Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2017)
Internet Articles (2016)
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

hen you're a social progressive, and you can't enact the laws you need to strip away the constitutional rights of the People, you do the next best thing. You appoint social progressive judges who use what appears to be legality to erase the constitutional rights of the People under the pretext of enforcing laws that actually don't exist in order to add phrases you need to transform Law #1 into Law #3. . How do they do it? By coupling one law with a completely unrelated law to manufacture the third law that heretofore does not exist for that purpose. If anyone's to blame, it's the lifetime appointed judge who is merely "clarifying" Law #1. Judges lack legislative authority under the Constitution. In other words, as much as People have been led to believe it's their prerogative to legislate from the bench when the laws they are sworn to uphold don't set well with their social progressive upbringing. They simply rewrite the law to fit. Their sole constitutional responsibility is to make sure the laws penned by the legislature are fairly applied and enforced in the manner stipulated as written.. No one can blame the legislators when judges with lifetime appointments go rogue.

Or, if you're a union-represented school teacher in the State of Colorado who wants school expenditures dramatically increased even though State law prevents the social progressives who don't control the legislature from arbitrarily increasing education spending without a serious nod from the voters, you take the People to court. Or, you belong to one or more socialist education advocacy groups which have, since 2005, been demanding teacher salary increases and other education reforms through increased taxpayer-funded investments in the State's public school system—that neither the State legislature nor the people wanted, court action was the only way to achieve their objective.

On June 23, 2005, the public interest law firm, Children's Voices, filed what evolved into Lobato v Colorado in which they asserted the State of Colorado wasn't meeting its constitutional obligation under Article IX, Section 2 to provide a "thorough and uniform public school education system" as mandated by the education clause of the State Constitution. Two lawyers for Children's Voices, Kathleen Gebhardt and Alexander Halpern went shopping for plaintiffs. They found two teachers and Anthony Lobato whose daughters attended a rural school in Center, Colorado—a town of about 2,000 people—and 46 other taxpayers and/or parents of children in various schools. Lobato joined the lawsuit believing State taxpayers should be arbitrarily forced to spend a disproportionately larger amount of money in rural school districts. Lobato believed the terms "free," 'thorough" and "uniform" in Article IX meant "identical in total," not "identical" based on the allocation per student rather than the total sum paid to the respective schools based on the total number of students enrolled. Because as it is, there is no equality in the funding levels between urban schools and rural schools in Colorado. According to Education Week, Colorado's number one school district spends $37,789 per pupil, while Montezuma-Cortez (which is number 169) spends $6,746 per student.

On March 2, 2006 Denver District Court Judge Michael Martinez dismissed the lawsuit because [a] the case was not subject to judicial review, [b] the current educational finance system met the requirements of Article IX, and finally, [c] the school districts (which also filed as plaintiff) did not have legal standing to sue the Colorado school system for increased funding. The decision was appealed, and a 3-judge panel for the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld Judge Martinez's decision that the school districts did not have the standing to sue, nor did they have a right to challenge school financing since that was legally the responsibility of the legislature. Children's Voices appealed again. In 2009, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned Martinez, citing a 4-3 vote in a 1982 case, Lujan v Colorado State Board of Education, 649 P.2d 1005, in which the Court of Appeals used a federal court precedent to decide the case which dealt with funding equity. The Appeals Court ruled that the State Constitution did not require absolute equality in either school spending or educational services. The State Supreme Court disagreed, claiming the federal right of judicial review did not constitutionally exist in this case since the funding of education in Colorado is the sole purview of the legislature—with the consent of the voters. In Colorado, the social progressives now control the State Supreme Court. They believe social justice always trumps the rule of law..

During the election of 2010, the Pueblo (Colorado) Chieftain, and many of the State's leading newspapers, advocated on behalf of dumping the State's Supreme Court justices under a advocacy campaign called Clear the Bench Colorado. The Chieftain said: "Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice, the only Supreme Court members up this year, ought to be removed from the bench. The voters need only vote 'no' on the ballot. These justices consistently have upheld tax increases without requiring voter approval, in direct defiance of the TABOR Amendment (Amendment 23) of the Colorado Constitution."

The Chieftain continued: "Since Colorado changed from contested elections for judicial office to a merit selection and retention system, appointing judges followed by periodic votes to keep or remove them, no Colorado Supreme Court justice has been voted out of office... Although some have left the bench voluntarily. Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey resigned so she would not have to face the voters this year."

In Colorado, here's the problem: According to a "costing-out study" performed for the Colorado Legacy Foundation by Augenblick, Palaich & Associates, Colorado schools are underfunded by between $3.56 and $4.15 billion per year. APA was the "expert" hired by Children's Voices who testified on behalf of the Colorado school boards that the Colorado school system is sorely unfunded—by about $4 million, an amount equal to that currently being spent in all of the State's classrooms.

There's not a single school district in Colorado, according to their report, that's adequately funded. The deficits in Colorado and most of the States being invaded by illegals are the result of changing demographics—particularly with the increasing number of English language learners—compounded by the fact that Colorado, like most States since the Obama advent, is facing severe budget cuts. In the State of Colorado, funding is determined by the Public School Finance Act of 1994. According to the plaintiffs suing the State for more money for schools, the defendants in the action have never conducted a study to determine how much more money is needed to adequately fund the State's school system.

In her ruling on Dec. 9, 2011, Denver District Court Judge Sheila Rappaport agreed with the APA assessment noting that in her view, "the system is significantly underfunded..." even though the State spends 45% of their annual State budget (or $3.2 billion) on K-thru-12 education. Because the school districts wanted more money, Rappaport—like most social progressives—believed they were entitled to it even though Colorado Constitution Amendment 23 gives the State legislature complete authority over the budgets. Rappaport's judicial weakness, according to her peers, is her lack of knowledge of the proper application of the law.

In point of fact, although every school district in the country wants more money, and would like to be able to just stick their hand in the taxpayer cookie jar and take what they want whenever they feel they need it, every State has protocols that determine how schools are funded. Colorado's State legislature budgets what they intend the school system to have—and, per the State Constitution, the voters must then approve what the legislature passes before the funds are available for the school system. The taxpayer is the final word. And, since it is their children who are being taught in the State's schools, they are best arbitrator of what the school districts need. Living within its means is the job of the school boards based on the budget established by the legislature and the voters. Thus, while the bureaucrats in the teachers' unions may want more money, what the State provided was sufficient—if the school boards live within their budgets. But that's the problem with social progressive. Budgets, to them, are simply the starting point of financial negotiations, not the total money available.

