So-Called Gay Marriage

By TNSr5r, October, 2014

I am going to address all the recent stories on television, on Facebook, and all over the Internet concerning so-called gay marriage. But first, I need to explain why I used the phrase “so-called gay marriage.” I believe that there is no such thing as “gay marriage,” and I am about to tell you why.

I also need to explain that I am not judging homosexuals nor am I saying that they do not have a right to marry. I am merely presenting the legal issues involved, and some of the court cases relative to the topic.

In addition, I cannot write this without also declaring that I am a conservative Christian. By that I mean that I follow the claims of Christ and the teachings of his followers as is contained in the Bible. I believe that, contrary to what many people believe and some teach, the Bible does not condemn homosexuals to hell any more than it condemns liars and cheats and thieves to hell. The Bible does, however, condemn all homosexual activities, just like it does lying and cheating and stealing. In saying this, I realize that many would accuse me of judging, another activity that is condemned in the Bible. But there they would be wrong. I am not judging when I refer to teachings in the Bible; I am merely passing on what God has already decided and announced. And it is clear in Scripture that God has condemned all homosexual activities in the strongest words possible. If you have a problem with me saying this, your problem is not with me – your problem is with God.

I believe that historically, spiritually, and legally, marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, any so-called marriage outside of that is not a marriage at all.

However, what I believe and what the spiritual leaders in the Bible say about homosexuality is totally outside the topic and content of this document. I have written this document to present the legal issues and some of the court cases that involve what many describe as gay marriage, not to criticize homosexuals or condemn so-called gay marriage.

There has been a lot of recent discussion on the recent US Supreme Court decision to NOT hear some lower court federal cases on so-called gay marriage. Some people claim this was a victory for gay marriages and the homosexual political agenda. Others say this was a setback for gay marriage because the Supreme Court has refused to issue a binding decision on gay marriage that would affect all 50 States.

I say they are both wrong.

I say the Constitution gives the federal government absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over marriage, and consequently the Supreme Court simply cannot render a definition of marriage that would or would not include so-called gay marriage, except to acknowledge the definition already in established by We The People.

There are quite a number of US Supreme Court cases that address so-called gay marriages. But the Supreme Court has been quite consistent in its decisions, so I will address only a few of these cases in this document.

Perhaps a short word on the authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is in order here, since so few Americans understand our Constitution and the laws passed under its authority. Please accept my apologies to the people who actually understand these issues – this will be redundant for you. But most Americans do not understand these issues, and this includes most American politicians.

And it is essential that we all have a clear and accurate understanding of the legal issues involved in this discussion, and also of the role of the federal government concerning these issues, or we will misunderstand the drama that is unfolding in our federal courts concerning so-called gay marriages, and the future of that drama.

The Constitution created America as a nation. It’s true that its physical existence was established by the eight long and horrible years of war between the Colonies here on the continent that was called America and the most powerful nation on the planet at that time. We fought, we won, and then we had to define who and what we were. So we wrote the Great Document that established exactly who and what we were as a nation. The Constitution created the central government, its structure and form, and especially its limitations. In doing so, the Constitution created a Republic.

Most of us hear all the time that America is a Democracy. This is a destructive lie intentionally propagated by our politicians and our educational institutions for wrong purposes that I will not get into here. Suffice it to say that the Constitution explicitly refers to America as a Republic, and NOT as a Democracy.

In simple terms, a Democracy is run on popular opinion; whatever the majority of the people want on an issue is what the government must provide on that issue. More simply, Benjamin Franklin defined a Democracy as “three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.” In several publications written and printed by the government in the first half of the 1900s, Democracy was described as “mob rule.” This was before our government began its move away from a Constitutional Republic and toward a socialistic Democracy.

Taken from the American Military Training Manual, 1928:

DEMOCRACY: a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in a mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

On the other hand, a Republic is run on LAWS. If 100% of the people want a particular event or outcome, but it is not allowed by law, then that event or outcome cannot and does not happen. This is often proclaimed by the phrase “the rule of law.” A Republic has the rule of law – a Democracy cannot.

So, the Constitution created a Republic with three branches. And it created a specific set of responsibilities and powers for each of the three branches within that Republic. None of the three branches could legislate or control or even debate anything that was not explicitly delegated to that branch. This principle was underscored by the words of the Tenth Amendment to that Constitution, where the Founding Fathers put into clear and certain words that any power not specifically granted to one of the three branches of the federal government was specifically withheld from all the branches of the federal government because it belonged to the States or to We The People.

