Thursday, May 29, 2008

Parsley: USA Created For a Purpose

Here is a YouTube of Pastor Rod Parsley preaching God created the United States of America to destroy Islam. I suspect the vid was created to show Parsley as a hater or a bigot; however I got to tell you Parsley’s words may just be prophetic.

I realize a number of people have found peace in Islam. I find that delusional since I am a Christian and I realize the converse is true about what Muslims think of Christianity; i.e. we are delusional for rejecting Allah and his last prophet Mohammed.

Here is the thing: comparing core
tenets of Islam with that of Christianity, Islam comes out on the side of evil.

It is very simple. Evil is not good.

Compare the core tenets of
Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism and so on with Islam. You will discover the same thing: Islam comes out on the side of evil. Evil is not good.

Check it out: as a Christian I believe Christianity is the one true way to God. By the 21st century most Christians would use Godly persuasion and the power of God (I know that sounds silly if you are a doubter but hang with me) to win Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. The days of forced conversions by political leaders who are Christians is a thing of the past for most enlightened Christians understand that is not the way of Christ.

Islam may use persuasion in nations in which they are the minority in the 21st century to win converts however wherever
Islam is the majority forced conversions occur all the time. This is particularly the case of kidnapped women. And if a Christian or Jew convert to Islam and realize their mistake and repent and turn back to their faith, that person faces a death penalty and that person’s family is doomed to Islam. Islamic apostates deserve death according to Islamic core teachings.

My thought is that Rod Parsley is not a hater or a bigot, he is a truth teller.
Take a couple of minutes and Listen to him.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam, part 8

Okay. I am a weekly subscriber to the blog Political Islam. The blog is militantly anti-Islam. I know it is not politically correct (especially among Leftists) but I do find Political Islam quite refreshing that it has busted out of the comfort zone of being nice. Political Islam points out the very things I believe about Mohammedanism: Radical Islam is not an aberration of Mohammedanism rather that theo-political Islamism is a revivalist movement following the example and teachings of a man called Mohammed. Radical Islamism is the true face of Mohammedanism even though the millions of adherents are the minority.

The so-called moderate Muslim is a person that has chosen to live a peaceful life. If a moderate Muslim is devout he/she cherry picks the nice beauty of the Quran and the lesser holy writings of Mohammedanism. The moderate adherent re-interprets the function of the not so nice writings of their holy scriptures and re-interprets the examples of Mohammed.

Thus a Westerner is propagandized that “jihad” means inner struggle and not holy war to convert or eradicate the kafir. To a moderate Muslim’s credit “jihad” has been revised to mean “inner struggle;” nonetheless that is not the example of Mohammed. Indeed one rarely reads or hears clamoring from the majority so-called moderate peace loving Mohammedan because in their heart there is an admiration of the purity of the theo-political beginnings of Islam.

With that little introduction I now lead into this week’s e-newsletter form Political Islam:

JRH 5/28/08

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam, part 8

Bill Warner
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Political Islam

Of Interest

What does the grand Ayatollah Sistani think of

A British imam takes to the streets to terrorize the

Why a jihadi wants to
die a martyr for Allah.

This newsletter is one of a series on the subject -
An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam Newsletter #8

Blacks as Islam's Molested Children
Let's run down the generally accepted history of race in the U.S. White men captured Africans, then brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. Wrong: when the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn't capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the African slave traders their money, got their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into boats.

The African slave traders were Muslims. Their ancestors had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade up into the 21st century.

Sacred Slavery
Islam is so very clear about slavery. The Arab has many words for slave. But he has only one word for blacks- abid. The word serves for both black slave and African. Islam has another word for white slaves-mamluk. Arabic has more words for slaves than any other language.

Mohammed was a slave trader, and the survivors of jihad were war booty. The Hadith contains a full legal and philosophic system of slavery. The Hadith have many sacred examples of how the slaves were traded and what was done with the children, women (frequently raped), and men who survived. Muslims took slaves from all cultures.

Slavery is a constant image in the Koran and the Hadith. Mohammed called himself and his followers slaves of Allah. One of the most common Arab names is Abdullah, slave of Allah, Mohammed's father's name.

What about modern Africa? How can black leaders not see what is happening as Islam carries out its sacred violence? Why aren't the black columnists, writers, professors, or ministers speaking out? They are in total denial.

They are the molested children of Islam.The one thing whites and blacks have in common is that their ancestors were enslaved by Islam, and both are too ashamed to admit it. Molested black and white children of Islam. It is our shame, a secret shame.

Our Ignorance
Blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, artists, intellectuals, and animists have all been brutalized by jihad and political Islam. Their reactions have all been identical to that of an abused child. Each and every one denies the events, refuses to teach the history, are profoundly ashamed, and try to placate the abuser, Islam. Each group of victims knows almost nothing about the other's suffering. All are afraid and even more afraid to admit it.

There are two more reasons for our ignorance-logic and ethics. People from a culture with ethics of unity find it almost impossible to actually understand Islam with its dualistic ethics.

The third barrier to understanding Islam is that Islam uses a different form of logic, dualistic logic. So we find it hard to understand a civilization that has a different way of thinking and feeling than everyone else.

Today the formal political status of dhimmi (a semi-slave who serves Islam) has been replaced by dhimmitude, the intellectual submission to Islam. One of the characteristic of a dhimmi under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of our thinkers and historians about Islam is profound.

A dhimmi's second characteristic is attacking his natural allies. This is just one example: when Hindus are talking about jihad, they will frequently turn to criticizing Christians. This is due to impotence. It is like the husband who abuses his wife when he has a bad day.

A dhimmi's third characteristic is to try to make the situation with Islam better. This is done by complete denial of current events and arguing that Islam can be reformed or is not really so bad.

Our studies never mention the political doctrine in the Trilogy. The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don't teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Black history doesn't refer to the 120 million Africans destroyed over 1400 years of jihadic predation that fed the slave trade up to today. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them or their religion. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force.

The problem with this ignorance is that our leaders are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism, whereas our civilization is based upon the ideal of the ethics of unity. Our intellectuals cannot explain what this difference has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future.

In order for our civilization to survive, our leaders must understand the Trilogy and its impact. They must learn to think outside the politically correct, multicultural box of our media and universities. They must learn to connect the dots and see the systemic pattern of events based upon the Trilogy. The events of 9/11, the Mohammed cartoon riots, the London bombings, beheadings in Baghdad, the death fatwah against Salman Rushdie, and the killing of Daniel Pearl are all based upon the Trilogy. Know the Trilogy; know Islam.

Our historians must acknowledge the Tears of Jihad.

The Good Muslim
Here is the theory of the "good" Muslim. There are good Muslims and extremist Muslims. You can't judge Islam by a few extremists or even a lot of terrorists.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims. If you are going to measure Islam by individuals you will have to meet and talk with a lot of them, not just the handful you may know. That is the beauty talking about the doctrine. The doctrine stays the same everywhere and is constant over time. Every Muslim can interpret the doctrine as they see fit, so Muslims differ. But in the end, every Muslim is driven by the doctrine.

But let's talk about Ahmed, the good Muslim at work. Ahmed is a professional engineer. He says that terrorists are not real Muslims. His wife does not wear a burka.

It is the whole of Islam that we must measure. Even in Mohammed's day of full jihad, only some of the Muslims were out killing, stealing, raping, assassinating, slaving, kidnapping, and terrorizing. Others were back at home, doing whatever one does at home.

It has never been that every Muslim was a jihadist. But at any time that is always an option. Jihad is always an option for every Muslim.

