Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘myth’

United States ConstitutionI fell for the myth of the “godless” U.S. Constitution until 2012.

Here are the reasons the United States Constitution is not “godless”, with thanks to Pastor David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution for bringing up some of these points up during a presentation he made on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith:

Starting with the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where do “Blessings” come from, if not from God?

And the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the “Creator” is the author of “Liberty”, as we see from its text:

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.

Then, there are the references in the Constitution to oaths, such as this one:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

The distinguishing feature between an Oath and Affirmation is that an oath is sworn to God, while an affirmation is only solemnly stated.

We see this from the Merriam-Webster dictionary’s primary definition for oath:

1a (1) : a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says

and with all definitions of affirmation, there is no mention of God:

1a : the act of affirming
b : something affirmed : a positive assertion
2 : a solemn declaration made under the penalties of perjury by a person who conscientiously declines taking an oath

The second definition shows that one makes an affirmation by conscientiously declining to take an oath, meaning that one doesn’t believe in God, or doesn’t feel that it is necessary to do so, while still believing in God.

Then, for the requirement of the President upon taking office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Then, for the oath or affirmation required of Senators and Representatives:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The “no religious Test” requirement is internally supported in the Constitution by the ability to either swear an oath or make an affirmation, and its purpose was to prevent religious divisions among the many Christian denominations at the time, and later, among different religions.

The most cited reference made by those advocating a “godless” Constitution refer to the First Amendment, which states, in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Constitution. It only limits Congress from establishing any official national religion, and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion anywhere in the United States. It does nothing to prevent the States from doing so, within their respective jurisdictions. This is evidenced by the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut having official state religions after the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

And since the Executive can only execute laws passed by Congress, if Congress can pass no laws establishing an official religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise of religion, the Executive also cannot implement any regulations doing the same.

Then, since the judicial branch can only interpret laws passed by Congress, they are also prevented from doing the same.

Notice that there is no “wall of separation between Church and State” mentioned here, or anywhere else in the Constitution. In fact, that reference is from a 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which referred to a one-way wall of separation, with the newly constituted federal government unable to interfere with religious worship in any way.

Then, in the Fourth Amendment, we see a reference to an “Oath”.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Long before 2012, I was aware of the mention of “the Year of our Lord” in the Constitution, and accepted the notion that it was just used as a convention at the time.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

However, if it connoted nothing religious, then why did Thomas Jefferson’s aforementioned 1802 letter only show him signing the date and year, and mentioning nothing about “the Year of our Lord”?

Finally, the mention of most of the rights in the Bill of Rights are references to natural rights, and where do those natural rights come from? The signers of the Declaration of Independence made it clear that they are from the “Creator”, who is also “Nature’s God”.

For more on the godly nature of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. form of government, see my interview with Pastor David Whitney here.

Read Full Post »

Flag of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

Given the increasing drumbeat for military intervention against Syria and Iran, I thought I would share my February 27, 2012 reflection on John Esposito’s, “The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?”

In reading John Esposito’s critical examination of what some call, “The Islamic Threat,” several important points came to mind.

He pointed out how the Cold War conflict was portrayed as a conflict between good and evil, with the Soviet Union labeled an “evil empire.”

Particularly interesting, was how he pointed out that it was good for the bottom line of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex.

After the end of the end of the Cold War, the Military Industrial Complex needed a new enemy on the scale of the Soviet Union. A hyped-up threat of “Islamic extremism” fit the bill.

This is all the more relevant since the event of 9/11, which provided the justification for a 10-year and counting war in Afghanistan, and the war on Iraq. Former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark came out in 2007 revealing how, shortly after 9/11, one of his Pentagon contacts said the George W. Bush administration planned to take out seven countries in five years. (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran) (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/)

The U.S. has gone into Iraq and Libya, has broken up Sudan, is talking about arming the opposition in Syria, and the current administration is stoking the fear of Iran imminently obtaining a nuclear weapon, despite a former head of Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad, saying they wouldn’t obtain such a capability before 2018 (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,796320,00.html), assuming they are actually trying to pursue one — which is completely unproven.

