Remembering those who served
Perspicacity Press: Fostering Freedom by Bringing Clarity, Acuity and Veracity to Vital Issues and Events
HOME  |  ABOUT US  |  CONTACT US 

Obama − a Christian or a Muslim?
And Does It Matter?



Rand Green
Yosemite Valley
 

 
 

THE TIMING of the release of a study by Pew Research Center on August 19, 2010, showing that "a growing number of Americans say Obama is a Muslim" is surely no accident. Speculations to that effect have been floating around since Barack Hussein Obama first began receiving national attention less than four years ago as a presidential candidate, but have intensified in recent weeks, an observable phenomenon Pew no doubt noticed and wanted to document statistically.

According to Pew, "a substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined." Nearly one in five Americans now believe him to be a Muslim, whereas just over one in 10 thought so in March 2009. More than 40 percent say they don't know what his religion is, up sharply from March 2009, and the number of Americans who regard Obama as a Christian has dropped from 47 percent to 34 percent.

So − who is correct? Is Obama a Christian or a Muslim? Or something else altogether?

Interestingly and tellingly, although the Pew report presented the data objectively without making a judgment as to which opinions were correct, nearly every news report on the Pew study used virtually identical language in editorializing the statistics: "Growing number incorrectly call Obama Muslim." "Poll: One In Five Americans Incorrectly Call Obama Muslim." "Survey showed that 18 percent of the public incorrectly believes that the president adheres to Islam." "A growing number of Americans incorrectly believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim." Even Fox ("We report, you decide") News decided for its audience that those who think Obama is a Muslim are incorrect.

Only Clarence Page, columnist for Tribune Media Services, it seems, did any original thinking by at least coming up with a synonym for incorrect. He declared that since Obama's inauguration, "the number of people who believe — wrongly — that he is a Muslim actually has increased" (emphasis added) and concluded that Americans are "getting dumber." He further suggested that those who "weren't sure of Obama's religion" are among the "least informed, least-engaged and most emotionally driven voters" and that it is people such as they who usually cast the deciding votes in close elections, "heaven help us."

I beg to differ with Mr. Page. I know a great many people who strongly suspect that Obama is a "closet" Muslim, and they happen to be among the most intelligent, best-informed and most engaged voters in the country. They are well aware that the President identifies himself as a Christian and has had a long affiliation with a church identifying itself as Christian. And yet it appears that many are increasingly finding reason to wonder about the sincerity of his averment.

The fact that Obama claims to be Christian is not, in itself, proof positive that he is. Obama claims a lot of things that "ain't necessarily so," to borrow a line from a Gershwin tune. As far as I am concerned, if he says he's a Christian, it is not my place to judge. I will leave that to God. But that does not mean, in the absence of credible empirical evidence, that I am obliged to take him at his word and assert, unequivocally, that I know he indeed is, indeed, a genuine Christian.

There are people who are Christian in name only, and for a variety of reasons. There are social Christians, for example. And then there are strategic Christians. Among the latter are politicians who feign Christian piety to enhance their electability, and also secular humanist "progressives" who pretend to have found Christ in order to infiltrate Christian churches and other institutions and move them toward the left, or to provide themselves with a more credible and socially acceptable podium for their activism. I do not know whether Obama fits any of those categories, but neither do I know for a certainty that he does not.

I must say in all truthfulness that after extensive research on the subject, I do not know what Obama's real religious beliefs are, if in fact he has any. And I find it no wonder that there is so much uncertainty, confusion, and divergence of opinion on the subject among even the best-informed of the American populace. His background (what is known of it), his words, and his actions send mixed signals.

I invoke here the well-known quip by Jack Welch, which I think is entirely appropriate to the situation: "If you're not confused, you don't know what's going on."

Is Obama Muslim? Obviously, he is not an openly practicing Muslim, and I personally am inclined to doubt that he is, as some think, a true, believing "closet" Muslim, secretly devoting his life to Allah and masquerading as a Christian in order to bring the United States under a global caliphate in which Shari'ah (or Sharia) law supersedes the Constitution. But I will not be so pompous as to state, emphatically, that those who do think so are incorrect, or to declare them stupid. I think they're probably wrong, but based on Obama's own behavior, they've got good reason to wonder.

