Category Archives: politics

Ron Paul On Middle East Foreign Policy and Israel

The following video presents an interview on Ron Paul’s Middle East foreign policy. Journalist Jack Hunter, who copnducted the interview, focused on Paul position concerning Israel. It is rather enlightening considering the the esclusion of Paul to the recent Republican Jewish Coalition presidentail debate. A second video offers additional perspective at least one possible reason why some establishment Republicans are both distorting Paul’s policy statements, like his statement about Isael’s creation of Hamas, and his the opposition’s motivation. It should be further noted that Paul actually credited the United State’s government using Israel as a proxy in the creation of Hamas just like it did Al Queda and others. (Watch this video of Paul’s statement to Congress.)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhAGZIv22Us?rel=0&w=420&h=315]

Did you hear the reason? Governments and special interest groups like Hamas have no reason or motivation to stop the endless conflict. This means they have reason and motivation to foment conflict: money and power. That is our tax dollars and the their authorized empowerment for conflict, which as you will see is sourced by our federal government’s dictates of power.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjVOu3BWIqE?rel=0&w=420&h=315]

If you would like to read a good article on other aspects of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, read “Ron Paul Counters Obama Policy on Israel, Middle East” by Thomas R. Eddlem.

Open letter to Citizens for Community Values

Mr. Phil Burress/Mr. Seth Morgan,

Seth, from your letter, can I assume Ron Paul was not “seriously considered” by those attended the Christian evangelical endorsement meeting in Texas. Was Dr. Paul even invited? If you intentionally excluded him, you are doing so at the peril of future generations of Americans. There is no candidate more conservatuive than Ron Paul, and what sets him apart from the other candidates is his advocacy for the Constitution and individual rights, not to mention the tried and true Republican value that individuals should be personally responsible for the consequences of their actions. I know there are a lot of folks from the right and left who want to dictate the behavior of others, but you can’t have it both ways. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Founders believed that as long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others, the government has no business in our personal affairs.

And to speak to electability…….did you know that Ron Paul finished 2nd in the New Hampshire Democrat primary! Imagine the draw he would have on Independents and Democrats in the general election where no voters are compelled to vote for their own-party candidates.

Respectfully,

John Mitchel, LtCol, USAF (Ret)

Homosexual Lobby Group Funded Mostly by Governments

By Austin Ruse

(WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) European human rights lawyer J.C. von Krempach has taken a close look at the funding stream of the International Gay and Lesbian Association – Europe (ILGA) and concluded that most of their money comes from governments. Writing in the foreign policy blog Turtle Bay and Beyond, von Krempach found a vast majority of ILGA’s funds come from just two governmental entities, the European Commission and the Dutch government.

ILGA is an advocacy group promoting homosexual rights. They were notoriously denied UN accreditation for years because of their connection to groups that promote pedophilia. The NGO Committee of the UN Economic and Social Council consistently rejected ILGA until the Economic and Social Council, led by European countries, overruled their decision.

Among the requirements for UN NGO accreditation is “the major portion of the organization’s funds should be derived from contributions from national affiliates, individual members, or other non-governmental components.”

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accredited to the United Nations must show actual people or non-profits, such as foundations, fund them. The UN holds that if their money comes mostly from governments that would make them governmental entities.

The UN included “civil society” to represent people independent from governmental intrusion, not to be an arm of government or a deceptive front for political officials. “Civil society” is comprised of voluntary social relationships and civic organizations and institutions, distinct from the state and market.

Von Krempach discovered that in the year just ended, the European Commission, an intergovernmental entity, provided fully 68% of ILGA’s budget. The Dutch government provided an additional €50,000 bringing ILGA’s governmental funding up to 71%. The rest of ILGA’s funding comes from left-wing donors George Soros, Sigrid Rausing, and one anonymous donor.

Von Krempach also looked at the organization’s budget forecast for 2012 and found a total income of €1,950,000 of which €1 million come from the European Commission and €334,000 come from the Dutch government. Von Krempach writes, “This raises questions with regard to ILGA-Europe’s accreditation to the UN Economic and Social Council.”

