentis, the judiciary was reluctant to interfere in the routine business of school
administration, allowing schools and teachers to set and enforce rules and maintain order. Thus, in the early
years of public schooling, schools and teachers had considerable discretion in disciplinary matters:

“To accomplish the desirable ends [of teaching self-restraint, obedience, and other civic virtues],
the master of a school is necessarily invested with much discretionary power … He must govern
these pupils, quicken the slothful, spur the indolent, restrain the impetuous, and control the
stubborn. He must make rules, give commands, and punish disobedience.
The Tinker Case. Tinker effected a sea change in students’ speech rights, extending them well beyond
traditional bounds. The case arose when a school punished several students for wearing black armbands to
school to protest the Vietnam War. Determining that the punishment infringed the students’ First Amendment
rights, this Court created a new standard for students’ freedom of speech in public schools:

“Where there is not finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would

materially and substantially interfere with the requirement of appropriate discipline in the
operation of the school, the prohibition cannot be sustained. [from text of Tinker case]
Accordingly, unless a student’s speech would disrupt the educational process, students had a
fundamental right to speak their minds (or wear their armbands) – even on matters the school disagreed with or
found objectionable. “The schools must be able to show that its action was caused by something more that a
mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint”
Conclusions. I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students have posed a new and
malleable standard: Schools could not inhibit student speech unless it “substantially interfered with the
requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. Inherent in the application of that standard
are judgment calls about what constitutes interference and what constitutes appropriate discipline. Historically,
courts reasoned that only local school districts were entitled to make those calls. The Tinker Court usurped that
traditional authority for the judiciary.
Justice Black may not have been “a prophet or the son of a prophet,” but his dissent in Tinker has
proved prophetiC. In the name of the First Amendment, Tinker has undermined the traditional authority of
teachers to maintain order in public schools. “Once a society that generally respected the authority of teachers,
deferred to their judgment, and trusted them to act in the best interest of school children, we now accept
defiance, disrespect, and disorder as daily occurrences in many of our public schools.”

COURTS NOW INVOLVED IN SCHOOL DUE PROCESS MATTERS

Is “Respect for Authority” no Longer Possible?
The Supreme Court, in the Goss II. Lopez case, extended to children Constitutional rights involving
Constitutional due process – in addition to First Amendment rights. Author Kay Hymowitz describes that case as
follows: “In 1975, the Supreme Court hampered school officials’ authority yet further in Goss v. Lopez, a decision
that expanded the due-process rights of students. The Goss case concerned several students suspended for
brawling in the school lunchroom. Although the principal who suspended them actually witnessed the fight itself,
the court concluded that he failed to give the students an adequate hearing before lowering the boom. Students,
pronounced the court, are citizens with a property right to their education. To deny that right requires, at the
least, an informal hearing with notice, witnesses, and the like.”
Hymowitz then illustrates the ensuing complexities:
The principal wants to send [a] kid home, but he’s not sure its withing his authority to do so, so he calls the
superintendent. The superintendent is also unsure, so he calls the district’s lawyer. The lawyer’s concern, though, isn’t
that the child has breached the boundaries of respect and tolerance, and needs an adult to tell him so, but whether
disciplining the student would violate the First Amendment.
Hymowitz then points out some of the deleterious effects which come about when legal considerations
replace those emanating from a traditional student-teacher relationship:

The influence of lawyers over school discipline means that educators speak to children in an
unrecognizable language, far removed from the straight talk about right and wrong that most
children crave. Students correctly sense that what lies behind such desiccated language is not a
moral worldview and a concern for their well-being and character, but fear of lawsuits.
More important, the mere potential for a lawsuit shrinks the adult in the child’s eyes. It transforms
the person who should be the teacher and the representative of society’s moral and cultural
values into a civil servant who mayor may not please the young, rights-armed citizen. The
natural relationship between adult and child begins to crumble ..

WHAT IS ISLAM?