As I said, the Constitution created three branches of government: the Executive Branch (which included the president as Chief Executive Officer), the Legislative Branch (which included the authority to craft and pass laws), and the Judicial Branch (which included authority to apply those laws when circumstances made the laws confusing). To each of these three branches of government was delegated explicit responsibilities, along with the powers to carry out those responsibilities. And all three branches were explicitly required in writing to remain within their responsibilities – if they operated outside their responsibilities, those actions were considered renegade and outside the limits of, and in violation of, the Constitution for the United States of America.

Because of the Constitution, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A federal court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter involved (called “subject matter jurisdiction”), and over the persons involved (called “persona jurisdiction”), in a legal action before there can be a case brought before that particular federal court. This is why one of the first issues addressed in the paperwork of all cases filed in all federal courts is the issue of jurisdiction. All the way up to the Supreme Court, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

The federal courts had the responsibility to resolve whether or not a particular federal Statute applied in a specific set of circumstances, as well as exactly how the laws applied in those circumstances, along with the penalties for violating those laws. The Supreme Court had the ultimate authority on any and all issues that were still in conflict after the Lower Courts rendered their decisions. If the courts in several districts handed down different decisions on the same issue, then the Supreme Court might get involved to resolve “the truth” on that issue. But if the federal districts were handing down similar decisions, the Supreme Court will generally not accept an appeal from those courts. And the Supreme Court was not required by the Constitution to hear any and all issues. The Court had the option to pick and choose the cases it would decide or judge based on the conflicts behind those cases and the impact of them. So the Supreme Court had jurisdiction only over specific cases on specific issues for specific reasons. And many would claim the most important issue is where the case pivoted on the violation of a federal statute that exceeded the authority of the federal government.

A perfect example of a Statute going outside of authority and improperly stepping on the rights associated with marriage came from Connecticut. That State passed a criminal statute in the early 1960’s making it illegal for a married couple to use any kind of contraceptives. The case that made its way through the courts challenging the statute was Grizwold v. Connecticut (1965). The statute was well-written and clear enough, and it required a State policing agency to enforce the statute. And in 1965, that statute was overturned by the US Supreme Court on the interesting grounds that the State, “having authorized marriage, was without power to intrude upon the right of privacy inherent in the marital relationship.” Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute “operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife,” and that the very idea of its enforcement by the invasion of “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” This was the first US Supreme Court case concerning marriage and the limits placed on marriage that I have found, and it applied to a specific limitation placed by a specific statute in a specific State. The legal reasoning of the Supreme Court was the FACT that the State had no authority over the marriage bedroom.

The reasoning in Grizwold was carried over to the cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act forty years later, which would overturn DOMA based on several issues, especially the government’s lack of authority over the bedroom. The government would have to invade the bedroom in order to enforce DOMA, and the Supreme Court had already ruled that it had no such authority.

Another State case, this one concerning so-called gay marriage, soon captured national attention. The case was Baker v. Nelson (1972), where a gay couple was attempting to force the State of Minnesota to issue a marriage license to them. The gay couple’s approach was to challenge the Minnesota law specifically because it prohibited the granting of marriage licenses to gay couples on the basis that Minnesota believed only heterosexual couples could marry in that State. The couple alleged that discrimination based on sexual preference was unlawful. Further, the couple claimed that the State statute forbidding gay marriage was unconstitutional because they claimed they had a Constitutional right to right to marry, and to refuse them a marriage license was to deny them their Constitutional rights. The couple lost in the lower court and the appeals court, and appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Minnesota Supreme Court declared them to be wrong, and affirmed the lower State courts in their denial of so-called gay marriage licenses. The couple appealed to the US Supreme Court, hoping to have the Minnesota decision overturned. The US Supreme Court found that the couple made “the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

In declaring the “fundamental right” and the “natural law” status of marriage, and in declaring that there is no inherent protection of marriage or the right to GET married in the Constitution, the US Supreme Court continued to hold that the issue was outside the “subject matter jurisdiction” of the Supreme Court. If marriage or the option to GET married was a right granted by the United States Constitution, or by federal statute, then the Congress could modify that right and the Supreme Court could hear cases concerning the violation of that right. Absent any explicit inclusion in federal statute or in the Constitution, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over marriage, and no authority to hear the case, much less render a decision on the issue of marriage.