Von Krempach also points out the anomaly of the European Commission being the largest sole funding source for a group set up to lobby the European Commission and the European Parliament. He says this is basically the European Institutions lobbying itself.

In light of this new information, it is expected the UN NGO Committee will take up ILGA’s accreditation once more. There is a great deal of bad blood at the UN on the question of the homosexual agenda. European nations are forcing extremist homosexual groups upon the UN NGO Committee. Other governments have taken up the cause of making homosexual activity a human right enforced by international law.

A document called the Yogyakarta Principles, written in part by UN bureaucrats, claims that “sexual orientation and gender identity” are already part of international law. A solid bloc of 80+ nations consistently stops this phantom re-interpretation of UN treaties from actually happening.

In recent weeks the US government announced that advancing the homosexual agenda would be one of its top foreign policy priorities, directing all US government entities that do business overseas to make this agenda a priority.

Austin Ruse is President of C-FAM whose article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Right of Churches to Keep Government Out of Hiring, Firing Decisions

(WASHINGTON, DC) In a unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that churches have a First Amendment right to keep the government out of its employment decisions. The case tested the limits of “ministerial exception,” a First Amendment doctrine that bars many employment-related lawsuits brought against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions. In deciding the case, the Court determined that the ministerial exception can be applied to a teacher at a religious elementary school who teaches the full secular curriculum, but also teaches daily religion classes, is a commissioned minister and regularly leads students in prayer and worship. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a “friend of the court” brief in the case on behalf of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, asking the Court to adopt a standard that defers to the church’s determination of whether and how an employee is important to the spiritual mission of the church.

The Supreme Court opinion and The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. are available at www.rutherford.org.

“This is an important victory for religious freedom. When a church is forced to make employment decisions based on a lawsuit rather than spiritual needs, the end result is that its core activities and spiritual message are inevitably altered in order to accommodate or protect against government pressures or expectations,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “Churches must be free to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church governance as well as those of faith and doctrine.”

The case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. relates to an employment claim made by Cheryl Perich, who was hired as a “called” teacher for Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in 2000. As a “called” teacher, Perich had to be recommended for appointment by the church’s elders and board of directors. Perich taught math, language arts, social studies, science, gym, art and music. She also taught a religion class four days per week (two hours total), attended chapel with her class once a week and led chapel services twice a year. In June 2004, Perich fell ill, was placed on disability and eventually was diagnosed with narcolepsy. When the school began the process of cutting ties with Perich because she could not perform her duties, Perich brought a claim against the school under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The claim was dismissed under the “ministerial exception” doctrine, which precludes courts from becoming involved in claims that would decide the employment relationship of “ministerial” employees. However, the dismissal was overturned on appeal by the Sixth Circuit.

In filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute asked the Court to reject the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that whether an employee is a “minister” for purposes of this exemption depends on whether “the employee’s primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious ritual and worship.”

Eric Spicer (for State Representative) Should Not Go Unchallenged

By Sid Denton

Eric Spicer has been boasting that he is the only one running for State Representative that has met both private and public payrolls. This must not go unchallenged.

I knew Eric’s father for many years and the business that Eric is talking about is the carwash on Fairfield Rd. in Beavercreek. His father built the carwash and was the owner of it. Eric was put in charge of it so he would have a job. Like all good fathers, he worried about Eric’s ability to support himself and right to the end, he was putting money by the hands full in it just to keep it afloat. Under Eric’s leadership, that business either went out of business or came very close to it before they dumped it. That’s not meeting a payroll that’s just the redistribution of his fathers’ money. As for his ability to run the Company, just ask those that had to sue him for not paying them. Court records show it to be in the tens of thousands and in some cases well over one hundred thousand dollars.

