Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Bill of Rights’

The Australia Gun Control Fallacy


The massacre in Charleston, South Carolina of nine members of a Bible study at a historic African-American church has horrified the entire country. Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old avowed white supremacist, has confessed to the shooting. As news of this cold-blooded murder spread, attention turned, as it inevitably (and understandably) does after such incidents, to the subject of the presence of guns in American society.

Yet it quickly became apparent that America’s moribund gun control debate would remain moribund. President Obama’s declaration that the country “needs a change in attitude” had a rote quality to it, as did Hillary Clinton’s ringing endorsement of “common-sense gun reforms.” As for Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s (D-New York) exhortation to pass legislation she recently introduced to require gun owners to obtain liability insurance on the grounds that “[i]f you want to buy that Uzi, the thinking goes, you should also have to pay for the risk that gun poses to society as a result,” the less said the better.

Calls for stronger background checks on gun purchases or a new ban on “assault weapons” have become formulaic. They’re like winding a Victrola: the record resumes spinning but it plays the same old song. Another tune in the gun-control songbook, however, is worth listening to. Not as many sing it, but nonetheless it is instructive as it shows the chorus of the media and gun-control advocates at their laziest and most uncurious, and at their most disingenuous if not dishonest. What song do I mean? I forget its name, but it goes something like this.

What Australia Did After a 1996 ShootingHey Leftist

After any mass shooting someone will invoke the name “Australia” and raise the question, “Can Australia’s gun-control laws be a model for the United States?” This time the honor belonged to CNN’s Laura Smith-Spark, who recounts the circumstances that led to Australia’s current gun-control laws and outlines their provisions. The laws were passed after the Port Arthur massacre, a 1996 mass shooting in which one man killed 35 people. Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and implemented strict licensing and registration requirements. The cornerstone of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program. The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.

The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.

The Australian paradigm became popular in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings in 2012. USA Today, ABC News, Slate, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor were among the outlets that published articles urging Americans to look closely at the actions their antipodean cousins took after a similar tragedy. Nor are Americans the only ones who think we should heed the Australian example. Numerous Australians have expressed pride in their country’s gun laws by penning columns beseeching Americans to transport America’s gun laws from Down Under.

These articles all point to the reduction in the rate of gun deaths in Australia after the new system was established as its main achievement. But it is the policy that allowed that system to be established which holds the writers’ and consequently the reader’s attention. That policy is the gun buyback program, which removed up to one million weapons from Australians’ hands and homes. This was, depending on the estimate, a fifth to a third of Australia’s gun stock. The statistic does not seem remarkable as a raw number, but it is quite so when expressed as a percentage. No wonder commentators fixate on it. The problem is the way most of them tell that tale: when they describe Australia’s gun buyback program, almost none of them tell the truth about it.

The Australian Law Banned and Confiscated GunsGuns

The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate.

Yet when American gun control advocates and politicians praise Australia’s gun laws, that’s just what they’re doing. Charles Cooke of the National Review shredded the rhetorical conceit of bellowing “Australia!” last year after President Obama expressed his admiration for gun control à la Oz:

You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.

Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.

Democrat Leaders Support Gun ConfiscationGun Control Supporters cropped

Not all gun control proponents prevaricate. Some are forthright about their intentions. After Sandy Hook, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) stated she was considering legislation to institute a mandatory national buyback program. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also expressed an interest in confiscation, at least for assault weapons. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Ultimately, New York did not institute confiscation, but did require registration of existing assault weapons and banned all sales of new and existing ones within the state.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation.

Gun buybacks remain a popular policy with the Left because it is the only way of achieving what the Left regards as the only acceptable gun-control solution: reducing the number of guns in America. Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress proposed such a program after Sandy Hook. Conceding that anything mandatory was unlikely to pass Congress, he pitched a gun buyback program as a form of economic stimulus: give people cash for guns, which they can then spend on other things. “Make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse. Instead of a measly $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.” Why a gun owner would accept $500 for a gun that likely cost considerably more is a question Miller unsurprisingly does not ask, let alone answer. Posing it would puncture his balloon.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation. Earlier this year, the advisory commission appointed by Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy after Sandy Hook recommended banning the sale and possession of “any rifle or handgun that accepts a detachable magazine.” Commission members shrugged off suggestions that this would entail an unconstitutional prohibition on most firearms Americans own, saying it was not their job to take such niceties into account. The editorial board of the Newark Star-Ledger displayed similar “magical thinking” last September when it called for mandatory confiscation in New Jersey. Predictably, the board cited the Australian example, pointing to the drop in gun violence there as all the necessary justification for inaugurating such a program here. The editorial board concluded by bemoaning America’s “hysteria over ‘gun confiscation,’” which would keep their fantasy just that.