However, Obama indisputably had a Muslim background and Muslim roots. His father and stepfather were Muslim. He still has Muslim relatives. As a child, he lived several years in a Muslim country and for a time attended a Muslim school, as well as a Catholic school where the school records list him as a Muslim, and studied the Koran. He has said he thinks the sweetest sound on earth is the Muslim call to prayer in the evening, which he can recite in flawless Arabic. Can't imagine why any informed person with any intelligence could possibly think he might at one time have actually been a Muslim.

Moreover, it is clear — and increasingly so — that Obama, although not now a practicing Muslim, consistently demonstrates that he is, on balance, far more sympathetic to Muslims than to Christians or to Jews.

" I, for one, would much rather have a Muslim president who believes in freedom and limited government and rule of law and the original intent of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights than a non-Muslim president, Christian or otherwise, who does not. And this president, whatever his religious affirmation, does not."

Although nominally a Christian, Obama has consistently, since his inauguration, heaped praises on Islam while repeatedly making snide remarks about Christians — as when, speaking to liberal elites in San Francisco, he ridiculed Midwestern Christians for clinging bitterly to their religion.

He has appointed an astonishing number of people to various federal posts who have anti-Christian  agendas.

He has taken actions preferentially favorable to Muslims in the United States and to Muslim nations throughout the world, including sworn enemies of the United States and Israel, historically one of America's closest allies and the only real democracy in the Middle East, often to the detriment of U.S. interests.

Moreover, he vowed in his book Audacity of Hope that if things get "ugly" between Muslims non-Muslims in the United States, he will side with the Muslims (more on this further down), and he has demonstrated that partiality already by some of his recent actions.

Why would he do these things if he is not, himself a Muslim? The answer to that is actually quite simple.

Obama is, first and foremost, a radical Leftist. Let the debate rage about whether he is Marxist, socialist, or some variation, iteration or permutation thereof; he is a radical Leftist. Evidence of that fact has been piling up daily since his inauguration. And as with other radical Leftists, he seeks to fundamentally transform the United States. The Left despises the traditional American institutions that so many of us cherish. Those of us who are determined to defend and preserve those institutions are viewed by the Left as an enemy to be defeated or disempowered, so that the institutions we love can be abolished and society made, as they believe, more "fair" to everyone.

Even though there are significant ideological incompatibilities between Islam and the Left, Obama and other Leftists see several advantages in a strategic alliance with Muslims in their campaign to weaken and destroy our traditional American institutions.

When Obama said during his presidential campaign that he wanted to fundamentally change America, he wasn't kidding. He and his Leftist supporters despise American exceptionalism, American prosperity and American hegemony, and they despise the fundamental, foundational principles laid down by our Founding Fathers that have made the United States a great, powerful and prosperous nation. They think it fundamentally unfair and unjust our competitive economy allows some people to become more successful than others. When they talk about redistributing wealth, they don't just mean within the United States; they mean globally. Since by global standards even the poorest Americans live like kings, the worldwide economic leveling they seek will greatly impoverish everyone in this country − except, of course, the elites who would be, as in every socialist society, exempted.

One of the favorite strategies of the Left has always been to create divisiveness within a society, pitting race against race, rich against poor, workers against their employers, one region against another, one religion against another, and then making it sound as though they are on the side of the "oppressed." As part of that strategy, the Left is exploiting those Muslims within the United States who are loyal, patriotic American citizens who respect our laws and wish us no harm, by making them believe that everyone in the country except those who support the radical Obama agenda is a racist, xenophobic, white supremacist, religious bigot who is just looking for a chance to don a hood and toss a bomb into a mosque. Well, we're not like that. But by painting us that way, Obama and his Leftist minions can instill fear, distrust and defensive posture into the entire Muslim community, while appearing to be taking the high road.

But the Left also knows that there are great many immoderate Muslims around the world, and some even within our own country, to whom Islam is not just a religion but a political movement focused on world domination, who view the United States as "the great Satan" and seek our demise — or, more accurately, our dhimmitude — the pursuit of which they see as a religious duty, whether achieved by violence, intimidation, or subterfuge. With them, the Left shares a common enemy — us!