A “fundamental right” and an issue of “natural law” was beyond the authority and jurisdiction inherent in statutory law, and the Supreme Court could not overturn what it considered “natural law.”

In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a State statute protecting the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman did not violate the U.S. Constitution: “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis,” and in 1972, the US Supreme Court upheld Baker.

The Baker case became controlling law on so-called gay marriage for all federal courts. And it is important to note that Baker has not been overturned!

Back in the mid-1970’s I received a phone call from the late Dr. D. James Kennedy concerning the pending legislation that ultimately became known as the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA). Dr. Kennedy called me to ask if I would a take a public stand and write a public statement in support of his efforts at increasing public endorsement of DOMA and place it on both of my websites because he seemed to believe that I had quite a large following. I told him I was a great supporter of him and his ministry but that I could not do what he asked. He asked me why. I told him the following, almost word for word: “Dr. Kennedy, I have studied the Constitution and I do not see where the Constitution gives the federal government any authority or jurisdiction over marriage. And I like that. I do not want the federal government to define marriage because as soon as it defines marriage, it controls marriage. From the fantastic book by Frank Herbert, Dune, comes one of my favorite quotes: ‘He who defines a thing controls a thing.’ Further, any definition Congress gives to marriage can be changed tomorrow or next year by a different and more liberal Congress. Still further, if we give Congress the authority to define marriage, then Congress can and will assume it has the authority to enforce that definition. Whether in DOMA, or in some follow-up legislation, or in some federal agency policy, the federal government has always taken things as far as it can. That means some federal policing agency sooner or later can come into my house and into my bedroom to make sure I am doing what I am required or NOT doing what I am prohibited. And I will not stand for that. Consequently, I would expect to go to jail sooner or later because I will not let the government into my bedroom. Dr. Kennedy, I cannot support a bill I believe to be unconstitutional and dangerous.” He hemmed and hawed and finally told me he agreed with me. We talked politely for a few more minutes, and he hung up. This was before the Supreme Court decision underscoring the Court’s position that marriage was not under federal jurisdiction.

Last year, in US v. Windsor (2013) the United States Supreme Court struck down the federal statute known as “The Defense of Marriage Act.” Conservative Christians all over this country have shouted that without DOMA, not only will so-called gay marriage become the norm all across America, but that no one could legally deny polygamy and all sorts of marital perversions. This is simply not true. Even the liberal NY Times caught the reason the Supreme Court struck down the law, when it stated: “Justice Kennedy writes that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the principles of federalism, which allow states to largely chart their own course.” The Times went on to quote Justice Kennedy: “The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism.”

In other words, the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court is that marriage, and especially the definition of marriage, is not a federal issue. This was consistent with the Baker decision and the Griswold decision before that. A “fundamental right” based on “natural law” was outside the authority and jurisdiction of the government, and the Supreme Court had no subject matter jurisdiction allowing it to render a decision on the matter. Specifically, the Constitution grants the federal government absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over marriage. As such, Congress cannot pass a law regarding the definition of marriage. Maybe the States can, but the federal government cannot. As Kennedy claimed, this question goes far beyond federalism, the political doctrine of State’s Rights.

Federalism is the belief shared by the Founding Fathers that each of the States is a sovereign government with full authority and jurisdiction over each and every issue not explicitly delegated to the federal government. Federalism is summed up by the Tenth Amendment, which clearly claims that any power not explicitly delegated to the federal government is explicitly reserved for the States or for We The People. Clearly and importantly, Federalism says the federal government does not have the authority BECAUSE that authority that authority has not been given it. The claim that the issue goes “far beyond federalism” says the States MIGHT have the authority but the central government DEFINITELY DOES NOT.

Recently, on November 6, 2014, the Sixth District Court of Appeals for federal cases rendered a very important decision on the issue of so-called gay marriage by upholding the ban against so-called gay-marriages in several States. The Sixth District stated they are constrained by the Supreme Court case in Baker. “The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves.” The 6^th District Appeals Court went on to say: “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of states.”