How Would Government Get the Guns?cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

On this point at least they are correct. Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it work? Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

To achieve in America what was done in Australia, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

The 310 million guns in America are not owned by 310 million Americans. Just how many Americans own guns, though, is controversial. The General Social Survey shows gun ownership on a four-decade downward trajectory, to 32 percent of households in 2015. A 2011 Gallup poll, on the other hand, found gun ownership at a two-decade high, with 47 percent of Americans stating they possessed a firearm. As Harry Enten of The Guardian observed, the answer to the gun ownership question seems heavily dependent on wording and methodology: phone surveys consistently find higher rates. Moreover, and this is the key point, those rates, however the surveys are conducted, have been static for at least 15 years, while background checks have soared.

A third to a half of the U.S. population translates to 105 to 160 million people. A fifth to a third of guns is 60 to 105 million. Now that we see what is required for an American buyback scheme to work on an Australian scale, we can at last we confront the question gun-control advocates never ask, let alone answer: how do you take 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? The answer to that question is the answer to the question of whether the Australian example really is valid for America after all. If the experience of “blue” states which introduced gun regulations that have nearly universal approval on the Left is any indication, liberals are likely to experience keen disappointment.

Americans Resist Gun Confiscationburke

Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a ban on “high-capacity” magazines regardless of when they were manufactured or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.

If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do Democrats expect would happen in “red” states?

New York and Connecticut are two of the “bluest” states in the Union, states with staunchly liberal Democratic governors and legislatures dominated by Democrats and Northeastern Republicans who vote for gun control. Yet the residents of these states have refused to go along with the kinds of laws that gun-control advocates view as a minimum for what they would like to see adopted at the federal level. If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do they expect would happen in “red” states?Progressives will not answer that question because they never ask it, not even to themselves, lest somehow they say it out loud. On guns, the Left is incoherent, even insincere. It won’t say what it wants because what it wants is “a nonstarter politically, unfeasible in reality, and, by the way, completely unconstitutional”—that is, confiscation on the Australian model.Liberals refuse to confront the implications of their Australian dream because doing so would force them to give that dream up. Those implications are easy to spell out, though. A national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals. Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws. The other 48 states are not New York and Connecticut. Civil disobedience on a national scale would ensue.

The Australia Plan Would Require Coercion and ConflictTree of Liberty 03

New York and Connecticut authorities so far have shown no inclination to enforce their laws by going door to door to round up unregistered guns and arrest their owners. But that’s what would be necessary to enforce the law. A federal law, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, would require government force and coercion on a massive scale. Now, progressives don’t understand the nature of coercion, so maybe they would not see police action to enforce gun confiscation as coercion. Or, perhaps, they actually do understand that their ideal form of gun control requires it, which is why they keep speaking in code and talk about “Australia” and not “wholesale confiscation.”Citizen Control

Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that Tyranney Alertthose who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naive.

Many on the Left—and for this they are to be commended—have voiced their opposition to the increasing militarization of America’s police. Yet only a militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the United States. To take arms from men requires men with arms. There’s no other way to do it.Comming Soon 02

Yet because of the numbers of guns and men with guns in this country, any policy to remove those guns will inevitably depend on some measure of coercion, quite possibly a heavy measure. Does anyone honestly believe this country has the will or resources to seize 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? “Progressives believe it,” I hear you answer. Yes, but the ones who do, believe this dishonestly.

Modeling Australia Means Civil War

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

In an op-ed for the New York Times written after Sandy Hook, John Howard, the prime minister who oversaw the passage of Australia’s current gun laws, implored Americans to consider his nation’s example. Yet Howard fully understood the fundamental irrelevance of his country’s laws to the United States, and undermined his case by highlighting the differences between the two countries.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)Armed

Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.

