One Nation Under God

One Nation Under God

Moslems thumbing their noses at America in seeking to place a mosque so close to Ground Zero of 9/11, and having their efforts supported by politicians should again warn all loyal Americans that we are truly again in the midst of a great civil war.

One Nation Under God

Moslems thumbing their noses at America in seeking to place a mosque so close to Ground Zero of 9/11, and having their efforts supported by politicians should again warn all loyal Americans that we are truly again in the midst of a great civil war. Not just here in this, heretofore, “land of the free”, but around the world, the evil and injustices of money and power envelop the less powerful and any tolerating them. Whether our “enemies, foreign and domestic” hide under the liberal mantra of political correctness or socialism, they are all seeking to destroy any “nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal“. These traitors in our midst call for tolerance of their evil and injustice. Yet, that tolerance, when granted by a Christian people, is rewarded with the intolerance and discrimination of a minority usurping the rights of the majority. Tolerating the injustices arising from various socialist, humanist agendas and religions only results in their spreading their lies and destruction. The Bill of Rights has no standing in the hearts and minds of those attacking America. Loyal Americans must now stand and fight the tyrants and injustices just as those patriots before us did over two centuries ago.
Insidious as they are, be it Obama’s fly-over of New York, his failure to recognize Eagle Scouts, his failure to attend any church of God, even on Christmas, while glorifying Islam and vilifying American sacrifices for others around the globe, the mosque at Ground Zero, cap and trade, lost jobs, Obamacare, the border crisis in Arizona, and on and on, America has been repeatedly warned. Talk radio, tea parties, protests, and other voices of truth have made us aware of the affliction and war at hand, but now is the time for action. Reason, truth, history, and science are weapons against which the various religions of humanism have no defense.
Unfortunately, the money and power of the “special interests” have used propaganda, spewing from the liberal media and the morally bankrupt of Hollywood and others having underserved, unearned wealth, affluence, and influence, to lay the smokescreen of lies and deceptions before a public now becoming awakened by results of failing to hold the politicians of injustice and tyranny accountable. “Tolerance is the enemy of justice.”

One Nation Under God

Peter Heck
(originally published in Perspectives at as “Slouching Toward Jihad)
In Federalist #2, Founder John Jay addressed the dangers of foreign force and influence. In the course of the essay, he celebrated, “With equal pleasure, I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” Jay understood that perhaps America’s greatest protection against the threat of foreign manipulation was our overriding sense of unity as a people.
That’s why Jay and the other Founders insisted that immigrants be willing to embrace and adopt our values and principles. George Washington wrote, “By an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendents, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”
Unfortunately, in the name of political correctness, we are trampling this very notion of unity in deference to the sacred cow of “diversity.” No clearer can this tragic reality be witnessed than in our developing societal embrace of Islam. Unlike other religions, Islam is simultaneously a religious and a political order. It seeks a state-imposed caliphate…a theocratic regime that orders allegiance to Islamic law. Those are the expectations of anyone who follows the Koran.
When Dr. Daniel Shayesteh (the former co-founder of the Islamic terror group Hezbollah) appeared on my radio program, I asked him whether true adherents to Islam could peacefully assimilate into American culture and embrace constitutional law and order. He responded, “It is impossible for a person who follows Mohammed and says, ‘I am a Muslim’ and follows the instruction of the Koran to align himself with other laws and cultural values. That’s impossible, because everything other than Islamic culture and principle is evil.”
That chilling admission should set off warning bells. Yet, despite this plainly stated position, Americans continue to suffer the foolishness of political correctness that tells us we should celebrate the growth of Islam here in America. Let me ask a hypothetical question: would you vote for someone who ran on the platform of obliterating U.S. sovereignty, discarding the U.S. Constitution, subjugating women, and executing homosexuals and all non-adherents to an established national religion?
Of course not. Then why do we consider it a feather in our cap as a people,and hail our virtuous diversity when practicing Muslims are elected to office? Because either professing Muslims like Andre Carson (D-IN) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) – both of whom serve in Congress – believe in those aforementioned principles, or they are not true adherents to Islam.
Don’t believe me? Omar Ahmed, chairman of the supposedly moderate Council on American-Islamic Relations, reportedly told a group of California Muslims in 1998, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”
I know that addressing all this makes many people so uncomfortable that they choose not to pay attention. Perhaps that stems from our fear of violence if we do (see Comedy Central’s recent capitulation to “Revolution Muslim”).But more likely it comes from our mounting cultural indoctrination in political correctness – the same garbage that infected Europe decades ago.What have been its fruits there? Entire regions of many modern European countries are now completely under the authority of local Muslim leaders who ignore national laws and impose their own Sharia law instead.
And here? The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently taken the side of Muslims who seek to uphold their cultural practice of female genital mutilation. Islam holds that women should not receive the same sexual pleasure that men do, and therefore many Muslims in the United States send their young daughters overseas to have those sensitive areas removed.Rather than stand against this barbaric act, the AAP has begun advocating for the U.S. to change its laws to allow this practice to occur here legally. We must be open-minded, you know.
And though the construction of Islamic mosques have historically been to signify dominance over conquered foes, the New York community board and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg are okaying plans to construct not one, but two mosques at the site of the World Trade Center attacks. Another triumph for diversity!
This is a matter of self-preservation. The more we loosen our grip on our Founders’ insistence on assimilation and unity for those who make America their home, the quicker we hasten our march towards cultural oblivion…or the jihadists’ paradise.
Peter Heck ( hosts a two-hour, daily call-in radio program, “The Peter Heck Show” on WIOU (1350 AM) in Kokomo, Indiana.