Rappaport, like most judges who believe they have the arbitrary right to impose judicial review on everything, chose to ignore that the fact that the Colorado State Constitution does not give the court system the right of judicial review on the funding of its schools. But, since Rappaport believes the State is underfunded, they need to solve the problem and find an additional $2 billion to $3.75 billion for education—even though doing so would consume 89% of the State's entire budget, or it would force the State to virtually double the taxload of Coloradoans. Sadly, social progressives simply don't grasp the reality of the buck. When the taxpayers run out of money, unlike the government, they can't crank up the printing press in the basement and print more. At that point, the taxpayer has two choices: pay the increased taxes and let their personal debt obligations slide to where they risk losing their homes and personal possessions, or they fight back. Today, the taxpayers are fighting back because they know there's no way government can wring even an ounce of liquidity from their budgets because there's not a drop of discretionary income left for them to spend. State pensions today are robbing the State coffers of at half or more of every tax dollar the goes into the treasury.

Denver Post columnist Mike Rosen recently commented that the Lobato case defied logic. He remembered a piece of advise on the practicality of decision-making that Gen. Douglas MacArthur received from his father. "Never give an order," Gen. Arthur MacArthur told his son, "unless you're certain it will be carried out." If you do the math, you realize that increased school district funding will have to come from the existing kitty. The social progressives in Colorado managed to get a special school-funding initiative on the ballot in November, 2011. The voters shot it down 64% to 36%. That means, if the State is obligated to increase school spending based on Rappaport's ruling, it would have to wipe out the budget for the State Highway Patrol—as well as any money to maintenance and upgrade the roads, including snow removal in the winter—as well as no funding for higher education, and nothing for the environment or for Medicare or Medicaid.

What is most interesting is that after making her ruling, Rappaport stayed her decision until the end of the 2012 legislation session—in the summer of 2013. It sounds like Sheila's afraid that her decision might end her career in November. "Clear the Benches Colorado" is foremost on her mind. By staying her decision on Lobato until the summer of 2013, the taxpaying-voters of Colorado won't be thinking about the consequences of Rappaport's Lobato decision when they walk into the voting booth in November of this year. And they need to be because the shortfall that will rob the taxpayers will still be the shortfall that robs the taxpayers after the election.

Historically, judges are no different than any other agenda-driven politicians. Their first instinct is self-preservation. Sadly, America's courts have been polluted by politicians who are elected and serve with agendas fashioned not by what's best for the nation or the voters who elect them, but what's best for the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business who not only own the politicians whose war chests they fill with money, but they also own the jurists they endorse for the federal bench through the Congressmen and Senators who give their recommendations to both the governors and presidents who then nominate them. You can always tell the most corrupt judges by how fast they move up through the judicial oligarchy.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor is a good example of a corrupt bureaucrat fast-tracked to the high court specifically to build a majority of justices who would advocate on behalf of social justice and kill the rule of law in the American legal system. When New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan [D-NY] used a ploy to leverage President George HW Bush's Chief-of-Staff John Sununu to get Sotomayor, a low level, do-nothing completely unknown 5 year New York City Assistant District Attorney with no decision-making authority. She was so lackluster that she finally left the DA's office and hung up a private shingle handling illegal aliens being expelled from the country. With absolutely no judicial experience except as a paper chaser, Sotomayor should never have been on anyone's radar screen for a municipal judgeship let alone a federal judgeship.

In 1992, in his last year in office, Bush-41's judicial appointments were gridlocked. Bush was trying to get seven moderate judges appointed before the November election, but the Democratic majority decided to play the wait-and-see-game. If they won the White House in 1992, the appointments would be their's to make. If they lost, they could deal with Bush in January, 1993. It was then that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Moynihan offered Sununo what was going to be the best deal Bush was going to get.. Moynihan said if Bush-41 would let him pick two federal judges, the Senate Judiciary Committee would not contest the five judges of Bush picked.

One would assume that Bush looked over her history—what there was of it. He didn't. He left that task to Sununo. Sununo found no red flags. But then, he wasn't looking for any. What was buried beneath the surface was a personality character trait that Moynihan knew only because he knew her. Sotomayor was the perfect sleeper. She is a radical Marxist and an Hispanic bigot who wears her biases like a badge of courage. She embraces "identity politics" (which incorporates the principles of categorical representation [i.e., minorities are best represented by minority judges since White judges will always be biased against all minority litigants]). Even more to Moynihan's liking, Sotomayor is an extremely radical jurist who has made it clear in most of her decisions that "...law is made at the appellate level" of the federal judiciary.

And finally, Sotomayor believes that federal judges have the right, through reinterpretation, to rewrite the laws of the nation if they don't agree with them. In her hearing for elevation to the appellate court under Bill Clinton—5 years after her appointment to the US District Court by Moynihan (i.e., George H.W. Bush). (It is important that the readers understand that Sotomayor was the first federal judge not picked by, vetted by, or selected for the federal bench by a US President.) Although Sotomayor was heralded by the Democrats as a Republican nomination, the GOP help up her appointment to the appellate court for a year because now she had a track record—as a far left activist judge who paid no attention to the rule of law. Most of her decisions at the District level were overturned. One hundred percent of her appellate court decisions were overturned by the high court. Not because she knows nothing about the rule of law, but simply because she does not respect it.

Citizens who are scholastic students of politics or just lay students believe that the practice of buying and selling political patronage is a game that plays out equally (although for different stakes) in local, county, State and federal elections. Few people realize that some of the most important horse-trading takes place with the selection of judges since they are the thoroughbreds who are in the race for the duration not because federal judges are lifetime jobs but because most judicial decisions, good or bad, outlive the judge who made it. .

Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings [D-FL] used to be US District Court Judge for a newly created US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by President Jimmy Carter in Broward County in 1979. In 1981 Hastings was charged with accepting a $150 thousand bribe to mitigate the sentence of two Florida mobsters, Frank and Thomas Romano who were charged with 21 counts of racketeering. The eyewitness to the bribing was purportedly William Borders, who reportedly delivered the bribe to Hastings. Borders took a plea agreement but, frightened that he would be killed if he admitted being the bagman, Borders refused to testify in court. His plea agreement revoked, Borders was sent to prison and Hastings' case moved to Congress. By a vote of 413 to 3, Hastings was impeached. He was convicted by the Senate 69 to 26—two votes more than needed to remove him from office. Once again Borders was called to testify. Once again he refused to incriminate himself, and once again he was sent to prison. The most interesting aside in the Hastings impeachment was the fact that Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA] (the turncoat politician that Sen. Rick Santorum campaigned for in his primary race when Congressman Pat Toomey [R-PA] was trying to unseat pro-abortion Specter) voted to acquit Hastings and keep him on the federal bench. Is this a Christian that the American people want to lose to Barack Obama? Because, believe me, a guy who can't hold his own Senate seat can't win the White House.

Letting the stench of his impeachment and removal from office die down from Oct. 30, 1989 to November, 1992, Hastings decided to see if Bill Clinton's coattails were large enough for a grifter to piggyback to the House of Representatives. Once again Hastings had the good fortune of getting a brand new, never been used before, Congressional District, the 23rd. He came in second in the Democratic primary to the popular former Minority Leader of the Florida House, Lois Frankel, and beat her in a run-off election—even though the Wall Street Journal reported allegations that Hastings had sexually harassed a female staff member during the campaign.

Set judicial corruption aside for a moment and look at academician corruption. The same princes of industry and the same barons of banking and business who buy politicians and judges also buy college and university department chairs by endowing them with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Why? Because the international political, cultural and economic machines who are close to achieving their objective of world government learned from the Soviets from 1917 to 1985 and in the United States from 1921 to 2012. History taught not only the Soviets but the Italian fascists, the Nazis, the Cuban communists, the Chinese communists and most of all, the Muslim Caliphs that you can educate freedom out of the minds of ensuing generations of children in the classrooms—and fill the education void you create with any historic myth you want the youth of that nation to believe. The princes of industry and the barons of banking and business are determined to create a political unicorn—one political master over all of mankind. George Orwell's Big Brother.

In our world today, the princes of industry who funded most of the colleges and universities in the western world, also had a lot of financial sway over who became the dean and/or chancellor of those institutions. And, to a large degree, they. also controlled the philosophical views of the boards of regents who pick the professors who hold the department chairs. Not all of those dollars come from Americans who believe in the red, white and blue. Increasingly, we are not paying enough attention to the pedigrees of foreign donors. Many are radical, anti-American foreign nationals (particularly from Saudi Arabia) who endow our colleges and universities with mega-million dollar endowments that will be used—with the knowledge and consent of the university and college regents—to brainwash United States students with anti-American, anti-free enterprise, anti-rule of law rubbish that will prepare them for a lifestyle more like Orwell's "1984" than John Bunyon's Pilgrim's Progress. And, if the endowments are large enough, the strings are okay as well.

Increasingly we are seeing the bastions of education in America with well-financed Departments of Middle East Studies, political science departments focused more on the Mideast than the western democracies, and Middle East Ancient and Modern History departments and, or course, Islamic culture departments. Within the last five years or so we have witnessed the Saudi government give a $20 million grant for a Middle East Studies Department to the University of Arkansas; $22.5 million for Mideast Studies to Harvard University; $28.1 million to Georgetown University; $11 million to Cornell University; and $5 million each to Berkeley; $5 million to MIT, Rutgers and Columbia. (Columbia lied when asked by the media if the money came from Saudi Arabia.) Other receiving Islamic education grants included Texas A&M, Princeton, Rutgers (which now has a very large Muslim student population), Johns Hopkin, UC Santa Barbara, Rice University, American University. University of Chicago, University of South Carolina, UCLA, Howard University, Duke University, Syracuse University and scores of other institutions of higher education from major Ivy League colleges to small community colleges that most parents believe are still safe places to send their children to be educated.. Increasingly, I believe, we need to home school our children from K-through Bachelor's Degree.

If the dilemma—and who is responsible for the problem—is not clear to you right now (or, at least when you finish this piece), I am sad to say, it never will be. You can't impeach school teachers. But you can fire them (at least. those without tenure). But, it's like firing politicians. Remember when Washington State enacted a term limits law in 1992 to keep lifetime politicians like 14-term Spokane, Washington Congressman and Speaker of the House Tom Foley from continually seeking reelection? The law was enacted. But it would not go into affect until at least 25 other States also enacted term limits legislation. They apparently didn't want to be the only ones with honest politicians. The Washington law would limit Congressmen to three two-year terms and US Senators to two six-year terms. That should be a constitutional amendment.

The ultraliberal League of Women Voters sued, claiming it was a violation of their 1st Amendment free speech rights not to be able to campaign for whomever they want. Foley joined the lawsuit. Neither Foley nor the League of Women Voters nor the 9th Circuit Court seemed to know that under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution the States determine the time, place and manner of the election of Senators and Representatives. In other words, the States have the prerogative to determine how many terms a Senator or Representative from that State may serve. Article VI, paragraph 2 makes it clear that the federal judiciary "...in every State shall be bound thereby any thing in the Constitution, or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

So, while the league of liberal feminist voters didn't like the idea that the People of the State Washington—who clearly understood that powerful politicians with millions of dollars at their disposal and control over the electronic voting machines will always win—term limited Foley, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the law, had no constitutional authority to tell the People they violated Foley's right to run and the League of Women Voters' right to campaign for him since the States are the final arbitrator on setting the rules how the elections within their borders will be held, and how many times an office holder can seek that office based on the constitutional prerogative of the States.

In the end, in 1994 with the federal court saying he could run as many times as he wanted to, the people in the 5th Congressional District of Washington State spoke with a louder voice. They dumped a sitting House Speaker and elected a Republican, George Nethercutt to take Foley's seat. Nethercutt, like most of the Freshman Class of 1994, ran on a three term pledge. He would also break his word. In 2004 the 5th District dumped him in favor of Cathy Rodgers, another Republican, when the 7th Congressional District was merged with the 5th.

The federal judicial system is as corrupt as the federal political system—and the union-controlled national educational system is just as corrupt. The reason is simple. The princes of industry and the barons of banking and business which began the wholesale buying the politicians in 1872 during the Credit Mobilier scandal, stole the local identity and control of the public school system in 1906. The National Education Association, birthed by the Marxist educator John Dewey, evolved from the National Teacher's Association in 1870. The NTA was the nation's first teachers' union. But it smelled too much like a typical union—communist. It was incorporated in 1857 when unions were not the vogue and union organizers were known as "pinkos." The NEA, with its non-union sounding name, was promoted as an amalgamation of teachers and parents working together to improve traditional education through traditional values. It smelled starchy clean.