A Survey of Islam for Patriots

Foreword.
There are many questions about Islam for which reliable answers seem lacking, for example:
• Is Islam a religion of peace, as some presidents have claimed?
• Is Islam a religion of violence?
• Can the brutal treatment of women as called for in the Koran be justified?
• Will America experience the same problems as England in dealing with its Muslim population?
There is evidence that America, like England and other European countries, is not facing the realities of
dealing with a growing militant Muslim population which continues to have a belief system based on the past.
This report, while unusually long, attempts to fill that void.

SOME IMPORTANT HISTORICAL FACTS

Biblical History
Abraham’s fathered two sons: one, Ishmael, by an Egyptian slave girl, Hagar, and the other, Isaac, by his
wife, Sarah. Author Amanda Roraback reports that “Muslims believe that they are the descendants of Ishmael
who was outcast with his mother to Mecca in present-day Saudi Arabia.”
She also reports that around 622, Muhammad declared that there is no god but Allah and that he was his
Prophet, thus beginning the Muslim era. The Jews, however, rejected his claim, and Muhammad, in turn,
renounced them – thus exacerbating whatever enmity that then existed.
Author Walid Phares notes that today’s battles are a direct continuation of millennia of confrontation, and
that a main characteristic of the jihadist movement is its synchronic view of history. For example, when Israel
was formed in 1948, Muslims shouted in Arabic a chant reminding them of a glorious battle, centuries ago,
against Jews at the city of Khaibar: “Remember Khaibar, 0 Jews, the army of Muhammad is coming back.”
The Crusades.
Islam originated in Arabia in the seventh century when Egypt, Libya and all of North Africa were Christian
and had been so for hundreds of years. So were Palestine, Lebanon and Asia Minor (now Turkey) as well as
Greece. In other words, these were Christian lands which preceded the origin of Islam. The First Crusade was in
the year 1098.
Author Robert Spencer makes the point that if Westerners had no right to invade these putative places,
then Muslims had no right to conquer them to begin with. (Note that Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638.)
Nevertheless, virtually all Westerners have learned to apologize for the Crusades, and terrorists like bin
Laden have, for their cause, cited the Crusades in their edicts.
World War I
World War I and its aftermath have had huge ramifications on developments in the mid-east, thus
necessitating the following lengthy excerpt from Hornbeck’s book) Israel in a Nutshell:

At the onset of the First World War, the Turks decided to shift allegiances from the Empire’s traditional allies,
Britain and France, to the Germans – in part to counter the Russian forces. By joining the Central Powers (Germany, Italy,
and Austria-Hungary) against the Allies (Britain, France and Russia), the Turks gave the British the excuse they needed
to finally overtake the Ottoman Empire.
In order to bring that Empire to a swift end, the British urged the already disaffected Arabs to stage a revolt
against their Turkish rulers with the implication that they would be granted independence once the Empire had collapsed.
To help coordinate the rebellion, the British called on T. E. Lawrence, better known as “Lawrence of Arabia.”
… [For] the last 1300 years, the Muslim community has been more or less unified under the Caliphs or Sultans
who ruled over vast empires. But with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 191 B and the European mandate that
followed, the Islamic community became disjointed … some Muslim countries assimilated with their European
occupiers … some enforced the ancient traditions of the Prophet.
Both the terms of the Balfour Declaration [advocating a home for Jews in Palestine] and Sykes-Picot agreement
[creating British and French spheres of influence] were reaffirmed in 1920 at the San Remo conference which decided
the final fate of the former Ottoman-ruled Arab lands of the Middle East. As a result, Britain received the mandate for
for Palestine (including the area that would be called “Transjordan”) and present-day Iraq, while France would have
authority over Syria and Lebanon.
The Status of Former Muslim Lands
Author Walid Phares explains that, to Islamists, every land that was once conquered or opened under a
legitimate Islamic authority cannot revert back to the infidels. This is the case in regard to other nations and

countries once invaded by Muslim armies, including Spain, most of France, and parts of India and Russian.
Division of the Former Ottoman Empire
Roraback contends that in 1917, by dividing the Ottoman Empire into small, unstable states, European
powers were in a position to exercise great economic, political and military control over the Middle East. The
deceptions and occupations of those divisions “left a lasting sense of bitterness within the Arab community and
fueled the determination of nationalists to reunite the Arab world into a powerful state that could again counter
the West. This ideology became the basis for modern pan-Arab movements led by the Ba’ath Party of Syria and
Iraq, Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, and others.”
A Caliphate Without a Caliph
With the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, Islam had no caliph who, as a successor to
Muhammad, was to establish a caliphate where the legacy of the Prophet would be carried on in accordance

with Allah’s will. A consequence of that void was that both lower level clerics (such as Iran’s Mullahs) and non-
clerics (such as Osama bin Laden) have been issuing edicts of violence based on language in the Koran.