The Sixth District Court of Appeals is a federal court. Decisions by the 6^th District Court of Appeals are the Law of the Land for only four States, and it controls only the federal courts below it. All their decisions remain in control of the federal courts in those four States unless and until the Supreme Court overrules their decisions. There are federal courts in forty-six other States that are not controlled by the Sixth District. And individual State Courts and State Legislatures are not bound by the decisions of the Sixth District. This is why the Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld the cases in the several States below it – the Sixth District had no authority or jurisdiction to overturn the cases of those States on this issue.

Please understand, ALL federal courts are controlled by the US Supreme Court, and the Sixth District merely pointed out that the Supreme Court has already issued a decision on so-called gay marriage that is currently the Law Of The Land for America. But as you and I both know, some federal courts have rendered decisions on so-called gay marriage that are inconsistent with the controlling law on the issue.

And many people have complained that the Supreme Court has denied hearing the appeals of several lower court federal cases which have issued contrary decisions about so-called gay marriage. They claim that would leave in place different decisions on the legal status of gay marriage. But based on Grizwold and Baker, cases that the Supreme Court already handed down, the issue has been settled. And the settled case law on this issue is binding on ALL federal courts. Those federal judges who handed down decisions contrary to the US Supreme Court have violated their Oaths of Office and their Bar pledges. The only reason these judges are still in office receiving a federal paycheck is because We The People have allowed it to remain unchallenged.

The US Supreme Court seems to be taking America in the proper direction. It has claimed that marriage is a “fundamental right” and not a “federal right” granted by the Constitution or any federal statute. And it has claimed that a fundamental right is beyond – outside – the authority and jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal courts. This means the Supreme Court, if it remains true to its earlier decisions, has no option but to strike down all federal court decisions that allow for or mandate any so-called gay marriage rights.

It is true that this action will leave the issue to the States, but that is where the issue belongs. Further, the States that allow for so-called gay marriage do so only because a federal court in that State either created a right for gays to marry, or else threw out the will of the people of that State, which was to outlaw the possibility of gay people to marry.

In other words, if the US Supreme Court strikes all federal court decisions that create or allow so-called gay marriage, there will be no so-called gay marriages in any State in America.

I believe you will see the US Supreme Court take on this issue and these court cases in the Summer of 2015. And I believe you will see the overturning of every federal case in America that grants or allows so-called gay marriage based on some alleged Constitutional right or “natural law” or “fundamental right” to get married.

I believe that America will see all so-called gay marriages disbanded sometime in late 2015.

Cases:

1. Grizwold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965)
2. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
3. U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013)

“I, {state name}, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

This is the enlistment oath taken by every enlisted personnel as they enter into their military service, before they leave for boot camp, but it is also used when re-enlisting, while currently serving.

“I am a United States Sailor.
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.
I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
I proudly serve my country’s Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment.
I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.”

This is the creed that every sailor memorizes and promises to uphold when they graduate Navy boot camp.

“In times of war or uncertainty there is a special breed of warrior ready to answer our Nation’s call. A common man with uncommon desire to succeed.

Forged by adversity, he stands alongside America’s finest special operations forces to serve his country, the American people, and protect their way of life.

I am that man.

My Trident is a symbol of honor and heritage. Bestowed upon me by the heroes that have gone before, it embodies the trust of those I have sworn to protect. By wearing the Trident I accept the responsibility of my chosen profession and way of life. It is a privilege that I must earn every day.

My loyalty to Country and Team is beyond reproach. I humbly serve as a guardian to my fellow Americans always ready to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions. I voluntarily accept the inherent hazards of my profession, placing the welfare and security of others before my own.

I serve with honor on and off the battlefield. The ability to control my emotions and my actions, regardless of circumstance, sets me apart from other men.

Uncompromising integrity is my standard. My character and honor are steadfast. My word is my bond.

We expect to lead and be led. In the absence of orders I will take charge, lead my teammates and accomplish the mission. I lead by example in all situations.

I will never quit. I persevere and thrive on adversity. My Nation expects me to be physically harder and mentally stronger than my enemies. If knocked down, I will get back up, every time. I will draw on every remaining ounce of strength to protect my teammates and to accomplish our mission. I am never out of the fight.

We demand discipline. We expect innovation. The lives of my teammates and the success of our mission depend on me – my technical skill, tactical proficiency, and attention to detail. My training is never complete.

We train for war and fight to win. I stand ready to bring the full spectrum of combat power to bear in order to achieve my mission and the goals established by my country. The execution of my duties will be swift and violent when required yet guided by the very principles that I serve to defend.

