The First Amendment to the Constitution protects religion from government but not the reverse, and in no way demeans religion or its effects.

Freedom of religion is ensured by the First Amendment, as are other freedoms as well. But in cases where a religion conflicts with our Constitution or its protections, the Law must prevail. This is the case with Islam, which along with its (Muslim) religion includes an ideology (embracing Sharia Law) that does not recognize the freedoms ensured by the Constitution but is instead in opposition to them. The Qu’ran is in direct conflict with our inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and human rights generally. It  does not tolerate any religion other than Islam (further evidence of our Judeo-Christian roots—Islam was not in any way a factor in our founding and is not supported by our laws—killing infidels is not part of our heritage). Even a cursory reading of the Qu’ran will support this statement.

The current world situation (Islamic terrorism) is testing our nation and its resolve. The concept of Political Correctness has manufactured an artificial tolerance of Islam in the name of religion rather than upholding the law of the land.  But this is unconstitutional as well as unethical.

Political Correctness is false and therefore unethical; we need not tolerate terrorism in the name of ‘fairness.’  (Feel free to find any reference to ‘fair’ or ‘fairness’ in either of our founding documents.) Our Constitution is clear if we will take the time to read and understand it and its supporting documents, and our Constitution is the law of the land. It has helped to make us the envy of world cultures. There is no need to lower the bar to mollify those who do not realize its benefits.

Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment should that be deemed necessary. There are currently 27 amendments, duly processed and permanent parts of the current document.  You are encouraged to read the entire document. It’s short and understandable—not at all like our Tax Code. And don’t forget the Declaration—it’s even shorter but equally instructive. Even more information is available in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as well as other documents of the time. The intentions of the Founders are quite clear, should we care to investigate them.

Freedoms of speech or peaceful assembly are not limited.  This would seem to mean that anything may be voiced, including profanity or ‘hate speech.’  Not said is not meant.

“Hate speech’ is a function of political correctness, which has no constitutional support whatsoever.  Feelings are not considered by either the Declaration or Constitution.  Common courtesy and decorum were assumed by the Founders and would seem to limit what may be voiced, but the Constitution does not.  There exists a built-in concession to ethics and morality but there’s no code of ethics written into it. This would normally not constitute a major problem in a world of an objective press, which would itself compensate for flagrant bad-mouthing.  However, this is not the case in our society currently.

Somewhere along the societal line it has become common for those offended and/or insulted to seek redress from government.  This phenomenon tends to be one-sided; it’s OK for one to trash others but not to be insulted.  It is also not supported by the Constitution.

This is one reason for the current Progressive drive to change the Constitution in the name of modernity.  Feelings have become more important than objectivity.

But the Constitution is nothing if not objective.  It assumes that individuals will handle these problems themselves, without the intervention of government.  This is as it should be—not said is not meant.

Fairness is not a stated function of our Constitutional law, which may not and does not favor one special interest over another.  Such issues are left to propriety, individual action and the courts, which may not make law.   This is as it should be.  Deal with it, but mind the words of Blaise Pascal: “The first rule of morality (ethics) is to think clearly.”  Thinking clearly requires an accurate understanding of the language. Read the Constitution. You may disagree with what I say here, but make certain that we’re talking about the same thing should you challenge my statements.

Questions? Comments? Concerns?  Feel free!


  • September 15, 2012 The last 20 years, glboalization has been gainnig. The USA benefited massively from these trends. Its enjoyed unusually robust growth, low unemployment and inflation, and received billions of dollars in investment. These aren’t signs of economic collapse. Companies have entered new countries and industries with success, using global supply chains and technology in the vanguard of efficiency. Exports, manufacturing and services have boomed. The USA isn’t declining, the world is just catching up.

Leave a Reply