There is an essential mendacity, whether intentional or not, to all suggestions that Australia’s system of gun control is suitable for the United States. Conjuring Australia isn’t innocent. But this trick does serve one valuable purpose: when gun controllers perform it they reveal what they truly desire. An Australian-style gun-control regime, it must be abundantly clear by now, would not only be impractical in the United States, it would be immoral. We would all be better served if American gun-control advocates acknowledged this reality and left their fantasy Down Under where it belongs. 

Varad Mehta is a historian. He lives in suburban Philadelphia.
freedom In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Constitutional “Shall Not’s” of Congress


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

shall notVigilance-2

Universal human rights are determined by government restraint. In what areas of human life should the government not be involved? What areas of life must the government not regulate, not restrain, not limit, not oversee, not implement, not subsidize, not legalize or make illegal? Interestingly, the first five words of the Bill of Rights state what Congress cannot do: “Congress shall make no law… .” Even more telling– the first ten amendments, with perhaps The Sixth as the exception, all define what the government cannot do:

  • First: “Shall make no law … prohibiting … abridging,
  • Second: “Shall not be infringed”
  • Third: “No soldier shall … without the consent …”
  • Fourth: “Shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue …”
  • Fifth: “No person shall be held … nor shall any person be subject …”
  • Seventh: “Shall be preserved … No fact … shall be otherwise reexamined …”
  • Eighth: “Shall not be required … Nor excessive … imposed, nor … punishments inflicted”
  • Ninth: “shall not be construed to deny or disparage”
  • Tenth: “Not delegated … nor prohibited.”

The third, fifth, eighth, and tenth amendments don’t state “rights;” they state what authority the government does not have. In effect, limits on government are universal human rights. The Constitution outlines specific areas of human life that are off-limits to government. This suggests that there are certain aspects of human life which are fundamentally free.tie it down

The Constitution did not outline rights or prohibitions defined by a government that could later redefine them. It outlined rules to be followed by a self-ruling people in addition to separating and balancing political authority among judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.

Despite the limits the Founders enumerated in the Constitution, their limits are still limited in their ability to constrain government overreach. Matters of conscience, especially as they relate to the First Amendment, dictate certain situations when citizens decide to not follow and/or disobey unjust laws. Interestingly, dissent in the form of collective actions of conscience (refusing to pay taxes, boycotting specific products, and armed resistance) among approximately one third of American colonists who fought for independence.Tree of Liberty 03

The Constitution was the result of a point in time that the Founding Fathers and Framers identified of a line they could not cross. They could not comply in good conscience– it would be immoral to comply– with the laws of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Christians joined them, citing New Testament directives, identifying that they also must only “obey God rather than men.”christianity

They recognized they could not selectively disobey certain laws because the government itself could not be obeyed. They needed a new government. Rebellion and resistance were required because the ruling authorities had rebelled against God. The government had not only violated basic principles of justice but also had squandered God-given human rights, rendering itself illegitimate.

Thomas Jefferson asserted:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long Established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, Accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,  pursuing invariably the same object, evidences a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Jefferson also said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The Shall Nots were imperative to the Founders– they wanted to ensure that if Congress violated them the people had just cause to rebel.

two ways to enslave a nation theBible moral people John-Adams-Quote-Liberty-Lost1 John-Adams-Poster-Principles-of-Freedom JohnAdamsFaithQuote4 freedom democracy freedom combo 2

Constitution: No, You Don’t Have the “Right” to do whatever you want


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

Capture

If people can define, grant and protect human rights, they also can redefine, constrain and/or eliminate them. If people can create equal living, learning, and economic environments, equal levels of human intelligence, athleticism, aptitude or any other quality, then people could redefine, alter, limit, or eliminate such classifications of equality.

However, if human rights are God-given, then human rights and equality of human beings pre-exist any manmade law. Human, civil, and legal rights would not be inherently subjectively based on personal preferences, feelings, or choices– which frequently change.

Yet if the responsibility, privilege and duty to self-govern were given to people by God, then neither the government nor the people could “do whatever they want.” Human rights are not human creations, therefore they cannot be taken away by people or leaders of any government.Constancy

Human rights, freedom, and liberty are given to, not made by people. If people have not created rights they cannot take them away.Picture2

Constitutional provisions were then predicated on limited political authority subjected to oversight and responsible self-governance by the people. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect people from government overreach, even including a government chosen by a majority of people. Limits exist for both people and the government– to protect the self-evident truths the Founders identified.