Brave men have fought and died building the proud tradition and feared reputation that I am bound to uphold. In the worst of conditions, the legacy of my teammates steadies my resolve and silently guides my every deed. I will not fail.”

This last creed, The Warrior’s Creed is specific to the most elite combat force in the US military, the Navy SEALs.  It hasn’t been around for very long, but it took a while to come up with something that embodied everything that SEALs are expected to live up to.

I was fortunate enough to read American Sniper when Chris Kyle was still alive.   It is a tale of combat. Of loss. Of honor.  But most of all, it’s a memoir of a man who was trying to save lives.

“But he’s a sniper! HE KILLED people!” I can hear the critics screaming.  Service members do not take lightly their obligations to do the things most people could not.  And beyond morality, they are also taught that every single time they pull the trigger on a weapon, that there is a lawyer attached to that bullet, so their actions had better be justified.

The current Rules Of Engagement (ROE) as per the US Navy War College is 99 pages in length. There are four different types of self defense outlined.  “Self-defense” here is defined as ” …the use of force to defend against attack or imminent attack.”   Also the book details that “Hostile Act” (attack) and “Hostile Intent” (threat of imminent attack) are justifiable reasons to use force for self-defense.  It also states that where operational circumstances permit that military forces need to warn the threat  and “give {them} an opportunity to withdraw or cease it’s threatening actions.”  (Read: expose your hidden position to an active shooter, communicate in another language to your potential killer that you have greater fire power that you’re willing to use, unless they stop, and only THEN can you actively engage and defend yourself, meanwhile several of your best friends may have been killed by this entity you’re trying to convince to stop shooting so THEY can retreat.)  Only THEN is “the use of force authorized so long as the hostile act or hostile intent continues.”

So if that wasn’t clear enough, let me paint the picture for you: You’re on a rooftop in the sandbox, with a sniper rifle, and it’s your job to protect your friends, who you share a tent with, and keep them alive while they are trying to engage terrorist.  You see your friends’ convoy just below you, but you look ahead through your scope to see a local, with a suspicious looking device and acting suspiciously, as he glances over his shoulder multiple times looking directly at your friend’s convoy.  You think he may be placing an improvised explosive device (IED) on the side of the road to kill your friends.  But you’re not sure what he has, or what he’s doing, really.  You have to use your training and experiences and the potential target’s behavior (is he acting like everyone else? If not, HOW is he acting? Who is he been hanging around? What has that group of people been doing? Are they actually locals? Or are they terrorists trying to kill your friends?)  AND you have to determine all this in a matter of SECONDS.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) but since we’re not really going down that road, I’ll skip it for now.

The current ROE for our armed forces have become a web of bureaucratic law that ties the hands of our armed forces so as not to have ANY casualties of war that it winds up getting more of our troops, our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters killed.

“But if the ROE makes it so that we don’t kill ONE innocent life, then it’s ALL worth it!” I can hear you saying.

If this is your thought, let me ask you, would you still feel that way if that was YOUR son, daughter, husband, or wife that was killed because they were following these overly restrictive, yet collateral damage reducing ROE?

Which brings me to my actual point.

Michael Moore tweeted, “My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse”

Seth Rogen tweeted, “American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that’s showing in the third act of Inglorious Basterds.”

Michael Moore followed his tweet up by saying, “But if you’re on the roof of your home defending it from invaders who’ve come 7K miles, you are not a sniper, u are brave, u are a neighbor,” essentially saying that the terrorist snipers who are actively trying to kill American troops who are trying to fulfill a mission of giving a country back to it’s people from a tyrannical government are “brave,” and “neighbors.”

Seth Rogen followed his up with, “I just said something “kinda reminded” me of something else. I actually liked American Sniper. It just reminded me of the Tarantino scene.” and “I wasn’t comparing the two. Big difference between comparing and reminding. Apples remind me of oranges. Can’t compare them, though.” Finally “But if you were having a slow news day, you’re welcome for me giving you the opportunity to blow something completely out of proportion.”

I hardly expect either Moore or Rogen to understand the kind of commitment, dedication, and literal blood, sweat, and tears it takes to be in the military, let alone what it takes to be a SEAL, or a combat sniper.

I will forgive Rogen for accidentally putting his foot in his mouth.  We have all done it at some point.  However I try to keep my podiatric sandwiches exclusively in person, and not posting it to where I can be criticized by the world.