As for his assertion that he meets a public payroll, it is just one of the many ways that he shows his total disregard for taxpayers’ money. Because he by definition does not meet a payroll, he is just redistributing our money not his and when his union buddies want more money he comes to us to get more. I say his union buddies because he made it clear in an article that he wrote for the union where he stood. Now he is entitled to his position on unions. What he is not entitled to is thinking that the voters are foolish enough to believe that he can represent us the Republican voters and then come back to his union buddies. One of us will come out on the losing side of that deal and I’m sure we all know which one that will be. The Republican votes not his union buds.

But Eric like so many other liberals can’t just wait for something to come up where he can help the rank and file and Democrat Party. He has said on more then one occasion that he intends to keep his job with the Sheriffs Department. If elected to be our State Representative, he has said that his boss Sheriff Gene Fisher is willing to make allowances for him going to Columbus several times a week. Now either Sheriff Fisher is way over staffed or the contribution that Eric Spicer makes to his day-to-day operation is so minimal that it will go unnoticed. Whatever the case, we the Taxpayer–as is so often the case–will be the big losers. Not to mention what we would lose if he were to become our State Representative; then we lose on two fronts and paying for both of them. Let us not forget the fact that both the Sheriff Gene Fisher and Capt. Eric Spicer are probably in violation of the Federal Hatch Act, which doesn’t allow them to run or be engaged in a partisan campaign.

Why is it that Eric Spicer is so fast to attach guilt to others with out all the facts being presented? Could it be his attempt to avoid attention being pointed at himself about the fact that he was charged with Domestic Violence by his ex wife? Let us also not forget to ask him about his being charged with being a deadbeat Dad, after all these things go to caricature. By State law when a police officer is charged with such a crime, his gun is supposed to be taken away from him. In the Greene County Sheriffs Department, you are just moved up to Captain and then get the case expunged. There just doesn’t seem enough ways to count how often we the Taxpayer can be taken advantage of. But give a liberal like Eric and his Union Buds enough idle time and they will come up with new ways.

Obama Formally Requests $1.2 Trillion Hike in Borrowing Limit

President Barack Obama asked Congress Thursday for another $1.2 trillion increase in the nation’s debt limit, a request that is largely a formality but carries election-year implications. It was the third and final such request the president was allowed under a deal the White House reached with lawmakers in August to prevent a government default.

Congress has 15 days to reject the president’s request. Read more

The American Deficit: Where Do We Go from Here?

By Marian Wright Edelman

“There is nothing new about poverty. What is new, however, is that we now have the resources to get rid of it. Not too many years ago, Dr. Kirtley Mather, a Harvard geologist, wrote a book entitled Enough and to Spare. He set forth the basic theme that famine is wholly unnecessary in the modern world. Today, therefore, the question on the agenda must read: Why should there be hunger and privation in any land, in any city, at any table, when man has the resources and the scientific know-how to provide all mankind with the basic necessities of life?”

Forty-five years ago this month, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took a very rare sabbatical at an isolated house in Jamaica far away from telephones and the constant pressures of his life as a very public civil rights leader to write what would become his last book: Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? The excerpt above feels as though it could have been written yesterday. Professor Mather’s book arguing that mankind had achieved the ability to move beyond famine was published in 1944, but in 2012, despite nearly seventy more years of unparalleled advances both in scientific and technological capability and in global resources and wealth, hunger and want are still rampant. Back then Dr. King wrote:

“There is no deficit in human resources; the deficit is in human will… The well-off and the secure have too often become indifferent and oblivious to the poverty and deprivation in their midst. The poor in our countries have been shut out of our minds, and driven from the mainstream of our societies, because we have allowed them to become invisible. Ultimately a great nation is a compassionate nation. No individual or nation can be great if it does not have a concern for ‘the least of these.'”

When Dr. King died in 1968 calling for a Poor People’s Campaign, there were 25.4 million poor Americans, including 11 million poor children. Today there are more than 46 million Americans living in poverty, including 16.4 million poor children. The question of why we still allow poverty and hunger to exist-and the answer-remain the same: The deficit in human will.