The Establishment of Modern Israel
In 1917, before the war ended, the Balfour Declaration, which indicated British support for the
establishment of a national home in Palestine for the Jewish people, was approved. Roraback contends that with
this declaration, the British hoped to win support of world Jewry in the war efforts.
Once the Central Powers had been defeated, the spoils of war were divvied up among the victors. In
1918, the Allies under the League of Nation (which the U. S. did not join), granted the British administrative
authority over Palestine. Then, in 1922, as a mandate, the British established in Palestine a “national home for
the Jewish people.”
A cycle of violence than ensued and continued for the duration of the occupation. By February of 1947,
the British had grown weary of the Palestine situation and turned to the UN for help. The UN recommended an
end to the British mandate and a partitioning of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. Violence broke out
immediately after the UN announced the partition on November 29, 1947.
In the midst of rioting on May 14, 1948, Ben-Gurion and other Israeli leaders signed Israel’s Declaration
of Independence. The modern state of Israel was thus born.

THE DRIVING FORCE: THE KORAN

In 610 A.D. (still commemorated yearly during the holy month Ramadan), Muhammad, who claimed to
be the last in a long line of prophets began to receive divine communications from Allah, communications that
would eventually be compiled into the Koran.
Shariah Law
From the Koran and other writings came Shariah Law – about much of which is heard today. Shariah
Law, according to Wikipedia, “deals with all aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking,
business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues.” In other words, it is more than a religion and is therefore
sometimes referred to as an ideology.
Following is a sampling of Shariah laws shown to illustrate the myriad subjects addressed. Each subject
emanates from an identifiable verse in the Koran:

Criticizing or denying any part of the Koran is punishable by death
Criticizing or denying Muhammad as a prophet is punishable by death
A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death
A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death
A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old

The Koran and Women
Special mention should be made of the harsh treatment to be accorded to women by Shariah Law.
Following is a sampling of those laws with a sura number shown in parenthesis:
*Women are inferior to men, and must be ruled by them: “Men have authority over women because God had made the
one superior to the other” (4:34)
*It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man. (2:282)
*It allows men to marry up to four wives (4:3)
*It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter. (4:11)
*It tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives (4:34)

*According to Spencer, “Nothing is easier than divorce for a Muslim male: All he has to do is tell his wife, ‘I divorce you,’

and the divorce is consummated.”
Why these brutal laws have not changed is discussed in a section below titled, “Why Has Islam
Remained Mired in Antiquity?”

THE KORAN AND VIOLENCE

The Koran
The Koran contains the word of the Islamic God as revealed to the Prophet Mohammad by the angel
Gabriel. Following are some selected verses from the Koran which use the terms “kill,” “slay” or other terms
commanding or condoning violence:
• Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and
that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows and you know not … (surah 2:216-17)
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them,
beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war (surah 9:5)
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His
Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they
pay compensation with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Surah 9:29)
•I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (surah 8:12)
The Absence of a Caliph
The reader will recall hearing in current newscasts reference to the territory now occupied by ISIS (or
ISIL) as being a caliphate, which is territory normally under the control of a caliph. But Trifkovic points out that
the highest-ranking Muslim, the caliph, who is one of the successors to Muhammad, has not been in existence
since 1924. It is the caliph who “commands and demands authority on the basis of apostolic succession from the
last of the apostles. Obedience to him is not less obligatory than that to the Prophet.”
What is the result of this void of leadership? Phares contends that post-Ottoman jihadists are “out of
control.” The ruling clerics have a free hand in promulgating legal rulings. For example, note the bellicosity which
flows from that situation in the following excerpts from a jihad issued by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, a cleric,
known for his role in the takeover of the American Embassy in 1997:

But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. , . Those
who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says:
Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all. . whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the
shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which
can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!
It was he – to the horror of a watching world – who issued a jihad which roused thousands of Iranian
zealots – including many children – to become martyrs during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s by walking as
human waves straight into the line of fire, clearing minefields with their bodies to make a path for Iranian tanks.
Non-Clerics and the Koran
Non-clerics have also issued orders – and with devastating effect. Bin Laden was not cleric; he was an
engineer! Reflect on his actions which eventually led to the 9-11 attack on America.
Phares reports that on February 22, 1998, bin Laden appeared on television and issued a full-fledged
declaration of war against America, the crusaders, and the Jews. But it was met with total dismissal by
Washington, and with little coverage and no analysis by the media. Although bin Laden is dead, his writing can
still provide some insight into the belief system of Muslims. Said bin Laden:
In compliance with Allah’s orders, we issue to following fatwa to Muslims: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their
allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which is it possible
,, , This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all
together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppressions, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah, “

WHY HAS VIOLENCE NOT BEEN REPUDIATED?

Spencer contends, “The unpleasant fact is that violent jihad warfare against unbelievers is not a heretical
doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists, but a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology.” He
continues: “It is a commonly accepted principle in the Islamic world that, free inquiry into the Koran and
Islamic tradition in order to discover Allah’s ruling [has] been closed for centuries.”
He reports that “Where Muslims do coexist peacefully with non-Muslims, as in Central Asia and
elsewhere, it is not because the teachings of jihad have been reformed or rejected; they have simply been
ignored.” But ignoring the jihad may not be possible with the involvement of militants, this. being said because the
text of the Koran is on the side of militants, leaving the moderate Muslim in the difficult position of having to
explain why the word of Allah as found in the Koran should not be followed.

THE SUNNI – SHIITE SPLIT

The Succession Factor
Some understanding of the background of the Sunni-Shiite dispute which began with the death of the
Prophet Mohammad in 632 is necessary. Although the dispute began well over 1000 years ago, it continues
unabated, perhaps even with increased intensity – as today’s news can verify.
The basis of that dispute was (and is) who should succeed the prophet Mohammad as the spiritual
leader of the Muslims. The Shiites wanted the successor to be blood-related to the prophet; the Sunnies were
not bound by that requirement and had their own selection process. The two factions accepted to one extent or
another the first four selections, but then there was a Shiite rebellion in the year 680 which resulted in the
massacre of the Shiite rebels. This massacre sealed the division.
Upon the division, the Shiites recognized separate spiritual leaders called “Imams,” of which there was a
succession of 12. The twelfth Imam, in 941, at the age of 5, was, for his protection, placed in hiding in a well in
Qom in Iran. Most Iranians believe that this twelfth Imam will reemerge one day as the Mahdi, a religious leader
who will lead the entire world to Islam. Further, his return can be hastened by a calamitous event, such as a
nuclear warfare. Can this belief provide Iranian Muslims incentive to begin hostilities?
The Ethnicity Factor
There is also a division between Muslims of Persian ethnicity and Muslims of Arab ethnicity. According to
Roraback, that division was a factor contributing to the Iran-I rag war of the 1980s. Evans explains: “Iran’s
fascination with rabid anti-Semitic ideology goes back to World War II. Reza Shah Pahlavi changed the name of
the country from “Persia” to “Iran” because “Iran” in Farsi signifies “Aryan,” referring to the proto-Indo-European
lineage that Nazi racial theorists and Persian ethnologist both embraced.”
There are other stark differences between the two factions. While Arabs speak Arabic and the Koran is
to be heard only in Arabic, in Iran (formerly Persia) 51 % of the population is ethnically Persian and the
predominant language is Persian.