So yes, Ahmed, the professional engineer at work, is a nice man. Where he differs from the nice Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist, however, is that Ahmed has another ethical option open at all times.

Remember that a good Muslim is commanded 14 times in the Koran to remember that a Muslim is not actually a friend to the kafirs. To the extent that Ahmed is your friend, he is not a Muslim. To the extent that Ahmed is a Muslim, he is not your friend. After all, you are kafir.

Koran 3:28 Believers should not take kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah's protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.

Mohammed is the perfect model for a Muslim. Mohammed's uncle adopted him, raised him, taught him the trade of being a businessman, and protected him from harm. But his uncle never converted and Mohammed cursed him to Hell when he would not convert on his deathbed. Mohammed would be friendly to try to convert or get a favor, but he never, ever favored a kafir over a Muslim. He was never an actual friend to a kafir.

At any time that it is needed to advance Islam, Ahmed may be deceitful. He will also give money to Islamic charities that fund jihad. In political matters he will always come down on the side of Islam. And he will say that a terrorist is not a real Muslim. But according to the doctrine of political Islam both the terrorist and Ahmed are real Muslims.

So the question is how many Muslims follow which Koran? The same person can use either the Koran of Mecca or the Koran of Medina when needed. Islam will now and forever contain "good" Muslims who are kind and "bad" Muslims who are oppressive and confrontational. You can't have just "good" Muslims.

Within the secret heart of every "good" Muslim is the Koran of Medina and jihad. Ahmed's constant desire is to be more like Mohammed, who never had a kafir friend. Ahmed will always be one of those "moderate" Muslims who do not rise up and condemn or "rat out" the terrorists. And at all times and in all ways, Ahmed will support Islamization of our culture.

This problem of friendship is at the heart of the evil of dualistic ethics. It is this problem that members of the ethics of unity find the hardest to fathom. Most of the kafirs just cannot believe that someone with dualistic ethics is only being friendly, not a real friend. Ahmed, the person, may actually be your true friend. But, Ahmed, the Muslim, is forbidden to be your true friend.

Bill Warner
Signup for our weekly newletter.

copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba
Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Assad's week of triumph

If the American Leftists have delusions of transforming America into a Secular Humanist Theocrat Utopia in Liberty and Freedom is defined by Secular Humanism and Politically Correct non-offensive group diversity, the Leftists in Israel are delusional self-destructive land-for-peace morons that handing Jews over to the next genocide.

JRH 5/27/08 (Hat tip to ICJS Research)

Why Iran will fight, not compromise

Hello Barack Hussein Obama! Negotiation and Appeasement will not work with psycho Ahmadinejad or his sponsor Ayatollah Khamenei.

Come on BHO, read
Spengler’s article in the Asia Times:

JRH 5/27/08 (Hat tip to ICJS Research)

Monday, May 26, 2008

The Minutemen and the Illegal Immigration Lobby

I have to be honest concerning “The Minutemen” and the anti-immigration message. I support the core reasoning of The Minutemen however not to levels of extremism that aims pretty close to Latinophobia.

It is wrong for Mexicans (primarily) to simply enter our country and gain privileges that some American citizens do not even receive. It is wrong to accommodate illegal aliens by requiring Spanish to be on official government documents up to and including voting. The vote is not something an illegal should be privileged with. The vote should not be something a legal alien should be privileged with. AND Naturalized American citizens (former aliens) should become citizens until at least they can speak English let alone provide dual Spanish/English documents.

I favor English should be the National Language of America. Every other immigrant to America in America’s history to a large degree has assimilated to the American way of life. The Italians, Nordic language groups, Germans and Europeans by the time of their second and third generations spoke English and considered themselves more American than their parents or grandparents.

Now that I have brandished the negative aspects that drive me nuts about illegal immigration, allow me to say few words about Mexicans and many other Latinos in America.

I was not raised in a middle class or wealthy family; however I was not so poor that I had a victimhood attitude about my life nor did my family. Everyone worked in our family to pay the bills. My core family growing up consisted of my single Mom, me, Grandmother, Grandfather and occasionally my Uncle (off and on). I began working at age 12 delivering Newspapers and by age 16, full time in the Restaurant industry which I continued in for a quarter of a century.

Anyway as long as anyone lived at Grandma’s house, a percentage of one’s earnings or a particular responsibility (e.g. an electric bill or cable bill) was all shared to living really quite comfortable not being aware that opportunity could lead to even more comfort.

Working in the Restaurant Industry I had the opportunity to work with a number of Mexicans. There were a few bad apples however the majority of Mexicans worked hard and were honest and respectful. In most cases I was humbled by the honesty and respect Mexicans had shown me when I knew full well a majority of Americans would not reciprocate in the same manner.

Most of the illegal alien Mexicans had no intention to remain in America on a long term basis and so they did not feel the compulsion to learn English any more than was necessary. The Mexicans I worked with worked for a stake for some dream back in Mexico OR to alleviate a situation of extreme poverty for family members back in Mexico.

I am not so certain America should boot this kind of Mexican out. They are the epitome of what Americans were like up through the ‘50’s: hard working responsible families.

I am also aware there are Mexicans and Latin Americans further south of Mexico that are pure thugs, lawless, gangbangers or all of the above. This is the kind of Mexican that should be deported. This kind of Mexican/Latino should be deported or jailed (depending if they have become American citizens by naturalization or birth) even if they citizenship or legal residence status. America in this age of terrorism needs to come down hard on the lawless foreigners that reside in our nation and NOT coddled as a person of special circumstance. THAT IS NUTS!

And so having posted my concerns and my reasons for limited mercy I would like to share an email that made it to my junk mail instead of to my inbox. It is from The Minutemen and it justly rails on the duplicity that is extended to Latinos and yet when The Minutemen do acts of Charity with The Minutemen name accredited, the pro-illegal alien lobby goes nuts. I am totally with The Minutemen with this one:


Sent: Thu 5/22/2008 12:28 AM
The Minutemen San Diego Email

I wrote to you the other day to inform you about the battle between the San Diego Minutemen and radical left-wing activists from the pro-amnesty crowd. Advocates of amnesty-for-illegal-aliens are waging a pressure campaign to censor the Minutemen's "Adopt-A-Highway" sign near a border checkpoint in California.

They've so far succeeded in their censorship campaign, and the Minutemen's sign has been taken down. But now the San Diego Minutemen are fighting back in court - they won't let the amnesty-for-illegal-aliens crowd try to silence those who believe in securing America's borders.

You can support the Minutemen's legal defense fund -

It's offensive when you think about the fact that this is the only kind of message that the pro-amnesty crowd believes should be allowed:

[jpeg in email of local LA Hispanic newscast]

But the pro-amnesty crowd won't tolerate this sign that simply showcased the Minutemen's charitable efforts:

[jpeg in email of The Minutemen Adopt a Highway sign]

The ensuing legal fight between the Minutemen and the illegal alien lobby has become a high-profile national issue with members of the legislature's Latino Caucus, Gil Cedillo and Lori Salda¤a, telling the New York Times that, "the Minutemen should be barred" from having an Adopt-A-Highway sign. (You can read the New York Times story -

The Gil Cedillo who was bad-mouthing the Minutemen, is the same Gil Cedillo who last year led rallies for amnesty and taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens.

And Lori Saldana went on to tell reporters that she wanted to pre-screen groups to prevent organizations like the Minutemen from having the same rights as leftist pro-amnesty organizations that she supports. "We want them (the state) to say what constitutes a legitimate group... Do we want these people (the Minutemen) allowed on a highway near a security checkpoint?" asked Ms. Saldana.