As another political season gets into full swing in the United States, a new crop of candidates are making a lot of promises about their competing visions of America. But how many TV debates are focusing on whether America is a compassionate nation? How many stump speeches are saying how shameful it is that last year more Americans relied on food stamps to eat than at any time since the program began in 1939? How many are responding to Occupy Wall Street’s outcry about the morally obscene gulf between rich and poor in our nation where the 400 highest income earners made as much as the combined tax revenues of 22 states in 2008? Which PACs are running commercials to remind Americans that we are normalizing poverty, child hunger, and homelessness, and creating historic income, wealth, and mobility gaps that threaten to destroy the American dream? If the qualification for individual and national greatness is genuine concern for the ‘least of these,’ too many of our political leaders and citizens are failing.

As our nation pauses for the national holiday celebrating Dr. King’s birthday, I hope we will not spend it just listening to speeches praising Dr. King but instead will heed and act on his words.

When will we hear what Dr. King declared in 1967-“the time has come for an all-out world war against poverty”-and work to win the first victory right here at home in the richest nation on earth? Is it possible to overcome our deficit in human will, or is the fact that we have already squandered so much time and still have so far to go a reason to give up?

Dr. King’s voice guides us if we are willing to take the next step and use it as a road map for action. In Where Do We Go from Here?, as he reflected on what direction the struggle for civil rights and social justice should take next, he shared a story about the need to commit to difficult struggles for the long haul. Dr. King described a flight he had taken from New York to London years earlier in an older propeller airplane. The trip took nine and a half hours, but on the way home, the crew announced the flight from London back to New York would take twelve and a half. When the pilot came out to visit the cabin, Dr. King asked him why. “‘You must understand about the winds,’ he said. ‘When we leave New York, a strong tail wind is in our favor, but when we return, a strong head wind is against us.’ Then he added, ‘Don’t worry. These four engines are capable of battling the winds.'”

Dr. King concluded: “In any social revolution there are times when the tail winds of triumph and fulfillment favor us, and other times when strong head winds of disappointment and setbacks beat against us relentlessly. We must not permit adverse winds to overwhelm us as we journey across life’s mighty Atlantic; we must be sustained by our engines of courage in spite of the winds. This refusal to be stopped, this ‘courage to be,’ this determination to go on ‘in spite of’ is the hallmark of any great movement.”

Today we need to rev up our engines of courage, battle against the fierce head winds of economic downturn, unemployment, poverty, and greed that threaten to undo the progress of the last fifty years, and stay true to the course Dr. King set for us. Now is the time to end child poverty and hunger in America.

[Read King’s 1967 speech titled Were Do We Go From Here?]

Marian Wright Edelman is President of the Children’s Defense Fund whose Leave No Child Behind® mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more information go to www.childrensdefense.org.

Clash of Competing Rights Claims Raises Free Speech Concerns: Analysis

By Piero Tozzi, J.D.

(NEW YORK C-FAM) Tension between free speech advocacy and efforts to curb “hate speech” has arisen over the past year as the result of recent initiatives at the United Nations (UN) and by the Obama administration.

Freedom of opinion and expression have long been recognized as fundamental, and a recent UN Human Rights Committee “General Comment” affirmed these twin liberties as “the foundation stone for every free and democratic society.”

Yet while heralding these bedrock rights, others are seeking to curtail criticism of homosexual behavior and shelter certain religions from “defamation.” Such efforts also butt against religious liberty and conscience rights, two other bright constellations in the firmament of fundamental rights.

The tension became evident in a 2010 initiative by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which sought to reconcile broad free speech protections found in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) with article 20, which calls upon governments to limit “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Though the ICCPR is largely a charter of “negative rights” protecting liberties from government intrusion, article 20 is anomalous, calling for affirmative governmental action. Concern over Article 20’s compatibility with domestic constitutional guarantees caused the United States (US) and other western governments to opt out from this particular article at the time of the ICCPR’s ratification.