Surely the Leftists must realize that just as they are using Muslims, both moderate and immoderate, to further their agenda, they are also being used by radical Islamists who are eager for the American Left to help weaken the United States to the point that it is ripe for the picking. It is a mutually advantageous alliance, up to a point. Speculating about the end game is a topic for another time.

But meanwhile, you can be sure that any Muslim, foreign or domestic, who supports the Obama agenda — no, let me rephrase that: anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who understands the Obama agenda and still supports it — is no moderate, because the Obama agenda is not moderate. It is radical. In the end, therefore, it is really of little consequence to his presidency whether Obama is a Muslim or not; he remains a radical with an agenda to render the U.S. Constitution obsolete (or distort it beyond recognition) and to create an America far different from the one our forefathers fought and died to bring about, to preserve, and to pass on to future generations.

I, for one, would much rather have a Muslim president who believes in freedom and limited government and rule of law and the original intent of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights than a non-Muslim president, Christian or otherwise, who does not. And this president, whatever his religious affirmation, does not.

It is important to reemphasize that there are Muslims in the United States (many, I hope) who are patriotic, freedom-loving Americans, and who do not seek the imposition of Shari'ah law on this country by violence or any other means. In know this is so because I have had close associations with some of them and have heard them arguing the point with more radical members of their own family. I am aware that there are also some Muslims elsewhere in the world of similar mind. I once had hopes that they were the majority and their more moderate voices would prevail in Islam's internal debate. But those with the courage to speak out have been disappointingly few in number, while the voices demanding that no one be allowed to utter anything negative about Islam have proliferated. Over the last few years I have come reluctantly to realize that many, perhaps most of the world's Muslims, and particularly the most powerful of the Muslim clerics, are anything but moderate and will shed no tears if every "infidel" in the United States is either slaughtered or forced into subservience. If that ever happens, hundreds of millions of not-so-moderate Muslim will dance in the streets. In the world of Islam circa 2010, radical rules.

Under Shari'ah law, criticizing Islam or Mohammed is forbidden. To Muslim radicals, that prohibition applies not just to Muslims but to everyone, and they are seeking in the United States and elsewhere, with considerable success, to supplant freedom of speech with legal proscriptions on anything Muslims might deem offensive.

One of the many examples of this in the United States is a case reported by World Net Daily on Oct. 1, 2009, in which a state bureaucrat in Maine imposed a $4,000 fine on Christian Action Network for pointing out in a fund raising letter that "some public schools were promoting Islam by providing instruction on the Five Pillars of Islam and the Quran [or Koran]." That letter, to the state agency, constituted "an inflammatory, anti-Muslim message" and was, therefore, a violation of the law.

Shari'ah is here, my friends, and already in too many instances, it is superseding the bill of rights. Muslims, atheists, secularists, artists, celebrities, politicians, academics and the liberal press can offend Christians, and Jews as well, with impunity. That kind of hate speech is protected. But say anything about Islam that some thin-skinned Islamist or some cowering government official, bureaucrat, school official or judge might deem offensive to Islam and you risk being fired, fined, expelled or incarcerated.

And the problem is that whether Obama is a Muslim or not, he has demonstrated that he, like other Leftists, is sympathetic to that infringement on our freedom of speech.

As one example of that new political correctness, an Associated Press story appearing, among other places, in the Dallas News on April 8, 2010, stated that "President Barack Obama's advisers plan to remove terms such as 'Islamic radicalism' from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say."

Raymond Ibrahim of Pajamas Media, in a May 10, 2010 piece, asked, "How, exactly, does the use of terms such as 'Islamic radicalism' indicate that the U.S. views 'Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism'? It is the height of oversensitivity to think that the so-called 'Muslim street' can be antagonized by (ultimately accurate) words in technical U.S. documents — documents they don’t know or care about — especially since the Arabic media itself often employs such terms. Surely we can use 'Islamic radicalism' to define, well, Islamic radicals, without simultaneously viewing all Muslims 'through the lens of terrorism'? Just as surely as we can use words like 'Nazism' to define white supremacists, without viewing all whites through the lens of racism?" A good question. But many Leftists of color tend to do just that.

In another example, an invitation to Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Evangelist Billy Graham, to speak at a Christian prayer service at the Pentagon during the National Day of Prayer on May 6, 2010, was withdrawn two weeks before the event because the Army deemed that his appearance might offend Muslims. The Obama administration promised to "look into" the matter but has since been silent on the subject, and Rev. Franklin told NewsMax on May 3, "I certainly believe that it was people in [the Obama] administration that said no."