Thomas Jefferson stated in 1799,

“Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence.  It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power…. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

James Madison wrote in Federalist no. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

The Founders knew at some point individuals, groups, and government leaders would attempt to limit or eliminate God-given inalienable rights. Even if a majority of people insisted that a particular policy be implemented, if the policy were unconstitutional it couldn’t be enacted or followed. Constitutional laws were predicated on unchanging principles to which all other laws must be subordinate.

Consider that the majority of German voters voted to bring Adolf Hitler to power. Germany’s constitution was legally changed and initially, gradual political and legal changes were implemented:

  • Healthcare was nationalized;

  • the purpose of education was completely redefined as was curriculum and teaching methodology;

  • the police were militarized;

  • speech, the press, and religion were controlled and censored; certain speech, books, movies, and aspects of higher learning were banned;

  • controlled medical experiments on specific segments of the population became institutionalized; and

  • punishment was legally exacted through fines, imprisonment or the death penalty.

Certain groups of people were legally targeted whose businesses were legally closed and whose private property was legally confiscated and given away against their will and without recompense. Those legally targeted were legally transported to a specific geographic area, prohibited from working or forced to work against their will, to later be imprisoned and eventually killed.

Nazi regulations were legally implemented and enforced. Their laws were also manmade predicated on manmade rights. German citizens and their rulers determined what right and wrong policies and who good and bad citizens were, as well as all of the subsequent implications and outcomes of these decisions.

In this way, human will, self-assertion, individual beliefs or feelings, and even simple selfishness for power or self-preservation defined human rights. Under German law, rights existed for certain citizens, not all citizens. And these rights changed.Destroyed for lack of knowledge

According to the U.S. Constitution, human will, self-assertion, individual beliefs and feelings do not provide any basis for human, civil or legal rights. The Constitution specifically states rights are a gift. Rights are given and they are given by God. Rights are endowed by God, who the Constitution identifies as human beings’ Creator. The gifts of inalienable rights to life, liberty, and equality are given specifically as they relate to human nature.

The Constitution sustains the self-evident truth that rights are determined by what is given and by whom. Rights are not subjective or fluid. They are constant reminders that using them is a responsibility and privilege.

People can hold on to their gifts, hoard them, store them, hide them, give them away, trash them, lose them, or squander them. But those who safeguard and share them responsibly, exemplify the best traits of human authority that serves the greater good.tie it downfreedom combo 2

Bill of Rights’ Most Important Liberty: Religion


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

John-Adams-Quote-Liberty-Lost1

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, listed non-negotiable constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in specific order, unchanged since 1791. James Madison, its chief architect, listed freedom of religion first; then speech, press, assembly, petition, right to keep and bear arms, and freedom from forced quartering of military members in one’s home.

Freedom from civil government overreach and interference was essential to establishing sustainable civil order and a just rule of law; the first ten amendments — only 468 words — were added to protect what the founders considered “preexisting rights” from federal government “encroachment.”

Freedom of religion was un-mistakenly listed as the first freedom of the Bill of Rights. And the term “religion” was well understood from its original context derived from the State of Virginia’s Bill of Rights. In Article 1, Section 16, Virginia’s Bill of Rights defines “religion” as “the duty which we owe to our Creator… the manner of discharging… [of which] can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”

(Many significant words and phrases used to write the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution were selected from preexisting documents and individual state constitutions’ declaration of rights, which provided more detailed definitions.)

Virginia’s Bill of Rights legally defined “religion” as a means to secure freedom from government coercion, which enabled a foundational protection for other freedoms. The Bill of Rights, by defining religion, allows people to believe and act by “reason or conviction” without fear of being coerced to violate their “dictates of conscience.” In this way, religion is jurisdictional– the Bill of Rights ensures that the government cannot force a citizen to violate his/her conscience.AAA02

James Madison articulated in Memorial and Remonstrance:

“The Religion … of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as they may indicate. This right in its nature is an unalienable right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men … cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. … This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”GOD

Madison believed that citizens were first “subject[s] of the Great Governor of the Universe,” who must first make his/her “allegiance to the Universal Sovereign” before they could consider being a “member of Civil Society.”ONE NATION

He considered religion first and foremost “immune” from any and all civil authorities. The wording used for the First Amendment’s two religion clauses were specifically straightforward: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” All matters of religion were exempted from civil authority.