Yes, we do want the Minutemen to be free to have their voices heard in this country, Ms. Saldana, but obviously people like you want the Minutemen silenced and censored.

PLEASE -- If you support our efforts to fight back against the pro-amnesty lobby and fight for the rights of the Minutemen, then please
make a donation right now to our legal defense fund.

We've incurred $30,000 in legal fees already. Fortunately, hundreds of supporters have pitched in to bring this total down to approximately $25,000. Please help us raise this remaining $25,000.

Make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500 or $1,000 or more -

You may also mail in a contribution to:

San Diego Minutemen Defense Fund
c/o Kaloogian & Fuselier, L.L.P
2382 Faraday Avenue
Suite #130
Carlsbad, CA 92008

There are no contribution limits, so please give generously. Your financial contributions will help to ensure that the Minutemen can have the same right to free speech that the pro-amnesty lobby has been exercising in their ongoing rallies and demonstrations. If we don't win here, you can bet the pro-illegal immigrant lobby will push even harder.

Thank you so much for your support. I will continue to keep you updated on our fight for the rights of the San Diego Minutemen.


P.S. You can follow our legal filings at our website -
HERE. And please, if you haven't already done so, please do contribute to our efforts to fight for the Minutemen's rights. We are determined to defeat the pro-amnesty lobby, but they will fight us tooth-and-nail in the courts. But, with your help we can win!

The Minutemen and the Illegal Immigration Lobby
John R. Houk
© May 26, 2008

This email has been sent to:

Interpol Ties Chavez to Marxist Terrorists FARC

Remember the incident in South America in which Columbian forces entered Venezuelan territory fought with a FARC drug lord and killed him? As part of the spoils of this minor victory over the global drug market eight laptops were seized and taken back to Columbia in their hasty exit from Venezuela.

Of course
Marxist Hugo Chavez went postal and began some saber rattling against Columbia and old Hugo got his buddy Marxist Rafael Correa to also move troops to the Columbia/Ecuador border all in an effort of typical communist intimidation.

Now let’s talk about those eight laptops.
Columbia had Interpol forensic experts examine them. Now Interpol is a police force NOT known for corruption. Interpol discovered potential evidence on the laptops linking FARC with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan Government. It should be of no surprise because FARC’s original purpose for existing is as a Communist movement (of the old Marxist/Leninist brand) to overthrow the Columbian government. It just happens that ideology is overshadowed by thuggery and international drug dealing (with a little kidnapping thrown in for good measure) as an illegal capitalist enterprise. How is that for the effectiveness of Marxist ideology?

Anyway if the loose ends can be attached to Uncle Hugo with Interpol’s forensic discoveries, then America has an outstanding case to force the rusty wheels of the U.N. Security Council to throw a monkey wrench in the agenda of Hugo Chavez.


Saturday, May 24, 2008

The Real Truth of Mohammed

Are there peaceful Mohammedans out there today? You and I both know there are; however the peaceful Mohammedan runs contrary to the very teachings and examples of the man they call a prophet.

On the other hand radical Islam is following the dictates and the example of old Mohammed of days gone by. I think the whole point of their agenda is to return to that time they consider pure and us kafir (non-Muslims) consider archaic, bloody and brutal.

Golan Heights Back to Syria?

I wonder if Judas Iscariot is part of the bloodline of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel.

The man gave up Gaza and Israel is the recipient of constant missile attacks from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Under Bush Administration coaching Olmert has already forced Jews from Israelis call Judea and Samaria, and America calls the West Bank. Olmert is committed to establishing a Palestinian State of murderers and thugs which have the soul aim of eradicating Israel and committing another Jewish genocide.

Olmert is preparing to negotiate with Syria to give the central strategic defensive area of the Golan Heights back to Syria (which Syria lost after invading Israel).

While all this is going on Olmert has been under investigation or accusation of multiple illegal scandals. If Olmert were an American President he would have been impeached long ago. I find it unbelievable the Israeli Knesset has not produced a NO CONFIDENCE vote in their Parliamentary system!


Friday, May 23, 2008

Dems Lie Their Way into Power

A vote for Obama is a vote for a Party of Liars; the Democratic Party Liars that is.

Hat tip to Freedoms Watch.

"... the whole world will be dominated by the Sharia Law!"

This is the Islam of Britain, America’s Mother Country.

Islam intends to dominate Britain, America and the World. This means the end of
Western Civilization, Democracy, Liberty, Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness.

There is no alternative opinion in Islam: Convert, become a
dhimmi or die.

Americans Need to See the Real Obama

What does change mean to Barack Hussein Obama? It means accelerating Slanted Left social engineering internally and sticking their head in the sand externally. Think of how much worse it could be if Hillary succeeds in talking her despised fellow Democrat into the “dream ticket” run for the White House in 2008.

The extreme Black Power Leftist politically married to only a slightly less minuscular Lefty in Hillary would perpetuate and increase the social engineering in America in such things as a Christian Minister preaching from the Bible that homosexuality is sin would be a bigoted hate crime.

GW has sought out Arab consensus against Iran as a last choice to confront a nuking Iran because the Leftists or anti-American governments do not have the cajones to face oil rich and radical Islamic terrorist Iran. Obama’s world view would make negotiating with rogues, murdering terrorists and exporters of Islamist hatred his primary choice rather than the last choice. Obama would be in agreement of appeasement with
Leftists in Europe and America. Gosh! Does it sound like Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Accords making a deal with a devil that had no intention whatsoever to keep the Accords? Kind of sounds like Ahmadinejad and Iran diplomacy stalling for more and more time to reach some kind of appalling goal – WMD. Indeed deception or the impossible “all or nothing” attitude seems to the primary negotiation tool of most of the Islamic Middle East. Does Obama believe he can make a deal with Islamist liars?

David Limbaugh has written a column that the McCain is boning up on the character and the friendships of Barack Hussein Obama to allow the real Obama to be seen by the American public before they make a choice for President in November 2008. Limbaugh has some excellent insight on the real Obama – YOU should read it.


Thursday, May 22, 2008

USA Pays UN, UN Pays ...

USA Pays UN, UN Pays UNRWA, UNRWA Pays Islamic Jihad & Hamas
John R. Houk
© May 22, 2008

Do Americans realize the United Nations via the bureaucratic agency known as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has for three generations managed an international welfare system for Arabs that call themselves Palestinians?

Basically the UNRWA has funneled money to these Arabs that were made refugees by their own people after being defeated by numerous invasions of Israel. The purpose of the money is logical humanitarian necessities such as education for children, medical needs, food and so forth.

Now that sounds altruistically human to displaced people (again displaced by their own people) does it not?

Now that I have gotten this far let us examine the Preamble and first two Articles of the United Nations Charter (ratified in 1946).

    WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.



    Article 1

    The Purposes of the United Nations are:

    1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

    2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

    3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

    4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

    Article 2

    The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in
    Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

    1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

    2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

    3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and. justice, are not endangered.

    4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

    5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

    6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

    7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. (Source: The Avalon Project at Yale Law School)

Yeah I know it is a mouthful to say not to mention to read. The point is the U.N. was created after a horrendous war (WWII) in which the victors were fortunately believers in the process of Democracy (accept one member that was included in the hope inclusion would further the pipe dream of global peace with the existence of powerful despotic nation – the USSR).

Here’s the thing: The U.N. mandated the creation of two sovereign nations to be carved out of the Palestinian Mandate that would be divided between a Jewish Nation (awarded a Sovereign Homeland due to the Final Solution designs of one losers of WWII) and Arabs (mostly Mohammedan but with a then substantial Christian minority) that would be part of then Trans-Jordan (today’s Jordan).

Of course Intolerant Mohammedan lands could not see giving a microscopic slice of land to Jews. These very Jews basically rejuvenated the Land from the Turkish mismanaged wasteland that was allowed to occur. These very Jews turned the wasteland into a productive land. True most of the Jews were immigrating Zionists with a dream initiated by Theodore Herzl for Jews to return home to a place to avoid European anti-Semitism that began in the late 1800’s even before Ottoman Turkey lost WWI.

To comprehend the intolerance and greed of Muslim Arabs look at a map of what the U.N. was giving Jews as compared to the land that Arabs possessed largely liberated from the Ottoman Turks at the end of WWI. (Of course there were European abuses in controlling the formation of Arab nations based on European interests, but that is another story.) You almost need a magnifying glass or digital enlargement to see the land given to Jews.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority international vote, passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. The Arab community reacted violently after the Arab Higher Committee declared a strike and burned many buildings and shops.

As armed skirmishes between Arab and Jewish paramilitary forces in Palestine continued, the British mandate ended on May 15, 1948 (Link added), the establishment of the State of Israel having been proclaimed the day before (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). The neighboring Arab states and armies (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Transjordan, Holy War Army, Arab Liberation Army, and local Arabs) immediately attacked Israel following its declaration of independence, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequently, the partition plan was never implemented. Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. With the establishment of Israel, the remaining lands were divided amongst Egypt, Syria and Jordan (Link added). (The 10 Ages of Palestine)

The United Nations has been actively financing education via UNRWA for Islamofascist Terrorist causes. In the case I just read about an Islamic Jihad terrorist was killed by an Israeli air strike in Gaza. The thing is the terrorist was also under the employ of the UNRWA (ergo the United Nations) as a science teacher at a school also supported by the UNRWA.

Has the United Nations gone off course or what! The United Nations is using funds it collects from member Nations (Hello! Primarily America) to finance Islamofascist Terrorist Organizations (like Hamas and Islamic Jihad AND probably the whole PLO terrorist system) which have the sole goal of eliminating a Western style democratic nation known as Israel WHICH is a member of the United Nations.

In case you are not seeing the picture I am painting let try to rephrase this. Arabs that are not U.N. members are being paid by the U.N. to encourage said Arabs to eliminate U.N. member nation Israel.

It gets worse! American tax dollars are the hugest contributors to this corrupt dysfunctional peace promoting organization.

And think of this: Barack Hussein Obama wants to take even more American taxes to give to the corrupt United Nations on some sort of Global Poverty Initiative (which is only waiting a Senate approval and a Presidential signature). This Global Poverty tax if approved on the national level would the U.N. a limited power to mess with our National Interests even if America disapproved a U.N. funded policy program or who the U.N. chooses to manage the program like the Islamic Terrorists working for the UNRWA.


Wednesday, May 21, 2008


I have read the nuttiest decision President Bush is pursuing to offset the probable nuclear threat of Shi’ite Iran. Old GW is negotiating for America to build “peaceful” nuclear technology in Saudi Arabia.

To be realistic I do understand as to the “why” GW is pursuing the path of courting big oil Arabs with nuclear technology. I presume GW is looking at the realism that our so-called European allies have zero intention in supporting America and Israel in a military strike to eliminate or set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions to be THE Middle Eastern hegemon with the
Twelver Shi’ite Messianic fervor to destroy Israel.

One would be a moron to think rogue nation Iran is not driven by Islamic fervor to
spread Islam globally in the style of medieval prophet Mohammed. That style is using the brutal sword to convert, become a dhimmi (the so-called “protected” sub-human non-Mohammedan class) or die. Iran’s Twelver Shi’ite tentacles have reached to Syria’s Alawite Shi’ites (the minority yet governing class) and to the Hezbollah (Khomeini admiring) Shi’ites of Lebanon. Shi’ite Iran has incredulously even delivered military hardware to the Sunni terrorists Hamas. I say “incredulously” because the Hamas radical Islam is of the Sunni Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia and Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. This kind of Sunni believes the Shi’ite Muslim are kafir (or kuffar or whatever variation that is translated to English) as much as Christian, Jews or any other non-Mohammedan.

Now here is the rub: Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood factions of Mohammedanism also believe in
the spread of Islam by any violent means necessary. Of late the Muslim Brotherhood has diversified its tactics of spreading Mohammedanism by supporting the usual outward tactic of violent jihad (Hamas, al Qaeda and others) and infiltrating Western Society utilizing Western tools of Liberty and Democracy as silent weapons against America and the West.

Wahhabist doctrine specifically warns Muslims not to imitate, befriend or help “infidels” in any way. It instills hatred for United States because we are ruled by legislated constitutional law rather than by tyrannical Sharia law. Wahhabists are instructed by edict to, above all, work for the creation of an Islamic state where ever they may dwell.

It is because of the Wahhabist ideology’s cruel and unyielding fanaticism that we in the United States should be concerned with its prevalence within the mosques of our nation.

After the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 – an unprecedented action by the fundamentalists of the Shi’ite sect, the Saudi Arabian government responded by coming to terms with the fundamentalist Wahhabist movement of the Sunni sect. The Saudis, in return for a declaration of non-aggression, began to finance the construction of mosques in countries around the world. An estimated $45 billion has been spent by the Saudis to finance the building and operational costs of mosques and Islamic schools in foreign countries, including in North America.

Through the funding of mosques, Islamic Centers and their operations, Saudi Arabia is exporting the Wahhabist ideology. It is not unusual to find that the presiding cleric in any given mosque within the United States is a Wahhabist and that his teachings have been sanctioned and financed by the Saudi government and vetted by the Muslim Brotherhood. (
Frank Salvato)

Can you see why it is just as crazy to proffer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia as it is to allow Iran to lie about a peace nuclear program that everyone knows is a future factory for nuclear warheads?

If the Islamist nuts in Iran follow through with nuclear weapons and GW allows the Saudis to acquire nuclear technology which would lead to nuclear weapons, who would I blame? Surprisingly I would not blame GW for planting the seed for WMD proliferation. I would first blame the deluded Europeans that did not have the guts to back GW in the Global War on Terrorism followed closely by blaming America’s own Leftists.

The Appeasers may have tied the hands of GW to engage Islamist Arabs to counter Islamist Iranians to stall for time for the next President to develop a strategy for the West to WAKE-UP.

God Almighty let us pray the Prince of Appeasers in America is elected President. Barack Hussein Obama will go into the enemy’s camp like Prime Minister Chamberlain went to Germany just prior to WWII.
Chamberlain proudly proclaimed his meeting with Hitler will bring peace for our time. Peace for our time meant agreeing to allow Hitler to annex Sudetenland in then Czechoslovakia which gave Hitler time to make a pact with Soviet Stalin to divide Poland. The Nazi blitzkrieg on Poland became the last straw in Europe and France and Britain FINALLY perceived no amount of appeasement would bring peace for our time. Hitler even turned on his buddy Stalin (which was not surprising because Stalin had his own delusions of grandeur and would have turned on Hitler). And so WWII began.

What would the Prince of Appeasers give up to proclaim peace for our time to the Islamists? Hmm … I am thinking that would be Israel. Then what? What would be the West’s modern Poland?

Here is the
United American Committee email alert I received on May 17 which inspired my polemics:

ACTION ALERT: U.S. to help Saudis gain nuclear technology:

Today the United American Committee is alerting its members to an issue at hand that the UAC finds utterly disgusting, troubling, and gravely dangerous.

The United States government has agreed to help the radical kingdom called Saudi Arabia develop nuclear technology for power and other “peaceful” purposes.
See the news article here.

The UAC wishes to remind everyone of an
article from 2003 describing the Saudi kingdom's intense desire to develop a nuclear bomb.

Due to overwhelming evidence and hard facts, the UAC firmly believes that the Saudi kingdom is the chief exporter of terrorism and extremism in the world. The kingdom spend billions of dollars on exporting their extremist ideology through the construction of radical mosques and madrassas throughout the world, as well as direct support to terror support in the form of money to the families of suicide bombers, as well as direct contributions to charities in the United States who believe in establishing Islamic law in America. The kingdom also spends billions of dollars supporting lobbying activities to influence our government officials.

We urge every United American Committee member and activist within the anti-jihad resistance to contact their congressman and senators to let your opinion be known.

Find your congressman by following this link.
Find your senator by following this link.


Tuesday, May 20, 2008

AQI Senior Leader Captured in Mosul, Iraq

Well – Well – Well: It looks like the Iraqi government has successfully ran a military op that resulted in netting a senior al Qaeda Iraq (AQI) who was also a General under terrorist supporter Saddam Hussein. Oops, I forgot, the Pentagon leaked info that it believes (thus making Leftists happy) that Saddam Hussein’s Government or Military had nothing to do with al Qaeda.

Here is the abbreviated email version sent to me by
MoveAmericaForward (sent 5/20/08 1:56 PM) that has alerted me that Iraq is becoming self-sufficient much to the chagrin of bail and leave Leftists in America and Europe:

This story is good news for those who support the U.S.-led Coalition in the war on terror, and it's also tricky for opponents of our troops' missions (including the news media).

A senior Al Qaeda in Iraq leader has been arrested in Mosul, where Iraqi Security Forces have been cracking down on Al Qaeda forces who have been driven out of almost all other portions of the country.

But the tricky part for the media and anti-war activists is that if we captured a senior Al Qaeda in Iraq operative in Iraq, then that means we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, despite what the media and some anti-war leaders have tried to convince you wasn't happening.

Turns out they've been caught lying - yet again!

Sick’em Iraqi Security Forces!

JRH 5/20/08

Monday, May 19, 2008

UAC exposes Cultural Jihad In Central Florida

The United American Committee exposes a Central Florida School District preparing to allow Islamism to be preached in the public school system.


JRH 5/19/08

Recently the United American Committee's Central Florida chapter exposed cultural Jihad in a Central Florida school. What would you do if your child was forced to attend a class on Islam without your consent in a Public School? This is the same public school system who says your child can not be exposed to prayer in schools. It is also the same public school system that your tax dollars fund to be able to give YOUR children a quality unbiased education. The public school system that says you can not force a child to participate in any religion. Well it happened this week in Central Florida. The Central Florida chapter of the United American Committee uncovered this plot to educate your children with the religion of Islam and exposed it.

The Central Florida Chapter of the United American Committee then contacted WFTV Channel 9 news in Orlando to expose a cultural Jihad at a local school. This class was called family dynamics and was supposed to have nothing to do with religion, but ISLAM turned it into a religious discussion and these students had no choice to stay or go. Please watch the video.
The video link to the news story can be watched by clicking here.

UNITED AMERICAN COMMITTEE – A Non-Profit 501c3 Corporation
United American Committee Florida chapter
PO Box 1713, Goldenrod, FL 32733

Obama tells Tenn.'s GOP: 'Lay off my wife'

Barack Hussein Obama is publicly criticizing the GOP for publicizing Michelle Obama’s campaign words made in public.

What a Democratic moron is this?

If Obama wishes or even demands the GOP to lay off his wife he should: 1) Not have her campaign with him; or 2) Tell Michelle to shut up.

The GOP delusionally bending to the doctrine of Political Correctness is attempting to comply with Obama’s heated criticism for the GOP National Chairman has publicly said the national level repudiates this kind of campaigning.

Dear God Heaven – AGAIN - If Barack Hussein Obama does not wish to have his sweetie under campaign scrutiny; then she must not participate in the campaign and keep her yapper shut.

JRH 5/19/08

Why Judges Matter

The blog Judge Right over at Vox has an awesome post as to why Americans should vote Republican or if you are a dyed in the wool Dem (have mercy on your soul), a good reason NOT to vote for the extreme Left of the Democratic Party. It is the extreme Left that now controls the Democratic Party, it is a far cry from the balanced Democratic Party of deceased Senator Scoop Jackson (Scoop as it relates to McCain) that represent the centrist to slanted right of the Dems for a quarter century.

Voting Conservative or Republican means you understand the implications as to why Islamism (especially in its terrorist form) must be defeated AND you understand that the U.S. Judicial System dominated by Leftist activist judges are legislating law from the bench in most cases mystically fabricating judgments and precedents from Constitutional Law that do not exist.

Read how Judge Right demonstrates how the California Supreme Court has over turned the will of the people by a mere 4 to 3 vote:

JRH 5/19/08

Why Judges Matter

May 18, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Judge Right

So you think the war against radical Islam isn't reason enough to vote conservative even though this is the most compelling issue of our time. If you look at history with the lead up to the second World War and all the appeasement efforts and all the desire to talk Germany, Japan, and Italy into reasonable behavior. The very same mistakes are being made today with Islam and worse. Supposing the war was not an issue, what would be the next most compelling issue of our time?

California's highest court has decided the people's will does not matter. In a vote 4 to 3 they have decided to usurp the power of the people and to write law over the power and authority of the state legislature to impose their will on virtually the people of California. I have linked the justification for their decision
here. But Justice Baxter in his dissenting opinion has explained far better than I can exactly why this decision is horrible wherever you stand on the gay marriage issue. Just to state the reasons in a concise manner, Four people in black robes have usurped the will of the people of California, one of the most liberal states in the union and after we have voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. These four judges have overthrown the process and have read into the state's constitution something it does not say in order to force their will on all the rest of us. If a Democrat wins this election, they will put judges on the highest court in the land who desire to use this method of legislating from the bench to usurp the will of the people and hand down decisions that overstep their authority the same as these judges have.

The majority opinion reflects considerable research, thought, and effort on a significant and sensitive case, and I actually agree with several of the majority’s conclusions. However, I cannot join the majority’s holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.

Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.
California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling. The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute. I cannot subscribe to the majority’s reasoning, or to its result.

As noted above, I do not dispute everything the majority says. At theoutset, I join the majority’s observation that “[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 23, fn. omitted.)

Moreover, I endorse the majority’s interpretation of California’s Domestic Partnership Act (DPA; Fam. Code, § 297 et seq.). As the majority makes clear, the DPA now allows same-sex partners to enter legal unions which “afford . . . virtually all of the [substantive] benefits and responsibilities afforded by California law to married opposite-sex couples.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 45; see also Fam. Code, § 297.5.) As the majority further correctly observes, California has done all it can do with regard to providing these substantive rights, benefits, and responsibilities to same-sex partners. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 44-45.)1

I also agree with the majority’s construction of Family Code section 308.5. As the majority explains, this initiative statute, adopted by a popular vote of 61.4 percent and thus immune from unilateral repeal by the Legislature (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subdivision (c)), does not merely preclude California’s recognition of same-sex “marriage[s]” consummated elsewhere, but also invalidates same-sex “marriage[s]” contracted under that name in this state.2

In addition, I am fully in accord with the majority’s conclusion that Family Code sections 300 and 308.5, insofar as they recognize only legal relationships between opposite-sex partners as “marriage[s],” do not discriminate on the basis of gender.