Although President Obama signed a proclamation recognizing National Day of Prayer, he chose not to have even a non-denominational Day of Prayer observance at the White House either this year or last year, in contrast to three of the previous four presidents. (Go ahead, take a guess.)

But a state dinner in the White House to celebrate the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan, last year and again this year, was another matter. At the 2009 affair, held September 1, he referred to Islam as "a great religion … committed to justice and progress."

On that occasion, he said, "Tonight's iftar is a ritual that is also being carried out this Ramadan at kitchen tables and mosques in all 50 states." At least he has finally learned how many states there are in the United States. "Islam, as we know, is part of America," he continued. "And like the broader American citizenry, the American Muslim community is one of extraordinary dynamism and diversity — with families that stretch back generations and more recent immigrants; with Muslims of countless races and ethnicities, and with roots in every corner of the world. Indeed, the contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country. American Muslims are successful in business and entertainment; in the arts and athletics; in science and in medicine. Above all, they are successful parents, good neighbors, and active citizens."

I am sure that is a fitting tribute to many American Muslims. But I ask: Has Barack Hussein Obama ever lavished such praise on the contribution of, say, Jews, to this country? Or Catholics? Or Presbyterians? Or Greek Orthodox? Or Methodists? Or Mormons? Or Mennonites? Or Buddhists, or Sikhs, or Hindus? In a word: Nope.

Ask yourself why.

Ask yourself why the President of the United States of America would instruct the head of the National Space and Aeronautic Administration, Charles Bolden, that his "foremost" mission as the agency's new administrator was to help Muslim nations "feel good about their historic contribution to science."

On April 26, 2010, as reported by the Turkish publication Hurriyet Daily News, "Obama hosted a summit, bringing together over 250 Muslim entrepreneurs from 56 countries, including Turkey." He "announced a series of new partnerships and initiatives in his speech. These include launching several new exchange programs and bringing more entrepreneurs from Muslim-majority countries into touch with U.S. businesses."

What other religious, ethnic or cultural group has he ever singled out for such opportunities?

In the president's Cairo speech, June 6, 2009, he spoke of a "partnership between America and Islam." Referring to that speech, an Aug. 17, 2010, post on ResistNet.com raises an interesting question: Why would the United States form partnerships with Islam, rather than with Islamic nations?

Perhaps in the eyes of our president, as in the view of many Islamists, the transnational nature of political Islam transcends state boundaries and supersedes state sovereignty. Just a guess.

On the day of this writing (Aug. 31, 2010), the White House and a collection of U.S. government agencies was scheduled to conduct a special workshop for members of the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), an association of 20 national Muslim groups that, according to Christine Brim, Chief Operating Officer at the Center for Security Policy, is associated with the radical, Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood. In an August 29 post on BigPeace.com, Ms. Brim stated, "According to a representative of CCMO, this workshop is designed to clarify how Muslim nonprofits, mosques, Islamic centers and social service organizations can …'cut through some of the red tape and shine light on the many opportunities for funding, government assistance, and resources.'"

The workshop "constitutes an abdication of their professional responsibility by all government participants — and a taxpayer-funded government stimulus program for the attending Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups," she wrote, adding that "the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1929, is a global Islamist political movement dedicated to imposing shari'ah law on all nations and institutions." It never lets up.

In another post on BigPeace.com, this one on Aug. 4, 2010, Ms. Brim warned that a vote to confirm Elena Kagan, Obama's most recent Supreme Court nomination, "will bring a liberal, pro-shari'ah justice to our highest Court." Kagen was confirmed the following day. At Kagen's direction while dean of the Harvard Law School, "Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009) dedicated 'to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.'" The Saudi royal family "had funded the [Islamic Legal Studies Program] program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between shari'ah law and U.S. Constitutional law."

I promised to come back to Obama's statement in Audacity of Hope that he would stand with the Muslims if things took an ugly turn. Now is the moment. Obama's apologists say "That's not what he said." No, it's a paraphrase. The actual words were, “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." They say "It's taken out of context." Well, here's the context. In context, "them" refers to immigrant Muslims, or their descendants, living in the United States. Obama evoked the detainment of Japanese Americans during World War II, but what he was really doing was mongering the fear that conservative Americans would undertake a reign of terror against their Muslim American neighbors similar to that conducted by the Ku Klux Klan against southern blacks some generations back.