Madison asserted:

“In matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.”

want_rel_liberty_rAs a legal and jurisdictional matter, Madison asserted that all men are first subject to God as an immutable fact based on the Christian worldview (Mark 12:17, Psalm 24:1). It was imperative to specify that no government could ever have authority over one’s relationship with God. Understanding that even governmental authority itself originates from God (Romans 13:1) — moral standards could not be mutually exclusive from rule of law.

Furthermore, freedom of conscience, under the jurisdiction of freedom of religion, established the next four freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. They include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These four freedoms granted constitutional security for “residual sovereignty” of the people, not the government. The Bill of Rights ensured freedom of religion as the foundation for all other liberties. No other amendments were possible if freedom of religion had not first been guaranteed as an unalienable right.One Nation Under God

Bethany Blankley; http://BethanyBlankley.com

Bethany Blankley is a political analyst for Fox News Radio and has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. She writes about political, cultural, and religious issues in America. She worked on Capitol Hill for four U.S. Senators and one U.S. Congressman, for a former New York governor, and for several non-profits. She earned her masters degree in theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland and her bachelors degree in politics from the University of Maryland. Follow her @bethanyblankley & BethanyBlankley.com.049590d9aa5e45170821a5ba6f11ac12  SCOTUS Death lost forever liberty 

freedom combo 2

Understanding religious liberty and free speech compliant with sharia law


– – Monday, April 20, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/bethany-blankley-understanding-religious-liberty-a/ 

Libyan followers of Ansar al-Shariah Brigades and other Islamic militias hold a demonstration against a film and a cartoon denigrating the Prophet Muhammad in Benghazi. (Associated Press)
Libyan followers of Ansar al-Shariah Brigades and other Islamic militias hold a demonstration against a film and a cartoon denigrating the Prophet Muhammad in Benghazi. (Associated Press)

The diurnal interminable squabbling about First Amendment rights intentionally and ironically ignores the concerted effort to ensure its compliance to Shari’a law. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” Islamic organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood such as the Islamic Circle of North America, the Association of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have devoted millions of dollars and resources to a well coordinated campaign to ensure American laws, including judicial proceedings and state constitutions, be Shar’ia compliant. Shari’a (“legislation”) is rooted in the Qur’an, the foundation of Islamic law; non-compliance is punishable by death (3:85; 4:65). Christian Persecution

Such efforts are curious however, in light of Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) assertions. Islamic scholars, who draft opinions on issues concerning American Muslims, advocate no conflict exists “between Islamic teachings and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.”culture of deceit and lies

FCNA asserts, “it is false and misleading to suggest that there is a contradiction between being faithful Muslims Imperial Islamic President Obamacommitted to God (Allah) and being loyal American citizens. Islamic teachings require respect of the laws of the land where Muslims live as minorities, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God. The primacy of obedience to God is a commonly held position of many practicing Jews and Christians as well.”

But, if Shari’a doesn’t contradict American law, why vigilantly advertise, lobby, award “educational grants,” and fund political campaigns, to implement Shari’a compliant American law? 

The answer is quite simple. Groups like FCNA may use terminology like “religious freedom” but their definitions of religion and freedom can only be rightly understood within the context of Islamic ideology—not from western law or culture. 

FCNA’s assertion is obviously false when understood from within the context of taqqiya, Qur’an sanctioned deceit, and the Islamic doctrine of abrogation (2:106; 3:185; 16:101).  Shari’a law is in fact what the European Court on Human Rights ruled more than once: “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.” Shari’a actually rejects Constitutional rights, legislating restrictions and punishments against them.

Consider how First Amendment rights fare under Shari’a law.

