Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Ever Hear of Our Inalienable Rights

Keith Ellison is a recently elected Congressman from Minnesota who is a Muslim. Powerline examined his life closely before the election. Ellison denied it but the record shows he has been an active member of the Black Muslim headed by Louis Farrakan. It was also reported that he had close ties to major Muslim groups that may have links to terrorism funding. (Here is a Powerline link).

During the election, after Powerline exposed his background, Ellison claimed that he had discarded that facet of his life long ago. He also disavowed the blatant Anti-Semitism of the group. His message was accepted by the public as he won election.

Ellison has created a minor scandal by refusing to swear his oath of loyalty to the Constitution and this country as a Congressman upon a Bible. He claims it conflicts with his Muslim religion. He will swear upon the Koran.

Dennis Prager recently criticized Ellison for this. Wrote Prager:

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

Naturally, the multi-culti Left has pilloried Prager for insisting on our time-honored tradition. Prager today defends himself from the harsh (invective-laden) critics. While any given individual Founder may have had his own brand of religious beliefs, that is not the issue. the issue ios upon what principles this country was founded.

Writes Prager:

America derives its laws from the Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don't get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document.

This is what the critics do not understand. This is what so many of our government-loving citizens do not understand.

We have granted the government limited powers over us. We can only offer what we personally possess. We have never been able to grant government power over the natural rights of others. We do not possess their personal rights. No matter how popular or even necessary it appears, we cannot cede the rights of others to the government.

That is why the Constitution expresses its powers so explicitly. Activist judges for over a century have denied this concept. That is how they can take people's property from them in eminent domain without the specific public purpose as stated under the Constitution. This is how they usurp legislative power to decide issues that are not theirs to decide. This is how the government secularists (their religion) are so wrong fundamentally.

Is it a right of Ellson's to not be forced to swear his oath of fealty to the country and its Constitution on a symbol of the moral principles under-pinning the subjects? No. He has a right to practice his own religion and to not have to follow a religion established by the country. But this is a traditional oath of fealty. And out of tradition he should follow it.

Unless he truly feels to loyalty to the Constitution.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Power Corrupts In Nano-Seconds

The WSJ publishes a letter from liberal Congressmen John Rockerfeller, Olympia Snow and other signatories to Exxon.

Has anyone read this over the top attack on Exxon by the Senate? Considering liberals are the party of open debate and tolerance, this really makes one question their intellectual integrity. Or is this mere power used to silence opponents. It can't be since they are the tolerant party. Our fears of what life would be like should the Democrats assume power may have been a gross under-estimate.

Here is an excerpt:

In light of the adverse impacts still resulting from your corporations activities, we must request that ExxonMobil end any further financial assistance or other support to groups or individuals whose public advocacy has contributed to the small, but unfortunately effective, climate change denial myth. Further, we believe ExxonMobil should take additional steps to improve the public debate, and consequently the reputation of the United States. We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it. Second, ExxonMobil should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history. Finally, we believe that there would be a benefit to the United States if one of the world's largest carbon emitters headquartered here devoted at least some of the money it has invested in climate change denial pseudo-science to global remediation efforts. We believe this would be especially important in the developing world, where the disastrous effects of global climate change are likely to have their most immediate and calamitous impacts.

Who does not think they will abuse their power to shake down Exxon?

Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]