However, his real intent was more insidious, even, than that. He intends to "protect" American Muslims not just from vigilante violence but from "FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors" (his words, same source), and from criticism of any kind, which he and others on the left regard as "hate speech."

He articulated this in his Cairo speech when he said, "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." He did not proffer that was his responsibility to fight against negative stereotypes of Christians or Jews.

He is doing just as he said he would — working to stiffle any criticism of Islam, at home and on a global scale. Jennifer Lawinski, reporting for Fox News Oct. 6, 2008, noted that "religious groups and free-speech advocates are banding together to fight a United Nations resolution they say is being used to spread shari'ah law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam." The United States initially objected. But in 2009, the Obama administration supported that resolution, albeit in a compromise form toned down from the original.

Selwyn Duke, writing on the subject in an Oct. 27, 2009, piece for New American, said, "Those who would accuse Barack Obama of pandering to — if not [having] sympathy for — Islamists have been handed some powerful new ammunition. In a disturbing move, the Obama administration is joining Muslim nations in supporting a UN resolution restricting criticism of religion, a measure reflective of those nations’ blasphemy laws." Significantly, prohibitions in Muslim nations against criticizing religion is one-sided. It applies only to being critical of Islam. Now the Muslim nations are working to make that ban worldwide, and Obama is in full support.

Yet for all Obama's praise and defense of Islam, whenever someone suggests that he might be or might ever have been a Muslim, or if someone even so much as uses his middle name, Obama protests that he's being smeared. Since he's so fond of Islam but says he's really a Christian, I have to wonder why he doesn't just say something like, "Well, gee, fellers, thanks for the compliment. But you know, even though I used to be a Muslim, I found Christ about 20 years ago?" Why, instead, the fierce, knee-jerk defensiveness? "The president doeth protest too much, methinks," to paraphrase Queen Gertrude in Shakespeare's Hamlet.

In fact, some of Obama's protests have gone a bit beyond stretching the truth. During his campaign, he insisted that although his father was Muslim, his mother was a Christian and he was raised a Christian. Aswini Anburajan, campaign reporter for NBC and a former campaign researcher for John Kerry, reported on MSNBC's First Read Dec. 12, 2007, that in response to a woman's question about his religious beliefs, then Candidate Obama stated, "My mother was a Christian from Kansas…. I was raised by my mother. So, I've always been a Christian."

He made a similar statement on March 24, 2004, shortly after being nominated to run for the U.S. Senate, telling Chicago Sun-Times religion columnist Cathleen Falsani in an interview, "I was raised more by my mother, and my mother was a Christian." When Falsani asked, "Any particular flavor?" he said, "No."

Those statements are contradicted by the facts as well as by Obama's own statements elsewhere. His mother, Stanley Anne Durham, who twice married Muslim men, was not a Christian but an agnostic. In his 1995 biography, Dreams from My Father, Obama described his mother as "a lonely witness for secular humanism," and in his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote, "I was not raised in a religious household." His maternal grandparents, who cared for Barack during most of his teen years, were former non-practicing Christians who, by Barack's own account, had become Universalists by the time he was born.

Although Universalism has Christian roots, by the 20th Century it had become a creedless religion whose adherents may believe in no god, one God or many gods. So being a Universalist, by itself, tells us very little about a person's religious beliefs. However, many Universalists believe that God saves everybody regardless of what they believe or how they live.

By any verifiable account, Barack himself did not identify with Christianity in any form until the late 1980s when he began affiliating with the Chicago South Side Afro-centric megachurch, Trinity United Church of Christ, one of several black churches that came together to address socio-economic issues on the South Side and had hired Obama  in 1985 as a community organizer.

At Trinity United, the Marxist, racist, rabidly anti-American Pastor Jeremiah Wright, a former member of Nation of Islam, so inspired Obama, then a young "community organizer" in black Chicago neighborhoods, as to move him to tears. "I felt God's spirit beckoning me," he wrote in Audacity of Hope, and four years later he was baptized a member of that church, the same "Christian" church that honored the radical, racist Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan with a lifetime achievement award.