The public school system in America were initially controlled by the States with no interference from the federal government since the federal government had no legal jurisdiction over education. In 1906 America's first social progressive president, Teddy Roosevelt began the covert process of secretly nationalizing the US public school system by chartering the National Education Association (the teacher's union) as a United States congressional corporation to tacitly "manage" the educational agenda through the union, thereby sidestepping much of the authority of the State Boards of Education by making it appear that the school teachers were selecting the curriculum when in fact the growing bureaucracy in Washington was doing it. At the same time, the US taxpayers were funding the malignant octopus we know today as the government-mandated "surrogate parents" of our children through federal grants to the NEA who today, have the right to check the lunches our children bring from home and throw those lunches in the trash can if "mama" or "papa" teacher don't think the ham sandwich, our choice of fruit and a small thermos of chocolate milk is "balanced" enough for Junior—and charge us for the artificial cardboard tasting chicken nuggets and tatter tots and skim milk they believe is healthier.

Beginning in 1921 the Council on Foreign Relations began endowing colleges and universities and providing grants to the NEA to brainwash the masses that world wars can be prevented only when all nations on Earth live under one universal world government. The educational brainwashing initiated by the CFR was instigated first by the Soviets who knew that to change the future of any society it was first necessary to alter the motives of that nation's past. The Soviets adopted Dewey's panacea of progressive education ideas from the NEA and, in 1928 enticed Dewey and 24 other social progressive educators to come to the Soviet Union. Dewey stayed for over a decade, becoming the Soviet Union's first Commissar of Education.

Helping the NEA and the federal government enforce centralized control over the public school system of the United States was the federal judiciary. Prior to the creation of the Department of Education by another social progressive, Jimmy Carter, in 1980, each State had the final say over the educational curriculum within their jurisdiction. The NEA controlled what could be called the "national unity" of the curriculum so that students taking SAT tests in Bangor, Maine had pretty much the same educational erudition as the parallel students in San Diego, California. But the federal government still lacked the authority to dictate the political philosophy of the curriculum taught at State level—until Jimmy Carter's social progressive 95th Congress created a new bureaucracy that would give the federal government the right to brainwash our children by federalizing the education system in the United States. The US Dept. of Education needs to be dismantled—quickly, completely and in its entirety by a Constitutional amendment that places absolute control of the education of the nation's children in the hands of the parents at local level—through local county school boards elected at the local level when county officials are elected, with non-paid parent groups controlling those boards. And, the NEA needs to be outlawed. So, by the way should political contributions from anyone for any reason. Political contributions in any amount, are bribes and they must be recognized as such for any reason—and criminalized. The same thing goes for earkmarks. Earmarks are an even bigger theft from the People because politicians are stealing taxpayer money to pay back their campaign donors for their largessfrom hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars.

Today, helping the federal government force politically-correct anti-Christian edicts on the children of Christian parents is the federal judiciary which is slowly and very meticulously stripping from American parents their inherent right to determine what value system they want their children to be taught. That right, under the guise of political correctness, has been transferred from American parents to the State caretakers of the morality of Utopia..

In 1998 the California Board of Education leased a couple of classrooms in the Carden Hall Elementary School in Fountain Valley, CA to A Muslim named Shabbi Mansuri, who founded a educational group called the Council on Islamic Education [CIE]. From his headquarters in an American elementary school, Mansuri planned to publish three "instructional" Islamic textbooks t0 be distributed to elementary school children with free copies of the Qu'ran. Mansuri hoped to introduce in the public school system not only in California, but across the United States. Where the Constitution of the United States bans government schools from passing out copies of the Christian bible as a "violation of of the Danbury let ter" separation of Church and State, it is also unconstitutional by the court's current interpretation of the 1st Amendment to pass out copies of the Qu'ran since that is tantamount to promoting a national religion—something John Adams did as President.

Mansuri's Islamic books: "Across the Centuries," "World History and Geography: Medieval and Early Modern Times," and "The Crusaders from Medieval Europe," were financed in part by several oil sheik and their oil partners in Standard Oil and the Seven Sisters. While clearly all of the Islamic text books were designed to theologically brainwash their pubescent audience, the school system—and the federal judge that ultimately heard the case—insisted the school board was not indoctrinating students about Islam, and thus, they did not violate the 1st Amendment. The fact that the Council of Islamic Education had leased two classrooms in a government school was, in itself, a violation of the Constitution of the United States. For that reason alone the federal judge who ruled in that case, US District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton should have been impeached, removed from the bench and charged with malfeasance.

Roger Wolfertz, Deputy General Counsel for the California Department of Education told the Washington Times on Feb. 13, 2002 that the school system was aware that promoting any religion in the public schools violated not only the Constitution, but California's penal code as well. Wolfertz insisted that had not happened since the Islamic instructions were focused on ancient history and not religion. The verses Christian students were forced to read from the Qu'ran were cited for their ancient historic value, not as Muslim theology. .

Imagine, for a moment, a protest launched by Muslim parents whose Islamic children were forced to read the 1611 the King James Bible as a secular course in ancient history. How long, do you imagine, that Peggy Green (the superintendent of the Byron Union School District where this happened), would have her job after what would become an international outcry? How did Green defend herself in the Feb. 13 2002 Washington Times article? She was arrogantly dismissive. "We are not teaching religion. We are teaching the California state-mandated standards with state-adopted textbooks. Dressing up in costumes, role-playing and simulation games are used to stimulate class discussion, and are common teaching practices used in other subjects as well."

Wolfertz and Green's arguments were flawed. If wearing a crucifix in an American public school today is construed by the federal judiciary as practicing religion, by what stretch of either Wolfertz's or Green's imagination could they construe the forcing of children to read from the Qu'ran as not being the practice of religion? Or, in Green's case, forcing Christian students to dress in traditional Muslim garb, and pray on Islamic prayer rugs, not be construed as practicing religion? They forced Christian children to pay homage to Allah. Adding criminal liability to that prayerfest is the fact that they did so without the consent of Christian parents whose faiths would have construed such a voluntary deed as a rejection of Jesus Christ.