  • Under Shari’a, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam. Muhammad ordered, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). Likewise, Muslims are instructed to murder, crucify, and dismember those who reject Islam, “wage war against Allah and his apostle and strive to make mischief in the land” (2:191, 5:32,33; 9:5, 123, 29).beheadding collection
  • According to a 2012 Pew Research Report, 60 percent of Middle Eastern and North African countries criminalize apostasy, the act of abandoning one’s faith. Apostasy laws also exist in Asian-Pacific and sub-Saharan African countries. Examples abound in America, however, just consider Ground Zero’s Imam Abdallah Adhami’s assertion that Muslims who leave Islam should be imprisoned. (He also stated on his organization’s website that “being gay is a ‘painful trial’ caused by past trauma.”)
  • Likewise, blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad. Seventy percent of Middle Eastern and North African countries, 31 percent of countries in the Americas, and 16 percent of European countries criminalize blasphemy. Those who correctly claim the word “blasphemy” cannot be found in the Qur’an exclude the fact that blasphemous acts are easily identifiable. Any “offensive” speech is illegal, which is why Dutch filmmaker van Gogh was brutally stabbed to death and French Charlie Hedbo satirists were gunned down; all victims were unarmed. These violent acts were not random, extreme, or isolated, but examples of following the Qur’an’s instructions.
  • Discrimination against all non-Muslims exists under Shari’a — because the underlying concept of equality does not. In fact, inequality, slavery, and murderare enforced through theIslamic construct ofdhimmitude.
    • Under dhimmitude, non-Muslims are divided into two groups. The polytheists, “pagans, idolaters and heathens” are given a choice to convert to Islam or die. Jews and Christians, known as “people of the book,” dhimmi, and/or kuffar, are legally classified as third class citizens. They first must be humiliated and subjugated to pay a tax (Jizyah) in increasing amounts to Muslim-majority rulers. Next, they are given time to convert or leave their town, region, and eventually, country. If the Kuffar can’t or don’t pay the Jizyah, convert to Islam, or move, Muhammad states that peace is impossible and the kuffar must be caught and beheaded (9:29; 22:19; 47:4).
    • Under dhimmitude no non-Muslim can freely practice his/her religious beliefs publicly. Shari’a forbids all public displays of crosses, mangers, Christmas trees, stars of David, Menorahs, ringing of church bells, singing of Christmas carols, or any other act considered “offensive” to Muslims. Shari’a also prohibits peaceful assembly. Non-Muslims cannot repair, rebuild, or build new places to worship, nor can they bury their dead near Muslim graves.
  • Shari’a law first imposes unequal legal status for non-Muslims; then eliminates them. The near extinction of non-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries evidences the stark reality that no First Amendment rights exist under Shari’a. Instead, Muslims are instructed to “terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” and punish non-Muslims with “garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies” (8:12; 22:19). The Qur’an incontrovertibly clarifies that conflict not only exists “between Islamic teachings and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights,” but also exists infinitivally.muslim-obama

OARLogo Picture6

Sixth Graders’ Common Core Homework: Remove Two Rights from Bill of Rights


April 1, 2014 – 4:40 PM

An Arkansas mom was disturbed to learn her sixth grade daughter’s homework was to “prioritize, revise, prune two and add two” amendments in the Bill of Rights. The homework, part of the controversial Common Core curriculum, said that the Bill of Rights is “outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer.”

A copy of page 1 of the assignment: And page 2 here.

Lela Spears was particularly disturbed because her daughter’s Sixth Grade History class “had received no prior training in civics or how to amend the Constitution, which may lead those children to incorrectly believe that it can be changed by a ‘special committee’ as suggested by the assignment,” Digital Journal reported:

“After she brought it home and explained her assignment to me, it made me question exactly what she was being taught. Where I can see a class using critical thinking skills to modernize the words, as to help them better understand the Amendments, giving an assignment to remove two then add two with little explanation as to why is upsetting,” Lela Spears said.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights, contain amendments that guarantee the right to free speech, assembly, the right to bear arms, due process, trial by jury, no cruel or unusual punishment, and limits to Federal power.

This homework was part of the Common Core curriculum which parents have been clamoring to replace in several states. Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton are very public fans of the curriculum.

CNSNews.com contacted Devin Sherrill from Bryant Public School District for comment, who provided a statement (Facts Regarding Bill of Rights Assignment (1).pdf) by the district on the incident explaining:

“In cases like this, it’s necessary to look at the curriculum as a whole. When taken out of context, it’s difficult to find the intent of the assignment. Seen as a unit of study, it should be clear that students discussed the process of writing the Constitution, were given instructions on the Bill of Rights and asked to apply that knowledge to a project based assignment…”

The press release does not explain why curriculum writers felt part of learning about the Bill of Rights included asking children to remove two of them.