Another important factor Esposito pointed to is the gross distortion of Islam and Muslims in the Western mass media. He specifically pointed to one article that featured a picture of a Muslim wearing a turban, whose eyes had stars from the American flag in it.

I agree with his assertion that the intention of such a depiction is to give Americans a distorted picture of Islam and Muslims. Most Muslims don’t wear turbans, but that didn’t stop the editors of the article from depicting a Muslim wearing one. I agree with his assertion that it was intentionally done to portray Muslims in conflict with modernity.

Since 9/11, the new boogeyman the U.S. mass media had was Osama bin Laden. Another turban-wearing Muslim who lived in a cave in Afghanistan, while comparatively downplaying the fact that the bin Laden family is the one of the richest and most influential families in Saudi Arabia, and how they had business deals with the Bush family, as documented in the book, House of Bush, House of Saud.

Also, similar to the pattern Esposito outlined with U.S. mass media portrayals in the 1990s, since 9/11, they are failing to provide balance and context as to why there is conflict between “Islam and the West.”

The attack of 9/11 was portrayed as an attack by Arab “Muslim extremists” while conveniently ignoring some of the grievances that were cited as contributing to the conditions that led to the justifications that extremists used for the attack, including U.S. military occupation of the country with two of Islam’s most holy sites, and America’s ultimately unqualified support for Israel in its occupation of the Palestinians.

It’s sad how what Esposito wrote in his 1995 edition of his book rings even more true today in 2012, but it should serve as a wakeup call of the unfolding plan before it’s too late to stop “people (on our side and on theirs) who want to turn this into a holy war between two civilizations — as if that could produce anything but death or lasting misery, for millions.” — William Pfaff (Esposito, 188)

Read Full Post »

In 1935, Cret designed the Seal of the Board o...

The claim that the Federal Reserve was given a 99-year charter set to expire in 2012 isn’t the only myth surrounding its creation.

There is also the myth that the Federal Reserve Act was passed during the Christmas break when most members of Congress were away. That isn’t true, and there is the official record showing the final vote in the Senate was 54-32 on December 18, 1913.

According to Section 4, part 2 of the Federal Reserve Act, 1913, it says of each of the 12 privately owned Federal Reserve Banks:

To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is sooner dissolved by an Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law.

Since the Federal Reserve Board’s site shows that all 12 original Federal Reserve Banks are still in operation, their 20-year charter must have been extended.

A 20-year charter was also granted to the First and Second Banks of the United States, and both had their charter terminated. Yes, there was a time when privately owned central banks had time-limited charters, and for good reason, due to the havoc they caused.

12 U.S.C. ยง 341 : US Code – Section 341: General enumeration of powers shows:

Second. To have succession after February 25, 1927, until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.

Again, since the Federal Reserve Board’s site shows that shows that all 12 original Federal Reserve Banks are still in operation, this provision was either changed with some other time limit, or was never changed.

In fact, it was never changed, and, therefore, their charter doesn’t expire in 2012, and there was never a 99-year charter for the Federal Reserve.

Read Full Post »

When someone’s portfolio is down, I’ve heard some say: “it’s only a paper loss until you sell.”

However, try telling that to a loan officer at a bank when you’re applying for a loan. They will ask you what assets you have, and you’ll be required to tell them the current value of your portfolio, not what it once was or what you’d like it to be. The loan you’ll be eligible for, if any, will be based on your current portfolio value.

Read Full Post »

Several years ago, shortly after I boarded one of the buses of a major bus company in North America, a question was raised by one of the passengers about the safety of the bus. The bus driver emphatically insisted that safety was their number one priority.

Correction: The only priority of that company, as a corporation, is to maximize shareholder wealth. Period. Safety is only a priority to the extent that it serves to maximize shareholder wealth. To say or believe otherwise is to not understand the fiduciary duty of the officers of the corporation to maximize shareholder wealth, as required by statutes.

There’s no reason according to natural law why that should be the case, of course, since corporations are completely artificial creations. As a result, most of the time, they operate in accordance with how they were intended to operate. If you don’t like it, don’t complain to the officers of an artificial entity who are simply acting in accordance with the statutes enacted by the representative legislative branch of the people — take it up with your representatives!

Read Full Post »