Finally, I concur that the actions in Proposition 22 Legal Defense andEducation Fund v. City and County of San Francisco (Super. Ct. S.F. City & County No. CPF-04-503943) and Campaign for California Families v. Newsom (Super. Ct. S.F. City & County No. CGC-04 428794) should have been dismissed as moot in the wake of this court’s decision in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055.

However, I respectfully disagree with the remainder of the conclusionsreached by the majority.

The question presented by this case is simple and stark. It comes down to this: Even though California’s progressive laws, recently adopted through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal unions with all the substantive benefits of opposite-sex legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and universal tradition, by a convincing popular vote, and in accord with express national policy (see fns. 1, 2, ante), they reserve the label “marriage” for opposite-sex legal unions?3 I must conclude that the answer is no.

The People, directly or through their elected representatives, have everyright to adopt laws abrogating the historic understanding that civil marriage is between a man and a woman. The rapid growth in California of statutory protections for the rights of gays and lesbians, as individuals, as parents, and as committed partners, suggests a quickening evolution of community attitudes on these issues. Recent years have seen the development of an intense debate about same-sex marriage. Advocates of this cause have had real success in the marketplace of ideas, gaining attention and considerable public support. Left to its own devices, the ordinary democratic process might well produce, ere long, a consensus among most Californians that the term “marriage” should, in civilparlance, include the legal unions of same-sex partners.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democraticchange, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, 4 the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. Under article II, section 10, subdivision (c), that body cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative statute, such as Family Code section 308.5, unless the initiative measure itself so provides. Section 308.5 contains no such provision. Yet the majority suggests that, by enacting other statutes which do provide substantial rights to gays and lesbians — including domestic partnership rights which, under section 308.5, the Legislature could not call “marriage” — the Legislature has given “explicit official recognition” (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 68, 69) to a California right of equaltreatment which, because it includes the right to marry, thereby invalidates section 308.5.5

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental — article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that “[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.) [I could not distinguish location of the Italics in original post.]

History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as acheck against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights.

Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.
Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimedconstitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.

The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.

The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our originalConstitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex. Statutes enacted at the state’s first legislative session confirmed this assumption, which has continued to the present day. When the Legislature realized that 1971 amendments to the Civil Code, enacted for other reasons, had created an ambiguity on the point, the oversight was quickly corrected, and the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman was made explicit. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 23-36.) The People themselves reaffirmed this definition when, in the year 2000, they adopted Proposition 22 by a 61.4 percent majority.

Despite this history, plaintiffs first insist they have a fundamental right, protected by the California Constitution’s due process and privacy clauses (Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 1, 7, subd. (a)), to marry the adult consenting partners of their choice, regardless of gender. The majority largely accepts this contention. It holds that “the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7, of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to . . . enter with [one’s chosen life partner] into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 79, fn. omitted.) Further, the majority declares, a “core element[ ] of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.” (Id., at p. 81.)

To the extent this means same-sex couples have a fundamental right toenter legally recognized family unions called “marriage” (or, as the majority unrealistically suggests, by another name common to both same-sex and opposite-sex unions), I cannot agree. I find no persuasive basis in our Constitution or our jurisprudence to justify such a cataclysmic transformation of this venerable institution.

Fundamental rights entitled to the Constitution’s protection are those “which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this [society’s] history and tradition,’ [citations], and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice could exist if they were sacrificed, [citation].” (Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) 521 U.S. 702, 720-721 (Glucksberg); see, e.g., Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932, 940.) Moreover, an assessment whether a fundamental right or interest is at stake requires “a ‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental . . . interest. [Citations.]” (Glucksberg, supra, at p. 721; Dawn D., supra, at p. 941.)

These principles are crucial restraints upon the overreaching exercise ofjudicial authority in violation of the separation of powers. Courts have “‘always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.’ [Citation.] By extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore ‘exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field,’ [citation], lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences” of judges. (Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S. 702, 720.)

It is beyond dispute, as the Court of Appeal majority in this case persuasively indicated, that there is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state. Precisely the opposite is true. The concept of same-sex marriage was unknown in our distant past, and is novel in our recent history, because the universally understood definition of marriage has been the legal or religious union of a man and a woman.6

One state, Massachusetts, has within the past five years recognized same-sex marriage. (Goodridge, supra, 798 A.2d 941; see fn. 4, ante.) However, as the Court of Appeal majority in our case observed, “the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision establishing this right has been controversial. (See, e.g., Note, Civil Partnership in the United Kingdom and a Moderate Proposal for Change in the United States (2005) 22 Ariz. J. Internat. & Comparative L. 613, 630-631 [describing the controversy engendered by Goodridge]; see also Lewis v. Harris [(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) 875 A.2d 259, 274] [concluding from ‘the strongly negative public reactions’ to Goodridge, and similar decisions from lower courts of other states, that ‘there is not yet any public consensus favoring recognition of same-sex marriage’].) Several other states have reacted negatively by, for example, amending their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. (See Stein, Symposium on Abolishing Civil Marriage: An Introduction (2006) 27 Cardozo L.Rev. 1155, 1157, fn. 12 [noting, as of January 2006, ‘39 states [had] either passed laws or amended their constitutions (or done both) to prohibit same-sex marriages, to deny recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, and/or to deny recognition to other types of same-sex relationships’].)”

California’s history falls squarely along this nationwide spectrum, though at its more progressive end. As the majority itself explains, despite the Legislature’s passage of the DPA and other statutes pioneering gay and lesbian rights, California law has always assumed that marriage itself is between a man and a woman. In recent years, both the Legislature and the People themselves have enacted measures to make that assumption explicit. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for a conclusion that same-sex marriage is a deeply rooted California tradition.

Undaunted, the majority nonetheless claims California’s legal history asevidence of the constitutional right it espouses. According to the majority, the very fact that the Legislature has, over time, adopted progressive laws such as the DPA, thereby granting many substantial rights to gays and lesbians, constitutes “explicit official recognition” (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 68, 69) of “this state’s current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality,” i.e., “that gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 67-68, fn. omitted.) “In light of this recognition,” the majority concludes, “sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals” full equality of rights with heterosexual persons, including the right to same-sex legal unions that are fully equivalent —including in name — to those of opposite-sex partners. (Id., at p. 69; see also id., at pp. 81, 101-119.)

This analysis is seriously flawed. At the outset, it overlooks the most salient facts. The Legislature has indeed granted many rights to gay and lesbian individuals, including the right to enter same-sex legal unions with all the substantive rights and benefits of civil marriage. As the majority elsewhere acknowledges, however, our current statutory scheme, which includes an initiative measure enacted by the People, specifically reserves marriage itself for opposite-sex unions. (Fam. Code, §§ 300, 308.5.) Under these circumstances, it is difficult to see how our legislative history reflects a current community value in favor of same-sex marriage that must now be enshrined in the Constitution.7

Of even greater concern is the majority’s mode of analysis, which placesheavy reliance on statutory law to establish a constitutional right. When a pattern of legislation makes current community values clear, the majority seems to say, those values can become locked into the Constitution itself.8

Of course, only the People can amend the Constitution; the Legislature has no unilateral power to do so. (Cal. Const., art. XVIII.) However, the effect of the majority’s reasoning is to suggest that the Legislature can accomplish such amendment indirectly, whether it intends to do so or not, by reflecting current community attitudes in the laws it enacts.