Are any of the rights unnecessary? Which is more important to you: freedom of speech, or freedom of religion?

Tennessee Nullification of Obamacare & All Federal Gun Laws Legislation Introduced


After reading the following article, please pray with me that most of the other States will follow Tennessee’s Example. Obamacare will then die a natural death.

This is a great example of the States taking BACK the power our founders wanted the States to maintain. MrB

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Posted By on Jan 16, 2014

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/tennessee-nullification-obamacare-federal-gun-laws-legislation-introduced/#bGSrVmFKeZ4P212f.99

tennessee capital

First, SB1680 is being sponsored by Sen. Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet), along with eight co-sponsors in the Tennessee senate and a companion bill in the House by Rep. Mark Pody (R-Lebanon).  The bills would prohibit the state, its officials and agencies from implementing or administering any part of the Affordable Care Act.

The bill reads in part:

“No powers, assets, employees, agents or contractors of the state, including any institution under control of the University of Tennessee or the Tennessee board of regents, or any political subdivision, municipality or other local government entity shall be used to assist in implementing the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, or any subsequent federal amendment to such act…”

Georgia has introduced similar legislation and this comes on the heels of South Carolina’s legislation to that is designed to gut the massive health care law.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center’s national communications director Mike Maharrey, the idea behind nullification by the states is to cause the federal system to collapse, in order to replace it with a decentralized system at the state level.

“We know the feds counted on the states to do the heavy lifting,” Maharrey continued.  “We know the number of states refusing to create exchanges created problems. If enough states simply say, ‘No,’ this monstrosity will collapse under its own weight.”

“This action, especially in conjunction with similar steps being taken in other states, has the effect of nullifying ObamaCare,” said Rep. Pody, echoing Maharrey’s comments.

“If the feds cannot even build an appropriate website or keep their promises to consumers, they will be extremely hard-pressed to implement the other provisions for this program within our boundaries,” Pody added.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday Senator Mae Beavers also introduced legislation to stop the usurpation of the federal government in the area of the Second Amendment.  SB1607, 2014 Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, was introduced to cut the legs out from under any federal gun laws.

The legislation seeks to delete an entire section of the Tennessee code and replace it with the following:

(a) Any federal enactment or federal enforcement action relating to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition, is void in this state.

(b) Any federal enactment or federal enforcement action impacting or infringing upon the rights of individuals or entities relative to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition, is void in this state.

(c) No public official, employee, or agent of this state or any of its political subdivisions shall act, aid, or otherwise cooperate to impose, collect, enforce, or effectuate any fine, penalty, or other federal enactment or federal enforcement action in this state.

(d) Any enforcement of, or attempt to enforce, any federal enactment or federal enforcement action against any individual or entity in this state is an infringement of the civil rights of the individual so affected, and with respect to any such entity, such action is a violation of the rights of each individual having an ownership or membership interest in such entity.

Additionally, the bill would make it an “offense to knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any federal enactment or to further assist any federal enforcement action.”

The person violating the legislation would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor on the first violation and a Class C felony on a second or subsequent violation.

A press release from the Tennessee Firearms Association reads:

The Firearms Freedom Act declares that the States speaking through the US Constitution expressly prohibited the federal government from having any regulatory authority over firearms inside the state of   Tennessee, and as such no federal firearms law in Tennessee is valid. These prohibitions are most prominent in the wording of 2nd and 10th Amendments. The new push will mandate criminal penalties for any federal or state official attempting to enforce unconstitutional federal firearms laws within the borders of Tennessee.  It is also expected to authorize citizens to pursue claims by expressly defining federal firearms laws as intentional civil rights violations.

Executive Director for the TFA John Harris said, “We are closely watching the legislature this year. Any elected official who votes against or works to obstruct the right to keep and bear arms will likely feel the pain from the voters in their district during their next election.” 

“Any elected official in Tennessee who works against this bill is frankly siding with President Obama on gun control,” Harris continued.  “If you don’t vote to protect your own citizens and state from Obama’s liberal gun-grabbing agenda, then you are effectively supporting his gun control scheme and the intentional destruction of the Bill of Rights.”

This would ultimately rule all federal firearm laws as null and void in Tennessee, something that should have been done when the first federal firearms laws were issued.  Well done Tennessee

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: