The Wall Between Church and State Spoke Only of Federalism

Some liberal talking points extol how founding fathers would stand against conservative contemporary issues, which remains pointless conjecture. Unlike the liberals of today our founding fathers were pragmatists and did not adhere to any one political agenda; as a matter of fact they just about defined cognitive dissonance. For one Jefferson has a abolitionists yet owned (and bedded) slaves. Jefferson also spoke of glowing of native American culture, but savagely drove Indians west and said of those that resisted  "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". Jefferson was also so devoted to Christianity he wrote his own deist version of the New Testament.

The letters written by Jefferson were generally a discussion of Federalism, not a demonisation of religion; the protections from government in the original Bill of Rights only pertained to the Federal government not the states;  it was believed that the states could create whatever government or religion it wanted as long as it recognized and respected federal authority. What the first Amendment protections addressed was "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", IOW a prohibition from  Federal government creating a national religion. If a state wanted to establish a religion as part of their government process they would have been free to do so; the idea being no one would be trapped or force to endure what you believed to be a tyrannical state, as you could simply move to another, but that was not the fact if the Federal government established a religion. Today, because of the 14th Amendment all states must adhere to these Federal prohibitions, but that was not the case when the Constitution was written. The Federal Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in was convened in 1787, but the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1886, 60 years after Jefferson died.

"Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions ofthe national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns,
 such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury BaptistAssociation".

John T. McGreevy, "Thinking on One's Own: Catholicism in the American Intellectual Imagination, 1928-1960," Journal of American History, Vol. 84 (June 1997), pp. 97-131, and Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002).

The Biggest Lie of 2014; "Hands up, Don't shoot";

In 2013 the biggest lie of the year was, "If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it." The biggest lie in 2014 has got to be, "Hands up, don't shoot." From the very beginning the Ferguson narrative that a seasoned veteran police officer murdered a unarmed suspect that was surrendering simply didn't pass the smell test. This narrative was first perpetrated by several questionable witnesses and soon after the autopsy results put  "Hands up, don't shoot" in a very questionable light; predictably however the main street media ran with the story and police Officer Darren Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department became ground zero for police violence against blacks. This also attracted the likes of  race-baiter  Al Sharpton, who continues to monetarily profit by stoking the fires of racism and black vicitimism. Well the DOJ report is in and it categorically refutes the  "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative, placing Michael Brown as instigator and controller of his own destiny. The left then adds insult to injury by claiming blacks have a right to the false narrative because of the discrimination they have experienced at the hands of the police; that it is the fault of the police that the false narrative was embraced. It would seem that the police internal affairs have enough trouble trying to investigating what might be real claims of police misconduct, then have to defend themselves from imaginary police conduct.

 "According to these witnesses, who are corroborated by blood evidence in the roadway," the inquiry states, "Wilson fired at Brown in what appeared to be self-defense and stopped firing once Brown fell to the ground...There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson's stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety,'' the report concludes. DOJ Ferguson Inquiry; Another interesting point is the majority of honest witnesses that testified to the truth had been constantly threatened to lie and maintain the falsehood of the "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative. Ferguson Grand Jury Witnesses often Cited Fear in Testifying.  But this is certainly no surprise to anyone. The left, in league with the main street media has made an art form out of fabricating narratives and stoking the fires of racial unrest. Who can forget the New York Times describing George Zimmerman a white Hispanic, in order to make the Trayvon Martin shooting a black/white issue; and NBC alters a 911 audio tape to make it sound like George Zimmerman was a racists. It's no great secret that a large percentage of American blacks have been relegated to live in isolated black identified neighborhoods that offer more violence, weaker schools and fewer jobs than  whites of the same economic class; and this is where black cognitive dissidence  comes in. Democrats have continually given blacks nothing more then lip service, keeping them marginalized by maintaining their victim mentality and taking for granted the black voting block while they turn their attention to Unions and court liberal rich political donors.

The big lie from the left is how the police discriminate against blacks and due to institutional racism the black man can not succeed in America today. While racism has not disappeared, the police still go where the crimes are being committed and socioeconomic reality of blacks is they commit more crimes than whites. It is not racism that holds the black community down, it is the result of the systematic destruction of the black family and the left passing off black crime as acceptable civil disobedience (not to mention the misogyny of gangster rap) . Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. It's much easier to blame the cops than to face the reality that progressive social engineering with the black community has been a disaster.