Critics noted that in calling for dialogue on the interplay between free speech and “hate speech”, the OCHCR conspicuously misquoted the text of Article 20, stating that it banned “incitement of hatred” – a lowered standard that could cause provocative speech which did not incite violence to be banned. Such concern is not merely theoretical, as a number of Western nations once tolerant of the free exchange of ideas have enacted strictures curbing non-violent speech deemed critical of certain groups and individuals.

For example, Germany’s criminal code punishes “insults” – defined as “an illegal attack on the honor of another person by intentionally showing disrespect or no respect at all” – with up to one year’s imprisonment.

Fortunately, free-speech stalwarts such as the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank La Rue, pushed back, and the General Comment on ICCPR article 19 issued last September is largely protective of free expression while giving short shrift to article 20.

How such interpretations work in practice is another matter, however. “Workshops” on the interplay of the two articles have taken place in a number of cities around the world, including Vienna and Santiago de Chile. At the latter, most panelists sought to import “sexual orientation,” a concept absent from the ICCPR, as a category equivalent to the specified categories of nationality, race, and religion.

The cheerleading at the Santiago meeting in favor of “sexual orientation” speech restrictions by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Heiner Bielfeldt, was especially disconcerting. It indicated lack of awareness or concern over heavy-handed state restrictions on legitimate religion-based criticism of homosexual behavior by the rapporteur tasked with speaking out in defense of religious liberties.

Attempts to punish religious speech include Sweden’s criminal prosecution of a Pentecostal pastor for a sermon he gave in church critical of homosexual behavior and human rights proceedings in Canada against a pastor who had written a letter to a newspaper critical of the “homosexual agenda” and its threat to “innocent children and youth.” A human rights panel held the cleric to have violated a provincial statute that prohibited speech “likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt” due to the “sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.”

Global concern over the issue has been heightened by the Obama administration’s initiative, announced last month, that would make promotion of the rights of “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender” persons a high US foreign policy priority. US embassies across the globe are now tasked with advocating repeal of anti-sodomy laws in nations which have them and with monitoring groups, including religious groups, deemed opposed to this agenda.

Piero A. Tozzi is a Senior Fellow at the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

UN Agencies Sitting on Billions in Cash Reserves, Refuse Full Compliance with Auditors

By Wendy Wright

(NEW YORK C-FAM) A confidential audit of UNICEF and UNFPA found “gross” failures in transparency and surprisingly billions of dollars of unspent cash. Both agencies refused to disclose information on staff costs and travel. The auditor found that donors have “little knowledge regarding the ultimate destiny” of funds.

Fox News editor George Russell studied the yet-to-be-disclosed two-volume draft report written by the consulting firm IDC at the request of the government of Norway. UNFPA and UNICEF refused to answer Fox News’ questions, other than claiming the cash reserves were earmarked for future work on programs.

The audit of five UN agencies sought to discover “where does the money go.” The report found UNFPA and UNICEF had $3.2 billion in cash in 2009. UNICEF, which is free to spend money where it wants despite the project that earned it, gained $109 million in interest income in 2008. The United Nations Development Program had $5 billion in cash reserves, invested large amounts on bonds, and increased personnel costs 80% in the last decade. These together with the World Food Program (which alone was judged transparent and its performance “impressive”) had $12.2 billion in unspent cash. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees did not have a cash stockpile but refused to disclose spending, particularly on staff costs.

The report found UNFPA was unable, or unwilling, to account for $200 million a year funneled to governments and non-governmental groups. It refused to disclose details of wages, salaries, travel, consultant costs, and other items. The report declared, “UNFPA fails grossly” in its official commitment to transparency.

Details on UNICEF’s overhead were lacking, and scraps of information on expenditures make “it difficult to track use of funds from headquarters down to the ultimate beneficiaries on the ground.” It, too, could not account for expenditures within countries, which is the majority of its spending, earning a designation of “gross failure.”

Several UN agencies are increasingly focusing on giving policy advice and advocacy, and relying on others to deliver goods and services. They form vague strategic plans at headquarters that defy tracking outcomes or progress within countries. The UN refugee agency delegates most of its program activities to “implementing partners” that do the work on the ground.