The notion that legislation can become “constitutionalized” is mischievous for several reasons. As indicated above, it violates the constitutional scheme by which only the People can amend the state’s charter of government. It abrogates the legislative power to reconsider what the law should be as public debate on an issue ebbs and flows. And, for that very reason, it may discourage efforts to pass progressive laws, out of fear that such efforts will ultimately, and inadvertently, place the issue beyond the power of legislation to affect.

As applied in this case, the majority’s analysis has also given the Legislature, indirectly, a power it does not otherwise possess to thwart the People’s express legislative will. As noted above, under article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution, “[t]he Legislature may amend or repeal . . . an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.” (Italics added.) Family Code section 308.5, adopted by Proposition 22, includes no provision allowing its unilateral repeal or amendment by the Legislature.

According to the majority, however, the Legislature’s adoption of progressive laws on the subject of gay and lesbian rights, including the DPA, makes it impossible not to recognize a constitutional right to same-sex legal unions with full equivalency to opposite-sex legal unions. This development, the majority ultimately concludes, requires the invalidation of Family Code section 308.5. In other words, in the majority’s view, the Legislature’s own actions have, by indirection, caused this initiative statute to be erased from the books. To say the least, I find such a constitutional approach troubling.9

Other grounds advanced by the majority for its claim of a fundamental right are equally unpersuasive. The majority accepts plaintiffs’ unconvincing claim that they seek no new “right to same-sex marriage” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 51), but simply a recognition that the well-established right to marry one’s chosen partner is not limited to those who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex. However, by framing the issue simply as whether the undoubted right to marry is confined to opposite-sex couples, the majority mischaracterizes the entitlement plaintiffs actually claim. The majority thus begs the question and violates the requirement of “‘careful description’” that properly applies when a court is asked to break new ground in the area of substantive due process. (Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S. 702, 721-722.)

Though the majority insists otherwise, plaintiffs seek, and the majoritygrants, a new right to same-sex marriage that only recently has been urged upon our social and legal system. Because civil marriage is an institution historically defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, plaintiffs could not succeed except by convincing this court to insert in our Constitution an altered and expanded definition of marriage — one that includes same-sex partnerships for the first time. By accepting that invitation, the majority places this controversial issue beyond the realm of legislative debate and substitutes its own judgment in the matter for the considered wisdom of the People and their elected representatives.

The majority advances no persuasive reason for taking that step.

In support of its view that marriage is a constitutional entitlement withoutregard for the genders of the respective partners, the majority cites the many California and federal decisions broadly describing the basic rights of personal autonomy and family intimacy, including the right to marry, procreate, establish a home, and bring up children. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 49-65.) However, none of the cited decisions holds, or remotely suggests, that any right to marry recognized by the Constitution extends beyond the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

Certainly Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez) does not support the majority’s expansive view. There we struck down racial restrictions on the right of a man and a woman to marry. But nothing in Perez suggests an intent to alter the definition of marriage as a union of opposite-sex partners. In sum, there is no convincing basis in federal or California jurisprudence for the majority’s claim that same-sex couples have a fundamental constitutional right to marry.10

In a footnote, the majority insists that, though same-sex couples areincluded within the fundamental constitutional right to marry, the state’s absolute bans on marriages that are incestuous (Fam. Code, § 2200; see Pen. Code, § 285), or non-monogamous (Pen. Code, § 281 et seq.; Fam. Code, § 2201) are not in danger. Vaguely the majority declares that “[p]ast judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered [incestuous and polygamous] relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry. [Citations.]” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 79, fn. 52.)

Thus, the majority asserts, though a denial of same-sex marriage is no longer justified, “the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. [Citations.]” (Id, at pp. 79-80.)

The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deep rooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deep rooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

That approach creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory. Who can say that, in ten, fifteen, or twenty years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?

In no way do I equate same-sex unions with incestuous and polygamousrelationships as a matter of social policy or social acceptance. California’s adoption of the DPA makes clear that our citizens find merit in the desires of gay and lesbian couples for legal recognition of their committed partnerships.

Moreover, as I have said, I can foresee a time when the People might agree to assign the label marriage itself to such unions. It is unlikely, to say the least, that our society would ever confer such favor on incest and polygamy.

My point is that the majority’s approach has removed the sensitive issuessurrounding same-sex marriage from their proper forum — the arena of legislative resolution — and risks opening the door to similar treatment of other, less deserving, claims of a right to marry. By thus moving the policy debate from the legislative process to the court, the majority engages in faulty constitutional analysis and violates the separation of powers.

I would avoid these difficulties by confirming clearly that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That is because marriage is, as it always has been, the right of a woman and an unrelated man to marry each other.

From this conclusion, it follows, for substantive due process purposes, that the marriage statutes are valid unless unreasonable or arbitrary (see, e.g., Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 771), and are not subject to the strict scrutiny that applies when a statute infringes a fundamental right or interest. As I discuss below, California’s preservation of the traditional definition of marriage is entirely reasonable. Accordingly, I would reject plaintiffs’ due process claim.

Besides concluding that Family Code sections 300 and 308.5 are subject to strict scrutiny as an infringement on the fundamental state constitutional right to marry, the majority also independently holds that such scrutiny is required under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. This is so, the majority declares, because by withholding from same-sex legal unions the label that is applied to opposite-sex legal unions, the scheme discriminates on the basis ofsexual orientation, which the majority now deems to be a suspect classification.

I find this analysis flawed at several levels. For two reasons, I would reject plaintiffs’ equal protection claim at the threshold. And even if that were not appropriate, I disagree that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. Hence, as with the majority’s due process theory, I would not apply strict scrutiny, and would uphold the statutory scheme as reasonable. I explain my conclusions.

“The general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will besustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. [Citations.] When social or economic legislation is at issue, the Equal Protection Clause allows the States wide latitude, [citations], and the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic processes.” (Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985) 473 U.S. 432, 440, italics added (Cleburne).)

“The initial inquiry in any equal protection analysis is whether persons are ‘similarly situated for purposes of the law challenged.’ [Citation.]” (In re Lemanuel C. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 33, 47.) A statute does not violate equal protection when it recognizes real distinctions that are pertinent to the law’s legitimate aims.

(E.g., People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 527; Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 253; Coleman v. Department of Personnel Administration (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1102, 1125; Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California (1969) 71 Cal.2d 566, 578; see Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S. 432, 441.) In such cases, judicial deference to legislative choices is consistent with “our respect for the separation of powers.” (Cleburne, supra, at p. 441.)

Though the majority insists otherwise (see maj. opn., ante, at p. 83, fn. 54), I agree with Justice Corrigan that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to the valid purposes of Family Code sections 300 and 308.5. As Justice Corrigan indicates, the state has a legitimate interest in enforcing the express legislative and popular will that the traditional definition of marriage be preserved. Same-sex and opposite-sex couples cannot be similarly situated for that limited purpose, precisely because the traditional definition of marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex.

Of course, statutory classifications do not serve legitimate state interestswhen adopted for their own sake, out of animus toward a disfavored group. (E.g., Romer v. Evans (1996) 517 U.S. 620, 633, 634-635 (Romer); U. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973) 413 U.S. 528, 534; see Lawrence, supra, 539 U.S. 558, 582-583 (conc. opn. of O’Connor, J.); see also Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S. 432, 441.) Here, however, the majority itself expressly disclaims any suggestion “that the current marriage provisions were enacted with an invidious intent or purpose.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 119, fn. 73.) I therefore concur fully in Justice Corrigan’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge fails for this reason alone.