 If you’re going to correctly compare the rates at which police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to compare teenage crime rates. You can’t just compare crime rates among the entire black and white populations. The rate that these teenagers commit murder, not including rape and other less serious crimes, also provides a somewhat better measure of the perceived threat that they might pose to police...Among blacks, teenage crime is much more prevalent. Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers, black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts. That’s right, nine times, and the gap in these urban areas is undoubtedly even larger  Dangerous Distortions of Cops Shooting Blacks. Instead the left continues to forward the "Hands up, don't shoot" fallacy; that young unarmed black men are being routinely murdered by the police, when the fact is it's a very rare occurrence; in a country of 300 million people, one might be surprised to learn that the number of (ruled) justifiable killings by police (which is the vast majority) is usually less than 400. So, considering the social and racial damage done,  the attempted coercion of witnesses to lie and the fact that the powers that be knew it was a false narrative, "Hands up, don't shoot" is certainly the leading candidate for the biggest lie of 2014.

Climate Change Models Faulty Due to "Confirmation Bias"

In a blog, a Man Made Climate Change zealot bemoaned the fact that,  "It's so sad that science isn't allowed to say "proven" after being 99% certain for 34 years without achieving the climate action needed to SAVE THE PLANET." editorial-march-1-2015-

Previously I wrote: The argument has never been about whether man is affecting the atmosphere; of course he has. For hundreds of years it has been observed that smoke from coal fires have raised the temperatures in London, by creating a warming blanket in the atmosphere. The question is what is the extent of Man Made Climate Change (MMCC)? Most of the 97% consensus studies didn't even contact the scientists and were based on very faulty criteria. We already know that predictions of MMCC by zealots like Al Gore were incredibly overstated; and most the climate computer models are not that less fantastic. The truth is no one knows. The only way to calculate the extent that man is affecting Climate Change is by the very computer studies that have been churning out faulty information for the past 10 years or so. What we do know is carbon credits are a scam designed solely to raise taxes and rationalize global governance. While “People tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their world view,” Governments have also used science to justify oppression and tyranny. And so it goes..

This was my response to the zealot..

It isn't science's job to save the planet or make the world believe anything. Science is also not a democratic process were the majority rules; it should be noted that the most spectacular scientific discoveries were believed by a small minority before they became generally accepted. Further, Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) has shown itself to be a political movement verging on religious dogma, which is often defined as "confirmation bias". "A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it. In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. Theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable because all researchers can succumb to the confirmation bias. Researchers who display confirmation bias look for and accept evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore or reject evidence that refutes their beliefs".

Further as I said before, while climate change is accepted science, as is MMCC to a lesser degree, there is absolutely no consensus on to what degree man is affecting the climate. As a matter of fact, the corner stone of MMCC, the raising levels of man created C02 causing global warming, has been called into question. For 18 years there has been no substantial global warming, even though C02 levels have continued to rise. It seems all the climate change computer models were based on the relationship between rising C02 levels and the raising global temperatures of the 1990's and the models have simply not been able explain the pause in global warming while C02 is still on the rise. But rather than question their global warming dogma, they have created other unsubstantiated theories to explain it without putting their theories into question (like the disproved theory that planet heat was hiding deep in the ocean; yes, ignoring physics by saying hot water sank below colder water). Another obvious example of confirmation bias. It isn't the point that science is not allowed to say "proven"; the point is that saying anything is proven is not science (in other words to wish science could declare a theory proven is wishing for the end to science); it's usually a political entity looking for a rationalization for oppression and tyranny.

Boycott Liam Neeson's "Run All Night"

Liam Neeson plays a ex-CIA agent that is continually using his "very particular skill set" in the movies, making good his threat,  "I will look for you, I will find you and I will kill you;" usually with guns a blazing. In other words in the real world, the  Liam Neeson character is a psychotic killer, looking to kill other psychotic killers, all in the name of entertainment, for which he gets paid millions of dollars ($20 million for his latest move Taken 3). So what does Liam Nelson think of America's Constitution?  "There’s too many fucking guns out there! ..Especially in America. I think the population is like, 320 million? There’s over 300 million guns. Privately owned, in America. I think it’s a fucking disgrace. Every week now we’re picking up a newspaper and seeing, ‘Yet another few kids have been killed in schools’." What are you talking about Liam? Gun violence in the US has been on the decline; by 50% in the last 20 years. Further, while certainly a tragedy, children being killed by guns in the US is an aberration; the real culprit is the court system's failure to aggressively enforce the current gun laws that already exist both state and federally. 

So does Liam Neeson  take any responsibility for the effect that his extreme violence in movies has had on society? No he simply chooses to ignore numerous studies show that children exposed to repeated violence can become desensitized to violence? "After the Jonesboro shootings, one of the high-school teachers told me how her students reacted when she told them about the shootings at the middle school. "They laughed," she told me with dismay. A similar reaction happens all the time in movie theaters when there is bloody violence. The young people laugh and cheer and keep right on eating popcorn and drinking pop. We have raised a generation of barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure, like the Romans cheering and snacking as the Christians were slaughtered in the Coliseum."  Are We Conditioning Our Children to Commit Murder?


Liam Neeson's arrogant self serving response speaks volumes of his hubris,  A character like Bryan Mills going out with guns and taking revenge: it's fantasy. It's in the movies, you know? I think it can give people a great release from stresses in life and all the rest of it, you know what I mean? It doesn't mean they're all going to go out and go, 'Yeah, let's get a gun!  Sorry, Neeson but study after study says you are wrong and you are just rationalizing away any responsibility you have for the gun violence you portray with moral abandonment in your movies. Liam-Neeson-launches-expletive

To illustrate this, eOne Movies created a map to provide a handy rundown of all the countries and the number killed, just in case you were wondering like. There’s even a method key, for a more detailed insight into his characters’ murderous ways.

 http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/liam-neeson-kill-map-1688438-Sep2014/

 Gun Maker, PARA USA (whom supplied the guns for Taken 3) I think summed it up quite nicely,  “comments made by its Irish-born star during press junkets reflect a cultural and factual ignorance that undermines support of the Second Amendment and American liberties."

I will admit that I have enjoyed Liam Neeson's movies, but I have suddenly lost all interest in seeing them. It is obvious that America Exceptionalism is totally lost on someone that was raised in another country.  American Exceptionalism is not about a people believing their country superior, contrary to the President Obama once again misstating and then apologizing for an American world view he continually demonstrates he simply doesn't understand; unlike any other country, America was originated with the concept of self rule, individual rights and freedom (that makes America the exception to every other country, better by American standards, but certainly not superior). And just because someone is rich and famous, it doesn't give him opinions any more weight than any other non-American that thinks their worldview is superior (just ask Piers Morgan). It needs to be shown that if you come to America and talk trash about our liberties, it's going to cost you.

California Blocks All New Gun Sales with Microstamping Mandate

As of Jan 1, 2015 no Handgun Manufacturer will be allowed to sell any new model handgun in California; the reason being the new Microstamping mandate and the fact that no handgun manufacturer in the US uses the technology. While I'm sure that those that against the lawful ownership of handguns are cheering with delight, the end result is new and safer guns will not be available in California Microstamping is a process where identifying characters are engraved on the head  of the firing pin of a handgun, with the hope that it will leave an impression on the primer of a casing, so law enforcement can identify a handgun that was used in a crime. While the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) originally showed interest in the technology,  they now express concern over the "hasty implementation" as  "peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent research organizations conclude that the technology does not function reliably and that criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds". California Police Chiefs Association Calls for Firearms Microstamping Study

To date, Glock, Ruger, Smith and Wesson have already said they will not sell new handguns guns in California rather than invest in what is was deemed a faulty technology in 2007 that can be defeated by criminal in seconds (It should be noted that Law enforcement is exempted from the mandate as they are constantly upgrading their officers firearms, which these days are about 80% Glock; apparently civilians don't rank high enough to be able to purchase newer and safer firearms) and there has also been limited research and/or development of the technology. The only reason Microstamping has become mandatory is the patent has run out, while gun manufactures and law enforcement have serious reservations, the California Legislators apparently do not. Further even though that patent has run out, the proprietary machinery owned by the developer, NanoMark of Seattle, Washington, makes it still the only company from which the Microstamping technology can be purchased. "Two trade groups, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), filed a lawsuit in 2014 seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief against what the groups perceive as an attempt to ban semi-automatic handguns in the state." The court issued a decision on May 21, 2014 that denied NSSF and SAAMI’s preliminary injunction request to stop the state from enforcing the new law. The court found that they failed to establish a reasonable probability that they will success on the merits of their case." However this was before the largest firearm manufactures declared they are not going to build a faulty system into their pistols and have been resigned to the fact that they will not be able to serve the California market with their new and often safer handguns; this may result in another attempt to force an injunction. Now this does not mean that Californians will not be able to purchase handguns, there are hundreds of models on California's Department of Justice (DOJ) gun list, it's just new models that have been made illegal by this law.

Finally it is worth noting that California has dozens of gun safety laws that the legislature simply refuses to fund. Included is a law that allows the California DOJ to track down gun owners that made legal purchases of handguns or assault rifles, but have since become ineligible from owning them due to mental illness or a criminal conviction. Unfortunately of the 20,000 illegal gun owners on the list, with some 40,000  illegally possessed firearms in California, only about 2000 have had their firearms confiscated; and around 3,000 are added to the list every year. California Unable to Disarm 19,700 felons and Mentally Ill People 

ISIS Soldiers Are Not Looking For a Job

 President Obama has been preaching, the cause of ISIS terrorism is poverty and the lack of jobs in the middle east.  The problem with this naivete is western non-secular solutions will not work in the collective religious societies of Eastern Islam.  A Muslims life is to worship and humble their self before god; it is a life of service, charity and austerity. Islam simply doesn't fit the consumer/capitalism mold. In the United States poverty and unemployment often leads to criminal behavior, but in Islam, poverty (or austere living) is more often than not a choice, so as not be distracted by unnecessary possessions that get between man and his God (this is also an early Christian belief).In other words Muslims don't join ISIS becasue they are looking for a well paying job with good benifits.

In a society that is dedicated to the worship of god, community and service, everyone has his place and there is always something to do; each according to their ability, each according to their contribution.*  Unemployment and poverty simply do not have the same meaning in eastern Islam as it does in the west. And it is liberty, freedom of thought, consumerism and western education that, in a Christian context, are the four horsemen of the apocalypses of Islam. Islam is a religion the decided itself from the 13th century that science (discovering the structure of the natural world without divine regulation) was an anathema that needed to be fought so Islam can survive. To suggest the same as an answer to radical Jihad, is much the same as offering Americans another chance at British tyranny.

* There are two of these clever sayings that are meant to define Communists. The first (which I used to describe Islam) describes the Communists Dictatorship for the purposes of re-education, which places a priority on collectivism and working for the benefit of the state (in the case of Islam it is to the benefit of Allah); "each according to their ability, each according to their contribution. Once the re-education has been successful and the second revolution has occurred that frees the people from the yoke of the oppressive dictatorship and collectivism, the people will  finally be free to enjoy life on their individualists terms; a paradise described as "each according to their ability; each according to their needs". This might explain why the left has been the constant apologists for Islam, despite the carnage being waged by radical Islamic.

Violent Extremisim is Islam

Why does President Obama refuse to relent and admit that what the President describes as violent extremism in the world (that is operating in the "name" of Islam), is actually radical Islam (aka radical Jihad)? The most obvious answer is the President is an apologist to the west (particularly in the US) for Islam, continuing what has been called his war on reality. Does one really believe that President Obama did not know the importance of the French "Freedom of Speech" march, where the US was conspicuously absent?  Instead we have a President who view on free speech seems more in line with Muslim clerics than the first Amendment. Remarking to the video tape that was wrongfully blamed on the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya in  Benghazi, Jay Carney said,“Obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. Obama Speech on Paris Attacks This compared to British cleric Anjem Choudary “Muslims love the Messenger Muhammad (saw) more than their parents, children and even themselves!” “Why don’t people understand?...Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today!” Free Speech Doesn't Extend to the Prophets of Allah Even the Pope has entered the subect of free speech "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others...They are provocateurs...There is a limit." Vatican: Pope's Charlie Hebdo Comments do not Justify Attack. Certainly Jay Carney and the Pope qualified their remarks, but freedom of speech can not be qualified by who it will offended.  The only qualification to free speech is speech or actions created for the principal purpose of creating the same unnecessary, immediate and catastrophic fear and/or panic. In other words freedom of speech is the qualification; no ifs, ands or buts.

Yes the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but radical Islam has been an integral part of Islam since the beginning.  Perhaps a bigger question, where is the out cry from the billions of peaceful Muslims after Jihadists violence has lead to death and dismemberment throughout the world?  Certainly the large majority of the billion (plus) Muslims in the world are attracted to that part of Islam that preaches the peaceful devotion to their god Allah through the five bases of the Islamic faith: shahada (confession of faith), salat (prayer), zakat (almsgiving), sawm (fasting, especially during the month of Ramadan), and hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca). But once one moves beyond the basic observance of Islam, the more radical one becomes. While the majority of Muslims do not agree with the violence of radical Jihad, they still recognize it is a legitimate aspect of Islam, and as the very meaning of Muslim is to "submit", they are hesitant to speak out against it.

 The origins of Islam was to bring warring tribes together under a single belief system, hence one is also faced with the fiery writings of Mohammad, the Koran and Sharia law that define a strict code of conduct and punishments for violating these codes; and since these behaviors and punishments come from 1000 year old documents, they reflect the misogyny and barbarity of the time.

"Islam’s success may also have been due to its ability to transcend nations and races, its provision of a common language and its moral code which provided a great advance over tribal culture, assisting commercial relations, trade and trust between traders. In addition its monetary and accounting systems and legal code were useful in adjudicating financial contracts and disputes. This expansion in trade, as well as the open intellectual environment of early Islam, gave rise to the wealth of its civilization.

The Abbasid dynasty, which ruled from Baghdad from 750 to 1258, provided the peak of Islamic civilization. In the 9th century the collective sayings and interpretations of the early caliphs were recorded in the hadith. The Abbasid’s greatest achievements were in the area of philosophy, science and mathematics, in which they led the world. They studied, preserved and translated the Greek classics. The Muslim world is justifiably proud of its achievements in this regard. Muslim scholars provided major contributions to mathematics, algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, physics and medicine. This was a civilization that surpassed all others in its prosperity and achievement.

In the pre-enlightenment of the 13th Century, the theologians of the Catholic church (ie St Thomas Aquinas)  began to write about how human beings have the natural capacity to discover knowledge about the world without divine revelation; in other words god works through individuals just as it works through the church. This was a time when Islam had reached it's peak This planted the seeds for the eventual acceptance of scientific thought, however Islam was conspicuously absent.

"Muslim scholars argue that Quran urges quest for knowledge of nature by observation, and this inspired the development of scientific method by Muslims. However in the 12th century when Muslim philosophers began to suggest that truth itself may be revealed by empirical observation as well as from the Quran, there was a religious crackdown, the gate of ijtihad was closed and scientific research largely ceased in the Muslim world. It was eventually pursued in Europe, but not without resistance from religious authorities there. The start or the 13th century saw the beginning of the relative decline of Islamic civilization. This decline was not caused by outside forces. It was not caused by a lack of dedication to Islam. It was caused by Islam itself. This is because rejection of science and scientific method was rejection of what was to later become the main driving force in industrial prosperity.

Scientific research in the Muslim world declined and the intellectual environment became inhospitable to the open and honest exchange of ideas. The craft guilds, which also existed in Europe, may have been more successful under Islam in preserving their monopolies, excluding competition and product improvement. Craftsmen were granted higher status than merchants, and were able to restrict the idea of free competition. There was a feeling in the Muslim world that improvement was unnecessary, except perhaps in the technology of warfare. Gradually all the advancements known to the Muslim world passed to Europe, where the knowledge was eventually utilized to greater effect. Prosperity and the rise and fall of Islam

In other words while the minions of Allah want to live a loving and peaceful life, it is the clerics that enforce the strict code of behavior that is intrinsic  to Islam that are driving radical Jihad.  This was exactly what Egyptian President  Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was talking about in his speech to called for a "religious revolution" in which Muslim clerics and IMAMs take the lead in rethinking the direction Islam has taken recently.

 "I am referring here to the religious clerics. … It's inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma (Islamic world) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!..."That thinking — I am not saying 'religion' but 'thinking' — that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It's antagonizing the entire world! ... All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective...Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Egypt's President Urges Muslim Clerics to End Violent Islamic Ideology, Lead Peaceful 'Religious Revolution' in Groundbreaking Speech