Moore, however, has a lot more to make up for than two offensive, insensitive, unpatriotic, disrespectful tweets.  (But we won’t go into Bowling for Columbine, Farenheit 9/11, etc. here.) This is directed specifically to Michael Moore, (and anybody that agrees with him):

You specifically said your uncle was killed by a sniper in WWII.  Then you said you were taught that snipers were cowards.

Lets examine these two statements.  Your uncle, if he was killed in WWII, we can infer that he was a combat soldier/Marine/sailor.  If your uncle was a military guy, then he was over there, literally fighting, bleeding, and dying to protect our way of life from the greatest threat the world had ever known up to that point.  So to your uncle, I say “THANK YOU!” And to you I say this; How dare you categorize a single specific aspect of the military, which you obviously know nothing about, when your only knowledge of the subject came from the opposing end, and from a source that may have been forced upon by threats of death to be there.  (Unlike our military, not all Nazis were volunteers.) In case you forgot, we WON that war, and continue to live in freedom because of the brave selfless acts of those LIKE Chris Kyle AND your uncle!  Chris Kyle made himself abundantly clear on his Facebook page when he started getting criticism after the release of his book by posting, “If you don’t like what I have to say or post, you forget one thing, I don’t give a shit what you think. LOL.”  But your uncle, on the other hand, gave his life in combat, (and is probably rolling over in his grave) so obese, small minded, disgraceful people like you could continue to express your opinions because of the First Amendment.

To be clear, Chris Kyle, and Moore’s uncle are the heroes.  Moore, is the coward.

So as a veteran, not that you really understand or even care or acknowledge what that means, and on behalf of all veterans, you’re welcome. And try to show some more respect in the future.

-Joseph Forefathers

In 732 AD the Muslim Army which was moving on Paris was defeated and turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martell.
In 1571 AD the Muslim Army/ Navy was defeated by the Italians and Austrians as they tried to cross the Mediterranean to attack southern Europe in the Battle of Lepanto. In 1683 AD the Turkish Muslim Army, attacking Eastern Europe, was finally defeated in the Battle of Vienna by German and Polish Christian Armies.

This crap has been going on for 1,400 years and half of these damn politicians don’t even know it !!!

If these battles had not been won we might be speaking Arabic and Christianity could be non – existent; Judaism certainly would be… And let us not forget that Hitler was an admirer of Islam and that the Mufti of Jerusalem was Hitler’s guest in Berlin and raised Bosnian Muslim SS Divisions: the 13th and 21st Waffen SS Divisions who killed Jews, Russians, Gypsies, and any other “subhuman”.

In 1783 AD when the British Colonies that would become the United States of America gained independence from Great Britain, 5 Muslim countries of North Africa declared war on our newly independent nation, hijacking and kidnapping merchant sailors and selling them for ransom, or into slavery.

When the United States of America was established, we were forced to pay extortion fees amounting to 20 – 25% of our federal budget to those Muslim countries to keep them from their hijacking and kidnapping. It took two administrations, Washington and Adams, to build a sufficient Navy so that President Jefferson, in 1805, could send the Navy and Marines to conquer Tripoli and end the piracy. Islam has been at war with the USA since our founding.

Reflecting: Many Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves. Pause a moment, reflect back. These events are actual events from history. They really happened!!

Do you remember?

1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.
3. In 1972 a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach, it was blown up shortly after landing by Muslim males.
4. In 1973 a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome , with 33 people killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.
5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.
6. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males.
7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males.
8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.
9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim males.
10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.
11. In 1993 , the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males.
12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males.
13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.
14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim males.
15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by—you guessed it—a Muslim male.
16. In 2013, Boston Marathon Bombing 4 Innocent people including a child killed, 264 injured by Muslim males.
17. In 2014, thousands of Christian men, women, and children are slaughtered, defiled, and beheaded by Muslim males.

No, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? HA
So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.

Absolutely No Profiling! Instead, they must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year olds, Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, BUT leave Muslim Males alone lest airport security be guilty of profiling.
Have the American people completely lost their Minds, or just their Power of Reason???