I also disagree with the majority’s premise that, by assigning different labels to same-sex and opposite-sex legal unions, the state discriminates directly on the basis of sexual orientation. The marriage statutes are facially neutral on that subject. They allow all persons, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to enter into the relationship called marriage, and they do not, by their terms, prohibit any two persons from marrying each other on the ground that one or both of the partners is gay. (Cf. Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 712-713 [statutes prohibited marriage between certain partners on the basis of their respective races].)

The marriage statutes may have a disparate impact on gay and lesbianindividuals, insofar as these laws prevent such persons from marrying, by that name, the partners they would actually choose. But, as we explained in Baluyut v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 826, a facially neutral statute that merely has a disparate effect on a particular class of persons does not violate equal protection absent a showing the law was adopted for a discriminatory purpose. In this regard, discriminatory purpose “ ‘implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. See United Jewish Organizations v. Carey [(1977)] 430 U.S. 144, 179 (concurring opinion). It implies that the decision maker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part “because of,” not merely “in spite of,” its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’ (Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney [(1979)] 442 U.S. [256,] 279.)” (Baluyut, supra, at p. 837.)

There is no evidence that when the Legislature adopted Family Codesection 300, and the People adopted Family Code section 308.5, they did so “‘“because of”’” its consequent adverse effect on gays and lesbians as a group.

On the contrary, it appears the legislation was simply intended to maintain an age old understanding of the meaning of marriage. Indeed, California’s adoption of pioneering legislation that grants gay and lesbian couples all the substantive incidents of marriage further dispels the notion that an invidious intent lurks in our statutory scheme. As indicated above, the majority itself expressly disclaims any suggestion that the laws defining marriage were passed for the purpose of discrimination. For this reason as well, I believe our equal protection analysisneed go no further.

Even if the distinction were subject to further examination under the equal protection clause, I disagree that strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of review. This is because I do not agree with the majority’s decision to hold, under current circumstances, that sexual orientation is a suspect classification.

The United States Supreme Court has never declared, for federal constitutional purposes, that a classification based on sexual orientation is entitled to any form of scrutiny beyond rational basis review. (See Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S. 432, 440-441 [recognizing race, alien, age, and national origin as suspect classifications requiring strict scrutiny review, and gender and illegitimacy as quasi-suspect classifications requiring “somewhat heightened” review].)11

Moreover, as the majority concedes, its conclusion that sexual orientation is a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny contravenes “the great majority of out-of-state decisions” — indeed, all but one of those cited by the majority. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 95, & fn. 60.)12

As the majority also notes, the issue is one of first impression in California.
I find that circumstance highly significant. Considering the current status of gays and lesbians as citizens of 21st-century California, the majority fails to persuade me we should now hold that they qualify, under our state Constitution, for the extraordinary protection accorded to suspect classes.

The concept that certain identifiable groups are entitled to extra protection under the equal protection clause stems, most basically, from the premise that because these groups are unpopular minorities, or otherwise share a history of insularity, persecution, and discrimination, and are politically powerless, they are especially susceptible to continuing abuse by the majority. Laws that single out groups in this category for different treatment are presumed to “reflect prejudice and antipathy — a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others. For these reasons, and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means,” the deference normally accorded to legislative choices does not apply. (Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S. 432, 440, italics added; see also San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 28 [noting relevance, for purposes of identification as suspect class, that group “is relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process”].)

Recognizing that the need for special constitutional protection arises from the political impotence of an insular and disfavored group, several courts holding that sexual orientation is not a suspect class have focused particularly on a determination that, in contemporary times at least, the gay and lesbian community does not lack political power. (High Tech Gays, supra, 895 F.2d 563, 574; Conaway v. Deane, supra, 932 A.2d 571, 609-614 [same-sex marriage]; Andersen v. State, supra, 138 P.3d 963, 974-975 [same].)

In California, the political emergence of the gay and lesbian community is particularly apparent. In this state, the progress achieved through democratic means — progress described in detail by the majority — demonstrates that, despite undeniable past injustice and discrimination, this group now “ ‘is obviously able to wield political power in defense of its interests.’ ” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 98, quoting the Attorney General’s brief.).

Nor are these gains so fragile and fortuitous as to require extraordinary state constitutional protection. On the contrary, the majority itself declares that recent decades have seen “a fundamental and dramatic transformation in this state’s understanding and legal treatment of gay individuals and gay couples” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 67), whereby “California has repudiated past practices and policies that denigrated the general character and morals of gay individuals” and now recognizes homosexuality as “simply one of the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity” (ibid.). Under these circumstances, I submit, gays and lesbians in this state currently lack the insularity, unpopularity, and consequent political vulnerability upon which the notion of suspect classifications is founded.

The majority insists that a determination whether a historically disfavored group is a suspect class should not depend on the group’s current political power.
Otherwise, the majority posits, “it would be impossible to justify the numerous decisions that continue to treat sex, race, and religion as suspect classes.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 99. fn. omitted.)

I do not quarrel with those decisions. At the times suspect-class status was first assigned to race, and in California to sex and religion, there were ample grounds for doing so. They may well still exist in some or all of those cases.

Moreover, I do not suggest that once a group is properly found in need ofextraordinary protection, it should later be “declassified” when circumstances change.

I only propose that, when, as here, the issue is before us as a matter of first impression, we cannot ignore current reality. In such a case, we should consider whether, despite a history of discrimination, a particular group remains so unpopular, disfavored, and susceptible to majoritarian abuse that suspect-class status is necessary to safeguard its rights. I would not draw that conclusion here.

Accordingly, I would apply the normal rational basis test to determinewhether, by granting same-sex couples all the substantive rights and benefits of marriage, but reserving the marriage label for opposite-sex unions, California’s laws violate the equal protection guarantee of the state Constitution. By that standard, I find ample grounds for the balance currently struck on this issue by both the Legislature and the People.

First, it is certainly reasonable for the Legislature, having granted same-sex couples all substantive marital rights within its power, to assign those rights a name other than marriage. After all, an initiative statute adopted by a 61.4 percent popular vote, and constitutionally immune from repeal by the Legislature, defines marriage as a union of partners of the opposite sex.

Moreover, in light of the provisions of federal law that, for purposes offederal benefits, limit the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples (1 U.S.C. § 7), California must distinguish same-sex from opposite-sex couples in administering the numerous federal-state programs that are governed by federal law. A separate nomenclature applicable to the family relationship of same-sex couples undoubtedly facilitates the administration of such programs.

Most fundamentally, the People themselves cannot be considered irrational in deciding, for the time being, that the fundamental definition of marriage, as it has universally existed until very recently, should be preserved. As the New Jersey Supreme Court observed, “We cannot escape the reality that the shared societal meaning of marriage — passed down through the common law into our statutory law — has always been the union of a man and a woman. To alter that meaning would render a profound change in the public consciousness of a social institution of ancient origin.” (Lewis v. Harris, supra, 908 A.2d 196, 922.)

If such a profound change in this ancient social institution is to occur, thePeople and their representatives, who represent the public conscience, should have the right, and the responsibility, to control the pace of that change through the democratic process. Family Code sections 300 and 308.5 serve this salutary purpose. The majority’s decision erroneously usurps it.

For all these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.