Obama, by his own account, came to regard Pastor Wright as his friend and spiritual mentor and had a close association with him over 20 years. But when Wright's radicalism came under scrutiny during the 2008 campaign, Obama suddenly suffered from selective memory disorder and could not remember ever hearing his pastor spew any of the hateful, vicious rhetoric that was now on YouTube for everyone to view. Maybe Obama slept through all of Wright's sermons for 20 years.

In the 2004 interview, with Falsani, Obama  sounded much more like a Universalist than a Christian. He said, "I'm rooted in the Christian tradition [but] I believe that there are many paths to the same place."

Asked who Jesus was, he did not say, "the Son of God," or "the Redeemer," or "my personal Savior" or any of the confessions of faith one might normally expect from a devout Christian. Rather, he told Falsani, "Jesus is an Historical figure for me, and he is also the bridge between God and man in the Christian faith ... a means of us reaching something higher. He is also a wonderful teacher."

Asked "What is sin?" he replied, "Being out of alignment with my values," and asked if he prayed, he said," I guess I do," but not formally on his knees. "I think throughout the day I have an ongoing conversation with God.... I'm constantly asking myself questions." I was with him on that answer until he equated an ongoing conversation with God, which the Bible enjoins of all Christians, to asking himself questions.

Dr. Gary Cass, chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, opined in a media advisory on Christian Newswire on Oct. 30, 2008, "It appears that Obama's 'Christianity' is carefully constructed to appease traditional American voters." Maybe. Or maybe he really regards himself as Christian but his experience, education and upbringing have given him only a limited view of Christian doctrine. Or perhaps he just interprets the scriptures differently than most.

But whatever his religious beliefs may be, his socialist political agenda is diametrically at odds with the basic teachings of Christianity — and I would make the same observation of any church or any individual that preaches so-called "Christian Socialism," including Rev. Wright's "Liberation Theology."

Christianity is based on the concept of free will, not compulsion. Jesus taught charity, but nowhere in the New Testament is there any suggestion that people who, through their industry and thrift, have become prosperous, should have their property seized by the government and redistributed to those who didn't earn it. Charity should be a voluntary thing.

The United States of America was founded by men of faith — most of them Christian, some not, but all believers in Divine Providence — who threw off the yoke of tyranny to establish, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "a new nation, conceived in liberty." Their greatest concern was the need for constant vigilance against enemies foreign and domestic who would seek to strip us of those liberties.

The Obama administration and the current Congress, under the pretext of being "progressive," are working feverishly, relentlessly, methodically and tyrannically to erode our freedoms, undermine the Constitution that was intended to protect those freedoms, and impose upon this country a new system of governance in which every aspect of our lives is dominated by the state and we are dependent upon the state for all things. They are seeking to weaken or abolish the traditional family unit, to outlaw the teaching of traditional moral values (by calling it "hate speech"), and to wrest from parents the divinely endowed responsibility for raising their children and increasingly turn that vital role over to government workers schooled in the doctrines of self-indulgence and moral equivalence.

That is not God's plan; that is the plan of Satan. It is an evil agenda. Obama and all other politicians who pursue that agenda, with the intent to dismantle the Constitution and our traditional American institutions and values, must be held accountable based on those actions, not based on the religion they profess.

Any politician pursuing such an agenda is pursuing a course counter to God's will. It is an agenda that must be stopped and reversed, if we wish to pass on to future generations the cherished, God-given freedoms that we inherited from our forebears.

Source: www.PerspicacityPress.com. Copyright © 2010 Rand Green Communications.
Do not repost without written permission (usually granted on request) or without this notice. Do not extract quotes without proper credit. Plagiarism is a crime. You may link to this page. You may also print copies of the entire page, including the Perspicacity Press banner and this notice, for your own reference and in limited quantities for free distribution to your friends and colleagues.





 
CONTACT US  |  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE  

Perspicacity Press and PerspicacityPress.com are publications of
Rand Green Communications

All contents of this site Copyright © 1999-2017 Rand Green Communications,
unless otherwise noted. Authors, artists or photographers whose works are used here by permission retain copyrights to their own works.
Perspicacity Press is a trademark of Rand Green Communications.

This Website Is Powered by THE SWORD OF TRUTH!