LYING AS A VIRTUE

Duplicity, such as that which might emanate from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAI~)
when falsely explaining that Islam is a peaceful religion, is not only permitted but encouraged under the lslarnic
doctrines Taqiyya and Kithman. Author Brigitte Gabriel explains:

“Moderate” Muslims, and apologists and propagandists for Islam, will attempt to deny or obscure the real
meaning, nature, and intent of jihad. Some will say that jihad means only a Muslim’s “inner ~struggle” to b~ ~ better
person, and that jihad has no military meaning whatever. Others will acknowledge that Muslims have a religious duty
to spread Islam throughout the world, but insist that it is to be spread only peacefully” ” .
However, all of these assertions are examples of a tactic that Islam encourages m Wagg Jihad, Muslims are
encouraged to lie if, in the opinion of the liar, telling the lie will be “good” for Islam,
It should be noted that this doctrine is synonymous with one of Saul Alinski’s rules, one which states that
an organizer “does not have a fixed truth – truth to him is relative and changing.” And it is consistent with the
propensity of Obama to lie for his purposes. (See January 2014 club newsletter)
WHY HAS ISLAM REMAINED MIRED IN ANTIQUITY?

Author Robert Spencer attempts to answer the question as to why Islam remains mired in antiquity,
particularly in regard to science. He contends that the Koran portrays Allah as absolutely sovereign and bound
by nothing. In contrast, Jews and Christians believe that God created a universe according to rational laws that
can be discovered, making scientific investigation worthwhile. Saint Thomas Acquinas explains:
Since the principles of certain sciences – of logic, geometry, arithmetic, for instance – are derived exclusively from
the formal principles of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of
the principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predictable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle’s center
to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles.
But Allah has no such limitations. AI-Ghazali, an Islamic scholar, and others took issue with the very idea
that there were laws of nature. That would be blasphemy, a denial of Allah’s freedom. Thus, modern science
developed in Christian Europe rather than in the House of Islam. In the Islamic world, Allah killed science. Islam
remains mired in antiquity.
Author Herbert Meyer, a former member of the CIA and the first to forecast the collapse of the Soviet
Union, contrasts Islam with another operating system, Western Civilization, as follows:

Islam is a different system from that of Western Civilization. Church and state are combined. It’s a political structure as
well as faith, and the individual is subservient to the church-state combination. You do not have the option to opt out.
Islam does not unleash the entrepreneurial talents of its people. It discourages intellectual curiosity. That’s why there
hasn’t been a scientific breakthrough for the Islamic world in a thousand years. And it treats women as though they were
property. Very simply put, it’s incompatible with the modern world.
• Our operating system is Western Civilization. It’s who we are. It started in the ancient world and took off in Europe in
the 1S’h and 16’h centuries when Judaism and Christianity reconciled with the modern world. That ignited the greatest
scientific revolution of all time. Shakespeare, Bach, Michelangelo provided the greatest explosion of art and literature in
world history. Western Civilization means the individual is at the center. Church and state are separate. The rule of law,
the idea of property rights, economic liberty, individual rights, human rights, women’s rights. We encourage intellectual
curiosity, unleash the entrepreneurial talents of our people, endless struggle for equality among the races and the sexes.
That’s Western Civilization.

DOES AMERICA SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTAND ISLAM?

There are indications of which the reader is aware that the administration doesn’t understand – much
less know how to cope with – Islam. Either that or it has sympathies with the Muslim cause. For example, shortly
after the video showing the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff, John Kerry gave speech saying that
Islam is a “peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings,” and that ISIS is not “the real face of
Islam.”
And shortly after Kerry made his comments, president Obama, during a prime-time speech to the nation,
stated that “ISIL (sometimes shown ISIS) is not Islamic” and that, “No religion condones the killings of
innocents.”
Because Obama and leftists tend to avoid confrontation and, instead, engage in negotiations, it might be
helpful to consider the comments of author and Fox News commentator Ralph Peters who contends the old
model of negotiating with hostile powers will not work with Muslim terrorists. He explains:

In the past we have certainly faced grave dangers from our enemies, but we have never before faced enemies
who regarded death as a promotion. You hear calls, “Can’t we just get along, let’s talk, we can reason with these people.”
No, you cannot. In the glory days of the late 20’h century, when you dealt with political terrorists who had mundane,
secular, earthy goals, you could often reason with them, sometimes you had to kill them, sometimes you could
compromise, sometimes they had legitimate complaints … We’re not in a war of ideas. We’re in a war of beliefs, vastly
more dangerous. World War II, the Cold War, those were wars of ideas. Now we’re dealing with beliefs and with enemies
with whom you cannot compromise. Many Americans still have not got it through their heads that this enemy must be
killed or locked up forever.
ARE ISRAEL AND TRADITIONAL AMERICA BEING ABANDONED BY OBAMA AND THE LEFT?
In the eyes of Muslims there is oneness between Israel and America, one indication of which is the fact
that Israel is known by Muslims as the “Little Satan” while America is called the “Great Satan” – and not only
because of our support for Israel. Theologian Michael Brown, in explaining why Muslims use the term “Great Satan,”
points out that “We are seen as the champion of Western decadence, the chief exporter of immorality to
the rest of the world.” He adds what we should expect: that radical Muslims in Egypt cite America’s high divorce
rate, its high crime rate and drug use and America’s preoccupation with sex and then contend, “You will never
find these things where true Islam exists.” a contention from which Muslims can receive a lot of “mileage” for
their cause.
It should be noted that up until the beginning of the Obama administration, there had been a close
alliance between America and Israel, but the relationship is changing. Some examples come from the widely
reported Cairo speech made several years ago in which Obama proposed “a contiguous Palestinian state …
which could only be accomplished by cutting Israel in half 11

But the most stunning symbolic message – one which is considered an insulting act in the Middle East-
took place during Obama’s telephone conversation with Netanyahu when the only picture released of Obama

talking on the telephone of that event in the oval office was one in which Obama was seen with his feet propped
up on the desk with the soles of his shoes in clear view. It is considered an insult in the Middle East to show
someone the sales of one’s feet.
In response to the clear threat made by Iranian Muslims to use nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the
may, Israel has sworn “never again.” Reasoning that the Holocaust occurred in part because European Jews did
not resist, the Israelis have determined that never again will Israel be passive in the face of its enemies.
Consequently, since the late 1940s, first strikes have characterized Israeli’s foreign policy. Two
examples: (1) the highly effective Israeli first-strike air assault on June 5, 1967, destroyed the entire Egyptian air
force on the ground at the start of the Six-day War, and (2) more parallel to the urgency of a situation of Iran

having nuclear weapons, was the June 1981 air attack that took out Iraq’s Isaak unclear reactor.
Israel has had to reassess its options in view of the possibility that it may have to defend itself alone.
Those options include the “Sampson Option,” which means that Israel would be willing to attack Iran even if the
result of an Israeli preemptive strike ended with Israel’s destruction.

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND THE MUSLIMS

For years predating this nation’s independence, Muslim pirates had been engaging in piracy of shipping
that entered the Mediterranean. Up until the time of American independence, colonial shipping had enjoyed
some protection, first by the British and then later by the French; however, after the U. S. won its independence,
its shipping no longer had the protection of those nations. Initially, having no navy, the U. S. paid handsome
ransoms to those pirates who operated out of ports in Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, an area known as the Barbary
Coast, to obtain the freedom of the captured American sailors the Muslims had enslaved.
When he was ambassador to France, Jefferson asked a Muslim diplomat from Tripoli by what right were
the Muslim pirates extorting money and taking slaves. The response of this diplomat was subsequently reported
by Jefferson to Secretary of State John Jay and to the Congress. Following is an excerpt of that report:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet [Mohammad], that it was written
in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and
duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners,
and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.
It should be noted here, as an aside, that, although that description was penned more than 200 years
ago, it is perfectly consistent with recent utterances by Osama bin Laden, Iran’s president, and other Muslims.
Jefferson was opposed to America paying ransom to free its captured sailors, so when he became
president he refused such payment to the ruler of Tripoli who then, in retaliation for Jefferson’s refusal, declared
war on the U. S. by the symbolic act of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U. S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers
and Tunis soon followed the lead of their ally in Tripoli.
According to Wikipedia, Jefferson, in turn, sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the
Mediterranean, and so informed Congress. As was the case when Congress of recent years dealt with Iraq and
the 9/11 attack, the Congress of Jefferson’s day never voted on a formal declaration of war. It did, however,
authorize the president to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the U. S. to seize all vessels and goods
of the Pasha of Tripoli. Further, again in language similar to that used by Congresses of recent years, the
Congress of 1801 authorized Jefferson “to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the
state of war will justify.” .
Under that grant of authority, the U. S. did engage in hostilities which, by and large, ended after a daring
overland attack against the city of Derna in Tripoli by a force of Marines and mercenaries under the command of
Americans. This was the action memorialized in the line in the Marines Hymn, “to the shores of Tripoli.”

“ALLAHU AKBAR,” SHARIAH LAW AND THE U. S. CONSTITUTION
A Muslim Addresses the Democrat Convention. The reader may recall during the Democrat
Convention a Muslim, Khizr Khan, addressed that convention as the father of a son, a US soldier who was killed
in the Iraq war. During his presentation, he went so far as to wave around his pocket version of the Constitution
and challenge Donald Trump: “Have you read the Constitution? I will lend you my copy.” The gesture seemed to
imply that Trump was not knowledgeable of it while he was, and also to imply there was no conflict between the
Constitution and Shariah. (He seemed oblivious to the fact that, as author Mark Christian stated the situation, the
reason his son was killed was “because of the Quran itself and the Shariah law contained within. The Iraqi who
drove the vehicle with the suicide bomb that took his son’s life did it for one reason … to claim martyrdom by
waging jihad.”)
The purpose of this report is to explore the possibility that there is a conflict between Shariah law and the
Constitution.
. What is Shariah Law? Law? According to Wikipedia. Shariah “is the religious law governing members of the
Islamic faith. It IS derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith … it is a
body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.”
The Significance of “Allahu Akbar.” The phrase “Allahu Akbar” is used by terrorists when they engage
in acts of terror by killing people. Think back to the Ft. Hood murders – mischaracterized as “workplace violence”

• when the murderer, Major Hasan, was reported to have used that phrase as he killed his victims. The phrase
  appears to be used without exception when Muslim terrorists kill.
  A proper translation of that phrase can be instructive by revealing the very nature of Islam. According to
  one translation, Islam is but another religion. According to Wikiislam (and other sources) “Allahu Akbar” is usually
  translated “God is the Greatest” or “God is Great,” translations suggesting Islam is but another religion.
  Wikiislam, however, contends this is not an adequate translation and contends further that “Allah’ is not simply
  the Arabic word for ‘God;’ it is the name of Islam’s chosen deity. And “Akbar’ does not mean ‘great’ but ‘greater.'”
  In other words, the phrase means “Allah is greater.” Now note the following for more explanation.
  Understanding Islam Through “Allahu Akbar” and Shariah. When he was ambassador to France,
  Thomas Jefferson asked a Muslim diplomat from Tripoli by what right were the Muslim pirates extorting money
  and taking slaves. The response of this diplomat was subsequently reported by Jefferson to Secretary of State
  John Jay and to the Congress. Following is an excerpt of that report:
  The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet [Mohammad], that it was written
  in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were Sinners, that it was their right and
  duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners,
  and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.
  It should be noted here that, although that description was penned more than 200 years ago, it is
  instructive even today, and is perfectly consistent with the Koran, the expression “Allahu Akbar,” the behavior of
  Muslim terrorists, and views of many Muslim scholars. The above excerpt also reveals that Islam has not
  changed in 200 years, and indeed has not changed since it was begun centuries ago.
  Is Shariah Law Compatible with the Constitution? Shariah law, for many Muslims, is divine – as
  opposed to human legislation – and therefore cannot be changed, thus possibly providing the source of
  irreconcilable differences with the Constitution.
  But to the direct question of whether Shariah law can be “squared” with the Constitution, Kirby Anderson
  of Point of View Ministries makes the following observations:
  The First Amendment says that there should be no establishment of religion. Shariah law is based on
  one religion’s interpretation of rights. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of any national
  religion (including Islam).
  The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” Most Americans would consider the
  penalties handed down under Shariah law to be cruel and unusual.
  The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees each citizen equal protection under the Constitution. Shariah
  law does not treat men and women equally, nor does it treat Muslim and non-Muslims equally This also
  violates the Constitution.