When US District Court Judge Phyllis Jean Hamilton heard the case in 2003, she ruled that the school board was not indoctrinating Christian students about Islam, they were merely teaching them the secular aspects of the Muslim faith. I have a hot flash for Judge Hamilton. There are no "secular" aspects about Islam. Islam is 100% theological from its political roots to the economic branches of the tree of Islam.. (Question: what stellar judicial experience qualified Phyllis Jean Hamilton to sit on the US District Court? She was a deputy public defender in the 1980s and in 1991, on the recommendation of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, she was appointed a federal magistrate by retiring US District Court Judge William Ingram. US Magistrates are generally never advanced to District Court judges because they only deal with menial cases and are thought not to have the experience needed to become District Court Judges. Hamilton's decision in the Byron Union School District Case confirms she was not ready for "prime time." She was fast-tracked to the US District Court by Bill Cliinton because of her social progressive ideology. She is also one of several federal judges who not only needs to be impeached, but forever banned from sitting on any court as a magistrate—even a traffic court..

It would be nice to be able to honestly say that America's judicial system, is reasonably immune from corruption. Sadly, it's not. And, it has not been since Franklin D. Roosevelt, the third social progressive in the White House decided to stack the high court with six additional social progressive jurists because nine old men (who were not communists) were systematically dismantling his New Deal—democratic socialism—as fast as he could implement it for no better reason than what he was doing was blatantly unconstitutional.

Roosevelt believed that not only did he have a right to do it, but that it was imperative for the future of the nation to dissolve the rule of law and replace it with a more benevolent form of government based on social justice. When the Supreme Court said no, Roosevelt decided to force any justice over 65 years of age to retire. When his super majority New Deal Congress refused to enact such a law, Roosevelt called a meeting on Feb. 4, 1937 with House Speaker John Bankhead, Senate Judiciary Chairman Henry Ashurst and House Judiciary Chairman Hatton Sumners and told them he was introducing legislation that would raise the number of Justices from 9 to 15—giving FDR a 10 to 5 majority opinion on all New Deal issues. Whatever laws the New Deal Congress enacted from that point forward would be constitutional based on the majority of New Deal jurists on the high court.

Roosevelt needed justices on the high court that thought like him. He didn't get them because not even the New Dealers in Congress (except the communists that crept in when America thought the Soviet Union was our friend and ally) thought like him. Social progressive Roosevelt, like Federalist John Adams and—yes—Jacobin Abraham Lincoln, wanted an American dictatorship. Only Lincoln actually achieved it. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. That blast from the past is just ahead.

While revisionist historians have painted Abraham Lincoln as one of America's greatest presidents—the man who freed the slaves (based on an executive order called the Emancipation Proclamation issued on Sept. 22, 1862) whose sole purpose was a military objective—inciting the slaves in the Deep South to rebel against the slaveholders, and force Jefferson Davis to commit most of the Confederacy's troops to protect the large plantations in the South. Not only did the Emancipation Proclamation not free any slaves in North, nor did it free any slaves in any Southern State bordering a Northern State.

When you study the unvarnished, factual histories of Lincoln by scholars such as George Mason University Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo and Edgar Lee Masters (who was probably the nation's most honest Lincoln historian), you will learn that the man who won the Election of 1860 with a 39% mandate to govern, personally caused the secession of all of the Southern States beginning with South Carolina on Dec. 20, 1860. Unlike the log cabin, homespun likable Will Rogers' type fables about Abe the country lawyer—a portrait painted by revisionist historians, Lincoln was a very powerful, wealthy railroad lawyer who was deeply in bed with the industrialists, bankers and vast landholders in the Northeast who had blood ties with the landed gentry of Europe with royal blood coursing through their veins. Lincoln's cohorts were the descendants of the Jacobins and Masons and the students of the Illuminati who were trying to assassinate all of Europe's monarchs as American patriots were penning the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia.

The Jacobins controlled Congress and with it, how the tax receipts of the nation were spent. For the most part, taxes assessed to Southern plantation owners were spent by the princes of industry in the north to expand roads and build railroad tracks from northern cities into the West. The South wanted a more equitable distribution of the tax receipts, but lacked the votes to win them on the floor of Congress since black slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person but Irish immigrants in the East and Asian immigrants in the west, who were treated not much better than slaves, counted as a whole person in Congress. The political cauldron that was boiling was not about slavery from 1854 to 1860, it was about States' rights. The Jacobin Republicans controlled every piece of legislation that went through Congress from 1856 to 1878. States rights, except as defined by the Jacobins, no loner existed. And, it was States' rights, not slavery, that caused the South to secede.

When South Carolina seceded in December, 1860, Lincoln's mistake was in denouncing their right to leave the union, since every State in the Union believed it was the inherent right of all of the former independent colonies to renounce Statehood at any time and become an independent Republic. The notion, Lincoln said, was "an ingenious sophism," stating that the central government possessed "sacred supremacy" and was obligated to use whatever force was needed to restore South Carolina to the union. Mississippi followed South Carolina on Jan. 9, 1861. The following day Florida seceded, and on the 11th, Alabama. Georgia joined the Confederacy on Jan. 19, 1861 followed by Louisiana on Jan. 26. Texas joined the Confederacy on Feb. 1, and Virginia followed 44 days later. Arkansas and North Carolina seceded in May and Tennessee, the holdout State, seceded on June 8. Each of these States left the union because the central government of the United States, and more specifically, the Jacobins in Congress and in the White House stripped the States of their inherent, God-given right to liberty.

Keep this in mind as you ignore the federal government's infringing upon your rights under the Constitution, assuring you that your liberty is sacrosanct as they covertly erase those rights, one word at a time—as the central government, created subservient to the States, was able to strip the States of their authority over the Executive branch of government, what type of chance do you, as one individual among many, have in safeguarding the inherent rights guaranteed to you by the Bill of Rights?

Lincoln needed money to conscript enough troops to teach South Carolina a lesson and force that State back into the Union. As Americans prepared to go to war with their neighbors, one wayward rogue State became an 11 State Confederacy. A new nation had been born inside the United States of America because of the arrogance of one man—Abraham Lincoln Lincoln arrogantly ignored the Constitution, imposed a 3% graduated income tax through the Revenue Act of 1861 which the Jacobin Congress enacted, and he signed into law on August 5, 1861.