So I had a dream last night, which I actually remember, and that’s kind of a big deal, because I normally don’t remember my dreams.  So here it goes:

Dream:

I’m a kid again and I’m at a group archery lesson.  Only it’s not just archery, it’s baseball…combined with archery. (This sounds perfectly safe…) {I think the rules were the same as baseball, except that all the players had a bow, instead of a glove, and the arrow replaced the ball, but the “batter” had to catch the flying arrow, and shoot it into the outfield.  No tag outs by a direct shot.}

So I’m up to “bat” and the kid playing catcher is someone I remember from my youth, but represented completely out of character here.  He was taunting me, and being a general bully, but unlike my actual child self, I was standing up to him and generally not letting him get to me.  But because he wasn’t getting to me, he escalated.  I missed the first arrow, and instead of shooting it back to the “pitcher” he shot it directly at my face!  I was fortunately fast enough to see this, and duck out of the way, but none of the adults in charge saw it.  When I blew up and started screaming at him, all the other teammates jumped in on HIS side, saying “it was just a stupid joke,” and “don’t be so sensitive about it,” and “grow up!”

I screamed at the top of my lungs, “YOU SHOT AN ARROW! AT MY FACE!!!” Again it was met with the same kind of excuses.

At this point I finally went to the neglectful adults to inform them of the current situation.  They all followed me, back to the field where we came to find every other player lined up like perfect angels, each one in turn, starting with the primary offender, offering the most straight-faced, insincere, obligatory apology, paired with a curtsey.

The adults of course bought it, while I was not fooled.

End Dream.

When I woke up this morning, I was admittedly confused.  Then I got on Facebook and started reading comments about the SOTU last night.  And it dawned on me.  My dream was a direct relation to how I feel about the current State Of The Union.  Those in charge of making the rules have altered the rules into an atrocity of the original game.   And then not even appropriately (and even excluding themselves) enforcing the mandated tax penalty “new rules”, furthermore practically condoning those who are literally physically assaulting those of us who are trying to still play BY the new, albeit INSANE rules.

But this isn’t baseball.  This is the fundamental process of how this country works!  This country was founded as a Republic, and upon a free market economy – NOT SOCIALISM!

Our Forefathers knew and even warned of the dangers of both  losing  the republic, and the dangers of having political parties, especially that of a two party system.  And yet, that is exactly what we have devolved into.

Which brings to mind the current social climate of the union.  We have truly devolved as a society.  Someone once said (and I’m paraphrasing here) “America has never been more united than on September 12, 2001.”  We were bound together as a nation in tragedy, but it brought out the best in us as neighbors, friends, strangers, and even families.   But here we are 14 1/2 years later and people are at each others’ throats over the most trivial things.  Because they get blown out of proportion to the degree that we have truly divided as a nation.

I hear a lot of people say that you shouldn’t “judge” others.   To that I say, “Bullcrap.”  Even Martin Luther King Jr. knew that we had to make judgements, but to do so for the right reasons!

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

“NOT be judged by the color of their skin, BUT BY the content of their character.” 

It’s not only “good” to make judgements…it’s absolutely VITAL.   We make judgements all the time!  Those two suspicious characters in the alleyway looking over their shoulders trying to look casual, are you going to go down that alleyway because it’s the shortcut home?  Or are you going to use your judgement and take the long way, because it’s out in the open and you know three people that live on that route?

People, use your GOD GIVEN brains, that HE WANTS YOU TO USE, and start thinking more about what you can do to be a better person, a better neighbor, and better son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle, grandparent, grandchild, and just a better citizen of this country.  Stop worrying about the latest fads, trends, the newest app/game/device, etc, and get out in the world and BE A PART of IT!  And for the love of all that is good and holy, STOP PUTTING YOURSELF FIRST!  What can you do to help others? Learn to compromise, to speak kindly, and to be a decent human being.

I know I am full of my own flaws, we all are.  I’d be a straight up liar if I said I was even a fraction of 1% on my way to being perfect.  I’m not…but I am trying to be the best human being I know how to be. And I’m educating myself where and when I can, on every subject that I can by being open to other points of view, other than my own.   And I adapt.   If I have always done something a specific way, but someone shows me a new, more efficient, faster way to do something, I adapt and my life becomes easier because of it.  I think we could all benefit from adapting more, and learning to judge for the RIGHT reasons.  If everybody else was trying as hard as they could, then pushed a little bit further, this world could be a dream to live in.

But I guess that’s why it’s only a dream.

-Joseph Forefathers