Look Who’s ‘Nativist’ Now!
“Nativism in American politics has become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Republican circles for a judge to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign courts and their legal rulings.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 3, 2010

The New York Times runs this same smug editorial every few months — at least I think it’s the same editorial — to vent its spleen at conservatives who object to American judges relying on foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution. But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see “Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.”)

Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil. Take Sweden — one of the left’s favorite countries. Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there. At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship. (Applicants also have to know the lyrics to at least one ABBA song, which explains why you don’t see groups of Mexicans congregating outside Ikea stores.)

Liberals are constantly hectoring Americans to adopt Sweden’s generous welfare policies without considering that one reason Sweden’s welfare policies haven’t bankrupted the country (yet) is that the Swedes don’t grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil.

In Britain, only birth to at least one British citizen or the highest class of legal immigrant, a “settled” resident with the right to remain, such as Irish citizens, confers citizenship on a child born in England. And if the British birthright is through the father, he must be married to the mother (probably a relic from Victorian times when marriage was considered an important institution).

Even Canada, the country most similar to the United States, grants citizenship upon birth — but excludes the noncitizen parents of anchor babies from receiving benefits, such as medical care, schooling and other free stuff given to Canadian citizens.

After MSNBC’S favorite half-black guest, professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, made the dazzling point last week that “all babies are anchor babies” because “I certainly know my 8-year-old has anchored the heck out of my life,” thereby winning this week’s witty wordplay contest, she claimed to be stumped on how citizenship could possibly be determined if not by location of birth. “I want Americans to pause for a moment and ask themselves,” Harris-Lacewell said portentously, “on what basis would you determine citizenship, if not based on where a child is born?” (Luckily for Harris-Lacewell, U.S. citizenship is not granted on problem-solving abilities.) Harris was off and running, babbling: “Do you have to have two parents who are citizens? How about grandparents? How about great-grandparents?”

I don’t know — how does Sweden do it? How about Denmark? Maybe we should check the laws of every other country in the universe — especially the ones liberals are relentlessly demanding we emulate! Or is Ms. Lacewell one of those chest-thumping, nationalistic nativists who becomes hysterical when anyone brings up foreign law? Where is The New York Times when we need it?

The Times‘ editorial denouncing “nativist” conservatives ended with this little homily: “(Republicans) might want to re-read James Madison’s description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: ‘He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.'” Of course, conservatives’ objection to judges looking to foreign law is that they’re judges, not legislators — least of all “ideal legislators.” Judges are supposed to be interpreting a constitution and laws written by legislators, not legislating from the bench. Hey, whose turn is it to remind The New York Times that the legislative branch of our government is different from the judicial branch? As the Times‘ own august quote from James Madison indicates, he was referring to “the ideal legislator,” not “the ideal Supreme Court justice.”

In its haste to call conservatives names, the Times not only gave away that they think judges are supposed to be “legislators” — a point they’ve been denying for decades — but also provided a ringing endorsement for ending birthright citizenship. Not being an easily frightened nativist like Harris-Lacewell, I think we should look at other countries’ laws, then adopt the good ones and pass on the bad ones. For example, let’s skip clitorectomies, arranged marriages, dropping walls on homosexuals, honor killings and the rest of the gorgeous tapestry of multiculturalism. Instead, how about we adopt foreign concepts such as disallowing frivolous lawsuits, having loser-pays tort laws, and requiring that both parents be in the U.S. legally and at least one parent be a citizen, for a child born here to get automatic citizenship? Or (to paraphrase my favorite newspaper) has nativism in American politics become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Democratic circles for a legislator to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign countries and their laws? If so, then Democrats might want to re-read James Madison’s description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: “He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.”

Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.

Leave a Reply