The fact that an income tax was unconstitutional bothered no one in government, nor any of the Justices on the Supreme Court. Lincoln needed money to field an army. Before proposing the tax, Lincoln met with Salmon Portland Chase, his Treasury Secretary who assured Lincoln the tax was legal. Chase would become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and preside over the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson. Chase was also one of the key conspirators in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln). Also agreeing that an income tax was legal (because he was too weak to argue the point) was Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, a close confidant of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (the other key conspirator in the plot to assassinate not only Lincoln, but Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward).

In his dying declaration, confirmed by his diary, assassin John Wilkes Booth named Stanton as the person who hired him. Booth said he was promised $8,500.00 to assassinate Lincoln, Johnson and Seward. According to Booth's diary, found on his partially burned body as the dying assassin was dragged from the tobacco shed on Richard Garrett's farm where he and his accomplice, David Herold made their last stand. The officer who searched Booth's body was Lt. Col. Everton Conger. Conger who denied doing so to Stanton, read the diary before surrendering it to Stanton. Conger later testified in court that 20 pages of the diary—those pages detailing the plans of the multiple assassination plot, and Stanton's role in the plot—had been torn from the journal by someone after he surrendered the diary to Stanton. (Also included in the National Archive were voluminous notes in the handwriting of Col. (and later General) Lafayette C. Baker, who served as the collection head of the IRS when it was created in 1862, and as the surrogate head of the Secret Service. Baker, who feared that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was behind two attempts on his life after President Andrew Johnson escaped impeachment, Baker detailed what he knew about the assassination plot, and included on his list the names of 11 Congressmen, 11 Senators, 11 industrialists, 11 bankers and several other influential men in government and business who were determined to abolish the Republic. Baker claimed all of them were in on, or had knowledge of, the plot to seize the government of the United States, with Stanton designated as the man who would replace Lincoln as the President. Most of the documents, which remain in the National Archive were uncovered by paralegal Roy Benson and M.J. "Red" Beckman in 1985 when they were researching the legality of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Logged as being part of the Baker evidence file to the National Archive, but missing, were the pages identifying, by name, those complicit in the assassination of Lincoln whose names were known by Baker. Because of Baker's association with Stanton, President Johnson fired him. Baker died on July 3, 1968, supposedly from meningitis. Years later scientific testing of Baker's hair folicles verified that he died from arsenic poisoning.

Baker was deeply implicated in the plot to kill Lincoln, Johnson and Seward. Baker (a civilian politician who received his military rank directly from Secretary of War Stanton. Baker served a dual role for the Jacobins. He was the chief of the presidential protection squad of the Secret Service when it replaced the Pinkerton Detective Agency as Lincoln's bodyguards.

The Secret Service maintained "holding cells" in the basement of the US Treasury Building where they detained suspected southern sympathizers or those deemed to be northern tax dodgers, who were beaten until they revealed where they had hidden whatever money or contraband the IRS insisted they possessed. All such contraband—even if it was the lawful life savings of the IRS' victim—was seized as contraband by the military. There was no due process throughout the entire Civil War and, in the South, virtually none until Rutherford B. Hayes became the President of the United States. The Bill of Rights was simply suspended due to Lincoln's "national emergency."

As Lincoln scrambled to finance his war to force South Carolina back into the Union in 1861, the last Jacobin he consulted on the legality of the income tax was US Attorney General Edward Bates. Unlike the Free Soilers and Masons that swarmed into the newly formed Republican Party in 1854, Bates was a quiet, private unregenerated Whig. He had a good, clear legal mind and was respected by his peers in the legal community. Bates' role in the Lincoln Administration was one of simply giving legal advise to the President (a role now played by the Solicitor General). While the current role of the US Attorney General was that of chief cop for the nation, in the Jacobin Lincoln Administration, he was the legal adviser of the Chief of State. Bates was never part of the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln, Johnson and Seward, or the plot to overthrow the American Republic. The plot failed because George Atzeridt, who was supposed to shoot Vice President Andrew Johnson at 10:15 p.m. would also have had to kill his wife, who was with her husband at the time. Atzeridt, who had no problem with killing a man, drew the line at killing women. For that reason, Atzeridt did not keep his 10:15 p.m. appointment to kill Johnson. and destroyed Stanton's line of ascension to the presidency.

A third person, Lewis Thorton Powell [aka Lewis Paine], was hired to kill Seward at 10:15 p.m. that night. Powell and David Herold arrived to Seward's home shortly after 10 pm., telling Seward's butler that he was bringing medicine to Secretary Seward from his physician, Dr. Tullio Verdi. When the butler refused to let the two men in, Herold grabbed the butler and Powell rushed up the stairs where he was stopped by Seward's son, Frederick. Powell hit him so hard with his revolver that it fractured Seward's skull in two places. At that moment, the bodyguard appeared. Powell slashed his stomach open with a bowie knife, and then proceeded into Seward's bedroom where he repeatedly stabbed the ailing cabinet official. Thinking he had killed Seward, Powell and Herold fled but were caught on April 30. The trial for the Lincoln assassination conspirators: Samuel Arnold, George Atzerodt, David Herold, Michael O'Laughlin, Lewis Powell, Edmund Spangler, Mary Surratt, and if you recall, the only innocent "conspirator," Dr. Samuel Mudd who treated John Wilkes Booth for a gunshot wound received while escaping from Ford's Theater. Mudd, O'Laughlin, Spangler and Arnold escaped the hangman by one vote. All of the other defendants were hung on July 7, 1865 at Washington Penitentiary.

Lincoln's Postmaster General, Joseph Holt, a Democrat Jacobin, attempted to enter false evidence at the trial that the plot to kill Lincoln was hatched by Gen. Robert E. Lee with the help of Ohio Democratic Copperhead Congressman Clement Vallandigham whom Lincoln had arrested at his Dayton, Ohio home at 2:30 a.m. on May 4, 1963 without a warrant for violating Lincoln's General Order 38—having sympathy for the enemy in a speech Vallandigham made on the floor of Congress. Because Lincoln knew that no member of Congress would support his war effort if he arrested a sitting Congressman, the Ohio Jacobin Republicans redrew the boundaries of Vallandigham congressional district making it a Republican instead of a Democratic district. The GOP pitted a Republican war hero, Robert Schenck, against Vallandigham Schenck won by 1,250 votes. Lincoln ordered Vallandigham's arrest. Vallandigham was thrown into a military prison in Cincinnati. The revisionist public records claim he was tried and sentenced to a federal prison until the end of the war. Lincoln theoretically commuted his sentence to deportation to the Confederacy. In June, 1863 Vallandigham moved to Canada. In early 1864 he quietly returned to Ohio where he formed The Sons of Liberty.

Here's the problem with the Vallandigham case. Revisionist historians claim he was legally arrested, by warrant, on May 5, 1863, tried for sedition and found guilty. The historic records researched by Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Professor of Economics at the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Maryland finds there was no trial. Edgar Lee Masters, Clarence Darrow's former law partner said revisionists created the "trial" so as not to sully the memory of America's first dictator, making him look like a benevolent dictator for paroling Vallandigham instead of confining him in prison.

As Lincoln violated every federal law on the books, and almost every article and clause of the Constitution of the United States, not one federal judge anywhere in the Union States stepped up to challenge the Jacobin abuses. Protecting their jobs and their skins was far more important to judges with lifetime appointments than protecting the citizens of the United States and the sanctity of its Constitution.

You just received a major primer in American History that I expect less than 1% or 2% of the American people knew before they read this piece. Perhaps a few handfuls of Americans heard some of this from grandma or grandpa—but didn't really believe it because...well, what did Grandma know in that one room school house she went to before school houses had more than one or two classrooms and flush toilets?

If you read this article deeply enough and paid close enough attention to the players you would have noticed that whether we were talking about politicians, educators, economists or the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business, or whether the topics dealt with the Executive or Legislative branches of government, we are left with the fact that when the Founding Fathers set up the divisions of government, they set up two branches of government that would forever be a thorn in the side of the people—the Executive and Legislative branches of government. To counter them, the Founding Fathers established a series of courts whose role was make sure the rule of law in the United States would forever remain fair and without bias. That's why Lady Justice is blindfolded.

The laws of the United States of America have to apply equally to all Americans—or none of them. No American is more, or less equal, that any other American. If one American can bring his religious prayer book into a public building, then every American has the same right. And, while the event I am about to describe actually happened in England, this is a recurring daily theological nightmare in the United States. Only in England, it is happening solely out of fear of Islamics. Lawmakers and jurists simply created a legal subterfuge to justify government bigotry.

Two British women, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin are headed to court to argue that their rights under Article 9 of the European Union Convention on Human Rights have been violated. Lawyers for the two women insist their right to wear a crucifix is covered under Article 9 as a "manifestation" of religious expression. The British Foreign Office published the following statement in the London Telegraph "...In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible crucifix is generally [recognized] as a form of [practicing] the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith."

According to both the Telegraph and the BBC, the ministers from each woman's church was prepared to tell the court that wearing crucifixes are not required religious doctrine, supporting the position of the employers that the employees could not be compelled by their churches to wear religious symbols as a church requirement—like Muslim burkas and hijabs. Under British law, religious liberty—and who possesses it—is determined by the government which controls the retractable rights of the people. Now it is up to the European Court of Human Rights to determine if wearing a Christian symbol is a "right" possessed by Eweida (an airline attendant) and Chaplin (a nurse) under Article 9. Andrew Brown, a blogger for the liberal Guardian, asked: "Does Christianity demand that its adherents wear a cross? The courts have decided it doesn't. You might as well ask, 'Does Christianity demand that you go to church on Sunday? There are just too many Christians for such a question to make sense.'"

I know. You're an American, so it doesn't concern you. Today, that is. But, by next month, or next year, it will. If three remaining members of the US Supreme Court who attended the seminar on the coupling international law with national law a couple of years ago have their way, and adding Obama's social justice groupies: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, that legal precedent, coupled with our already partially erased religious freedoms, will concern you greatly. But, your concerns then will be "too little, too late."

Article 9 of the European Union Covenant on Human Rights which covers freedom of thought, conscience and religion is the UN's abridged version of the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of religion. While freedom of speech and freedom of religion under the US Constitution are inherent rights that come from God, in the European Union, the "...freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

(All rights in Utopia are retractable. They are the temporal gifts from the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business who are the purveyors of all the gratuities in the world they control. That's why the social progressive federal court system in the United States treat the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution as though it was Articles 13 and 14 of the UN International Covenant on Human Rights or Article 9 of the European Union Convention on Human Rights. The princes of industry needed the flexibility to adjust the rights of the people to make sure the Constitution evolved as the moral ethics of society evolved.)

Because the American people have no intent to surrender even an inch of their hard-fought liberty, there is no Congressman or Senator whose political career would stretch beyond the deed if they enacted a law allowing the coupling of foreign law with the United States Constitution. Their ancestors fought a decade-long war on American soil to free themselves from the bondage of foreign masters. Any federal or State magistrate in the United States today who did what US Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite did in Reynolds v United States in 1878 when he pretended a letter from Thomas Jefferson to some Baptist preachers somehow had some significance as codified law because it was written by an US President would face impeachment. Waite used his made-up law as a precedent to fabricate a separation of Church and State that was never part of the Constitution. Today, that made-up law has become a cancer that bans religious crËches in front of town halls, nativity scenes in public buildings and even prayers on the walls in courthouses.

Today, that UN cancer is infecting US law and the Bill of Rights by the very federal magistrates, district court, appellate court and US Supreme Court judges who swore an oath to God to protect the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law of this great nation.

On Feb. 7, 2006 Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered a speech to the South African Constitutional Court on the need for national courts in every nation on Earth to incorporate international law—or as she put it,. foreign decisional law—in the measures being debated by all courts. Ginsburg told the South African jurists that international law was acquiring a real position in the decision-making process of the US Supreme Court. The Republican-controlled Congress terminated all debate over whether or not the federal judiciary could refer to foreign law when considering cases before them. When Ginsburg made that speech, I initiated an attempt to "boot Ruth" on my website, but apparently those who follow Jon Christian Ryter.com didn't see any threat their liberty. Perhaps now, they do. Ginsburg, and every American jurist who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States must be impeached and removed from office. Once removed from office, they need to be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors for deliberately weakening the inherent authority of the Bill of Rights.

Further, presidents who constitutionally lack any legislative authority must be impeached when they attempt to legislate from the Oval Office. Presidents possess neither legislative nor judicial authority. They may not create binding policy over the People of the United States, nor can they affix or mete out penalties for disobeying presidential edicts which are nothing more than interoffice memos to their employees in the Executive Branch of government. Federalist John Adams did that in 1798 and killed the Federalist Party with his attempt to become a dictator. Make no mistake about it—even the junior-most Congressman or Senator knows that presidents lack legislative authority. When they issue Executive Orders, Presidential Proclamations, Presidential Decision Directives or their underlings issue Secretarial Executive Orders, Secretarial Proclamations or Secretarial Decision Directives, only those in their employ are impacted by their content.

On Aug. 10, 1997 when President Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order banning smoking in all federal buildings, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich sent Clinton a curt reply advising Clinton that Executive Orders are nothing more than "interoffice memos" from the boss of the Executive Branch to his employees in the federal government. Gingrich reminded Clinton that only the Legislative Branch can created law, and only the Judicial Branch adjudicates the laws the Legislative Branch writes. Clinton's job, Gingrich reminded him, was to sign into law the laws Gingrich wanted singed, and make sure the federal buildings were swept and mopped and the trash cans emptied at night and, of course, that someone turned out the lights when they left the building. But making law was the job of Congress. The smoking lamp remains lit in the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government.

Sadly, our schools no longer teach Constitution 101. Too few Americans understand how our government works, and how much and/or how little authority each branch of the federal government has under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. It is what we don't know about the Constitution and how our government is supposed to function that is destroying America. Why do you think our schools today teach you about the United Nations but not the United States? Because what you don't know about your country are the easiest things to take away from you. You have to know you've lost something before you're ready to fight to get it back.

But the biggest threat to American liberty is not that the princes of industry and the barons of banking exist. The rich, like the poor, have always been with us. The biggest threat to America is that we have allowed those in Congress to legalize what can only be termed the bribery of politicians by the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business under the trite phrase "campaign contributions." That threat to America is fed by greed and arrogance and the belief of all members of what should be classified as a criminal endeavor that because of their Jacobin backgrounds, they have a right to rule the rest of us.

The princes of industry, the barons of banking and business have achieved their objective by buying, as chattel, those who run the government, those who write the laws, those who adjudicate the laws, those who teach our children—and even those who preach from the pulpit of the nation's most grandiose cathedrals every Sunday morning. Among those well-known preachers is Richard Duane "Rick" Warren, a Southern Baptist who pastors the 8th largest evangelical church in the United States, Saddleback Community Church. Warren, who has been accused by several Christian writers as being one of the leaders within the Christian community promoting closer ties between Christians and Muslims to the extent of inviting Islamic clerics to speak in their churches and, placing even placing copies of the Qu'ran in the pews of their churches—a practice dubbed as "Chrislam."

When Warren responded to Chrislam accusatons in general, he said the statement about his church's involvement in the practice of Chrislam was "...100% false." He continued by saying "...if the guy who started this libelous myth, or anyone who passed it on...had come to me directly, and asked what I actually believed—they would have been embarassed to learn that I believe the exact opposite. As a fourth genration Christian pastor, my life and ministry is built on the truth that Jesus is the only way, or our inerrant bible is our only true authority."

Since Pastor Warren denied that his church is, or ever was, associated with the practice of Chrislam, I accepted his word as a man of God. The statement that Saddleback Community Church placed copies of the Qu'ran in the pews of the church along side of copies of the Holy Bible for use by parrishners was removed from this piece. This website pledged, from its creation in 1995, that it would always print only the truth. Since Pastor Warren denied the practice, and since I had no eye witness testimony to the contrary, I removed the content that other Christians claimed as fact. However, information that Rick Warren and other Christian pastors have loaned their names and reputations to this movement is indisputable fact. Collectively they entered into a dialogue with Islam entitled "the Christian Response" to "A Common Word" (an Islamic website) where scores of Christian pastors joined Islam in a search for common ground. Searching for points of agreement in faith is fine as long as those points of agreement do not contadict the Word of God, or serve as an eraser to wipe out or minimize the stark theological differences between the Word of God and the word of Mohammad.

By accepting inconsequential non-theological points of agreement while ignoring the infallibility of God's Word which is the foundation of the Christian faith just so that Christians and Muslims can "walk together" as brothers in a world where Christians, not Muslims, are expected to surrender the key tenets of their faith is why Jesus Christ, in the Book of Revelation, refers to the compromised endtime Christian church as the Church of Laodicea.

The Chrislam agreement is the Christian response to the "Common Word." Rick Warren was one of many Christian pastors who agreed to an accord with Islam to find common ground where Muslims and Christians can worship together. In other words, Christians agree ignore the radicalism found in the latter passages of the Qu'ram, and Muslims agree to pretend Islam is a benign, benevolent religion that is not determined to subjugate all other religions and kill those who will not covert to Islam. The Islamic-Christian agreement (Chrislam) begins:

"Muslims and Christians togetter make up well over half of the world's population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities there can be no meaninful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between the Muslims and Chritians. The basis for this peaec and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbor. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Chritianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbor is thus the common ground between between Islam and Christianity. In the agreement, Warren and the other pastors say: "Before we shake your hand in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Mercifcul one and of the Muslim community around the world." The all-merciful one, of course, is Allah. Here we have approximately 100 signatory Christian pastors asking forgiveness of Allah—and not in the name of Jesus Christ. If Christ has cried for mankind since the Cross, He did it when these pastors signed this agreement.

If you remember Rick Warren's Chrislam inaugeral prayer for Barack Obama, he did not pray in Jesus name, he prayed in the name of Esau, twin brother of Jacob and son of Isaac; and in the name of the "compassionate and merciful one"—which refers only to Allah. If that was a condition imposed on him by Obama, he should have declined the "honor" to steal the "prayer spotlight" because the price, for any Christian, was too high. What it boils down to, whether or not Pastor Rick Warren placed the Qu'ran in his pews along side of the Word of the Living God, there is enough evidence to suggest that he and scores of other "social church" practitioners of watered-down Christianity introduced Chrislam to their congregations whether a copy of the Qu'ran ended up in the pews or not..

Christ saw that apostasy coming in 95 AD as John, the Beloved Apostle penned the closing chapters of the Word of God on the Isle of Patmos when he said: "I know thy words, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou were cold or hot. So then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:15-16; KJV). I find it interesting that those who love the grandiosity and social gospel of the Church of Laodicea are wealthy and have need of nothingexcept salvationbecause, Christ tells them, they are wretched, miserable, and both spiritually poor and blind. The clock is ticking. If we are going to save this nation, we need to get busy today. Because man's time has virtually run out. If there is a reprieve left for us, it will come only from bended knees.

 


 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.