The study warned that the hoard of money “implies that substantial donor funding is not being used for development purposes.” Donors may be reluctant to fund the UN until the “reserves are utilized.”

For years UN agencies have resisted divulging their finances. Government officials have suspected the lack of transparency hides lavish salaries and expensive travel. Diverting funds to non-governmental groups provides a coterie of accomplices who defend the UN agencies.

Shadowy accounting often signals systemic waste, fraud and abuse. In a moment of candor in 2007, a UNFPA executive boasted at a conference that, though the agency was barred from directly funding abortion, it disburses money to abortion providers.

An examination of UNFPA annual reports finds its budget ballooned from $249.9 million in 1999 to $870 million in 2010. Despite its vast resources and audit failure, in November it urged leaders to “galvanize greater political, financial support for family planning.”

Wendy Wright is Interim Director of C-FAM whose article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

The Ten Commandments: Ancient and Modern

Western civilization and its legal heritage was in part built upon the solid rock of Ten Commandments. These ten laws were first etched into a tablet of stone by the God. After Moses had broke them, God made Moses chisel those laws into another set of stone tablets, according to the Bible (see chapter 20 of Exodus and 5 of Dueteronomy).

Nearly all of the writings that informed our nations founding refered to the Ten Commandments are foundation of all law. Even Blackstone’s Commentary on English Common Law stated the same. Some readers may not know that the Commentary was among the primary legal sources for all American lawyers before and after the Revolution.

Since the beginning of the 20th Century, many changes have occurred. Changes of laws, beliefs, values and practices have reciprocated in creating a new version of the Ten Commandments.

In a recent article, Dallas Henry delineated this modern version of Ten Commandments that American citizens are expected to live. The modern Ten Commandments are as follows:

Commandment #1: “Thou shalt love thyself with all thy heart and all thy mind and with all thy soul and with all thy strength.” We can all remember the old mantras, “To thine own self, be true.” “Look out for #1.”

Commandment #2: “Let us recognize the good in all religions.” Being that our 21st century key words are diversity, plurality and acceptance, the second commandment is politically correct.

Commandment #3: “Thou shalt revere the highly honored name of Darwin.

Commandment #4: “ Honor your sexuality. Flaunt thy sensual self. Promote thy perversions and protect them. Strut thy seductiveness. Propagate thy perversity. Take thy degeneracy public (television, radio, movies). Show the world that thou art perverse and proud of it. And hate and revile those who dare to call your perversity sin.”

Commandment #5: “Honor thy mother earth . . . Thou shalt eat no meat, i.e., no beef, no wild game, no fowl or fish”

Commandment #6: “Thou shalt not kill animals, birds or fish. Thou shalt not execute criminals, including robbers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers or terrorists. Only shalt thou kill human embryos and babies in that they have committed the horrific crime of being an inconvenience to thy lifestyle. Babies only shalt thou kill and human embryos are to be sacrificed on the sacred altar of scientific research.”

Commandment #7: “Thou shalt not forbid marriage to anyone”

Commandments #8 and #9: “Thou shalt not condemn. Who are you to condemn another for his lifestyle or sexual preferences? Thou shalt not criticize or judge. Let’s make it inclusive: Thou shalt tolerate everything except Bible believing Christianity. That cannot be tolerated because it’s narrow minded and bigoted. Those Bible believers are totally unacceptable and are not to be condoned.”

Commandment #10: “Thou shalt recognize no absolute truth.” Empiricism, naturalism, and science has consistnently proven konwledge is changeable and, therefore, truth is relative to facts.

This blogger is of the opinion that Henry’s view is too narrow. The scope of these “politically correct” commandments, as he calls them, encompass all nations and cultures. These laws have been given by which all global citizens are to live. The Creator of universe may not have commanded them but the global powers that be certainly have.

To read Dallas Henry’s commentary on both sets of 10 Commandments, click here.