latest

Thomas Jefferson, call your office. Five lawyers on the Supreme Court have issues with your handiwork.

A revised version of the Declaration is the inevitable outcome of their opinions in the same-sex "marriage" cases hammered down on Wednesday in Windsor v. United States and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

For those who think those rulings are merely about an insignificant "social issue," think again. In the words of the Prophet Isaiah:

"Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far off. For truth has stumbled in the public square, and honesty cannot enter. Truth is missing, and whoever turns from evil is plundered."

For starters, Mr. Jefferson, "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions," even when it comes to marriage created by our "Creator" is so 1776.

You and your 55 cosignors of the Declaration didn't get this line right either:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So five wise guys and gals, not to be confused with Solomon, tweaked it, finding their inspiration in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Their revised standard version reads:

"We hold these delusions to be pretty darn clear that all people are whatever the heck they self-identify as, regardless of biology or DNA, endowed by their Supreme Judges with life, except, of course, for the unborn; liberty, meaning "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," as long as it doesn't offend the moral judgment of the Supreme Judges whose moral judgments trump those of their Subjects."

Justice Anthony ("Swinging") Kennedy wrote the incoherent majority opinion in Windsor, throwing out Section 3 of DOMA. That section defines the term "marriage" as one man and one woman "for all purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits."

[...]

Thus, gay-enhancing states get to decide who gets federal benefits. If you can't connect the states' liberty dots to federal benefits, you obviously attended the wrong law school.

A supermajority of a bipartisan Congress enacted DOMA, which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in 1996. According to Kennedy, they were blinded by a desire to "demean," "harm," "injure," and "degrade" "same-sex couples" who were "married" somewhere.

It was a banner day for Kennedy and his chutzpah cabal. Where did Congress get the idea that it can decide who gets federal benefits?

[...]

Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Windsor unmistakably sounds the death knell for the right of self-rule enshrined in the Declaration and Constitution:

"By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."

[A Mosque Is Not Like a Church or a Synagogue]

The marked proliferation of mosques in the U.S. since 9/11 should raise a red flag for Americans. Recent controversies surrounding mega-mosque construction projects countrywide -- many in locations with almost no Muslims to speak of -- have grave implications for the future of these targeted communities and areas beyond.

Accelerated mosque-building -- in Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Ground Zero, New York; and Santa Clara and Temecula, California, to name a few -- carries significance beyond the mere construction of a collection of Muslim houses of worship. It represents yet another orchestrated effort to oust traditional American values and replace them with Islamic practices, laws, and beliefs.
Although most U.S. mosques heretofore have been built without resistance, the newly attendant controversies present speciously polarized views between, on the one hand, ostensibly welcoming, tolerant, multi-culti progressives who deny any possible radical agenda despite substantial evidence to the contrary in existing mosques and, on the other hand, so-called fearful, Islamophobic, ignorant bigots unwilling to embrace diversity. Mainstream media's predominant point of view is that any opposition to mosque-building represents a blatant unwillingness to integrate Muslims into American communities. This view disallows the possibility that such objections represent appropriate, reasoned responses to an attempt to destroy America from within and supplant its culture with a supremacist, totalitarian, and misogynistic ideology.

Islamic terrorism expert Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project for Terrorism, attributes the spate of mosque-building and land acquisition to the Muslim American Society (MAS), an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Emerson contends that the MAS has been actively buying up property and establishing mosques to control the appointment of imams who "distribute the message they believe is necessary to spread Islam around the world."

It should be noted that a mosque is totally unlike a church or a synagogue, entities that serve their communities under the law of the land and are both empowered and restrained under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Under the Establishment Clause of that amendment, the government is prohibited from establishing a state religion or conferring preferential treatment on one religion over another. Although the government may not interfere with religious beliefs and opinions, the proscription of religious practices is permissible, as in the examples of polygamy and human sacrifice.

In the U.S. and in other Western countries, Christians and Jews freely and critically choose their brand of theology from a multitude of ecclesiastic offerings and determine their individual levels of religious observance or none at all. The exercise of faith and the observance of faith-related practices occur across a broad spectrum of individual behaviors based solely on personal choice.

In Muslim countries, no separation exists between mosque and state. Islamic doctrine or sharia controls all aspects of a person's existence, from the correct way to use the toilet to permissible forms of lying, or taquiya. For Muslims, Mohammed is the perfect man, whose every example must be emulated, even though by Western Judeo-Christian standards he was a mass murderer, pedophile, rapist, torturer, and looter. Furthermore, Islamic doctrine is immutable, and any criticism of the traditions and practices of Mohammed is considered apostasy, which is punishable by death.

No free individual will exists or is allowed when it comes to practices and observances. Sharia must be strictly followed. A mosque is a symbol of this ultimate authority and serves the function of organizing every aspect of life in a Muslim community...