Pardon Me Mr. President

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Image result for trump arpaio

Former Sherriff Joe Arpaio is bad for America. His brand of politics has led to vigilantism with a badge. The use of public office without authority is a problem we all have to deal with. I welcome more pardons from the President for people who have been abused by runaway government (Scooter Libby); but, pardon me Mr. President, why Joe Arpaio?

The rule of law is perhaps the most important job of people in the government. The office of the President should be concerned when people are wrongfully prosecuted and abused by those in power but it should also be concerned about the people who abuse power while in public office. Joe Arpaio embodies the abuse of power and his position in government. He should not have been the first person to receive a pardon by President Trump.

Sherriff Arpaio is guilty of abusing his office as have others around him. Sherriff’s deputies targeted Hispanics who may have been illegal aliens in our country. I spoke directly with a Phoenix city official years ago who said that sheriff’s deputies in Maricopa County (the county that includes the city of Phoenix) were testing a program to ask for people’s birth certificates instead of just their driver’s license when they were pulled over. This apparently was not done to white people but to Hispanics suspected of being illegal aliens.

There remains a basic level of bigotry in the United States. The idea that Hispanics are by default Mexican is not true and just plain ignorant. Mexicans are Hispanics because they reside in New Spain (Hispania). Also, Hispanics in the U.S. are also not always Latino. A person who supports or is a part of the Roman Catholic Church is a part of the Latin Catholic Church or Latino. Europe was known for Latin France, Latin Portugal, and Latin Spain. So, Hispanics in the New World are often called Latinos as they were a part of the Latin Church. Calling someone Hispanic who is Mexican also betrays the heterogeneous makeup of Mexico. Not all Mexicans are Hispanics. It helps to just give people respect no matter what.

A person without a proper driver’s license may be detained for not having a valid legal identification card, often called a Photo ID. There is no need to check a person’s birth certificate. In fact, the only people who would be carrying a birth certificate would be illegal immigrants who knew they would need one; they would counterfeit them just like many driver’s licenses have been counterfeited. This was a stupid act on the part of sheriffs; acts that were done without proper legislation.

On another note, I applaud holding prisoners in tent cities without all the creature comforts of life; this is another of Mr. Arpaio’s efforts to get tough on crime. However, prisoners need to be properly fed and clothed and sheltered against adverse weather. Here again, Mr. Arpaio went beyond the rule of law and just plain common sense when he made prisoners wear pink underwear and eat green sandwiches. The punishment prisoners should receive is incarceration; sheriffs do not need to add to that punishment. Maybe Mr. Arpaio has a deeper problem with color than was first suspected.

Mr. Arpaio did not help this country with his aggressive behavior. While he may be a hero to some in our country, he has added more problems to America than he has solved. His work demonstrates what it means when someone in power abuses that power and extends themselves beyond the rule of law. The President was definitely tone deaf when he pardoned the former sheriff in light of recent racial tensions. But regardless of timing, it was a bad pardon from the standpoint that Mr. Arpaio does not represent the rule of law (immigration or otherwise); he represents what is wrong with our country. It is time for Republicans in the Arizona Legislature to consider impeaching Mr. Arpaio. People like him do not need to serve in public office ever again.

Both Sides Differ

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Charlottesville Logo

The legacy of Dr. King Jr. was to bring the rule of law to the black community. The rule of law is supposed to support people with liberty and justice. Modern movements like Black Lives Matter are not focused on the rule of law and differ from their predecessors as a result. The Cross of Jesus Christ provided the forgiveness of sin and gave light to the lives of men like Dr. King Jr. The KKK and modern white racist movements differ from the Gospel of Christ when they burn the Cross of Christ. Instead of providing the light of truth for all mankind, white racist movements differ from the real Christian message of Christ and offer darkness of the soul instead of light.

The racism that persisted in the American South after the Civil War was based upon a bigotry that was applied through the rule of law; this is the formal definition of racism. The law is supposed to protect people’s freedom and provide justice for people when violated. This was good for the white community but not for the black people under slavery and Jim Crow. Dr. King Jr. wanted to change this and he did; but that was just the beginning.

Civil rights requires the government, by law, to facilitate the vote of the American people. If the law was applied equally to everyone, regardless of color, then everyone should be allowed to vote. This was not provided for with Jim Crow laws and therefore those should have been removed; they have since been dismissed as illegal. The law applied equally to all people meant that black people should be allowed to vote. As the rule of law means at least this, it also means much more.

Black Lives Matter is correct in seeing the latent bigotry that still exists within America. What they don’t do is support the equal application of the rule of law, as Dr. King did, as a means to solve the problems facing ‘Black America.’ The rule of law is supposed to support all people in our country. Fighting law officers is contrary to the message of Dr. King and their vision of success is different.

The racism that persisted for 100 years in the South was largely quelled following the 1960s. The advocacy of racism by law remained dormant for a generation since then but is now emerging in some white minority groups within the South. A small fraction of white people are capturing the terrorist appetite and are parading it through the streets of American cities. Their actions are contrary to peaceful public demonstrations and their permit to march should never have been allowed by the rule of law.

Many white racists not only condemn black people but Jews as well. The Cross that is often burned by these racists is the symbol of one Jew, Jesus, who established the modern religion of Christianity. Jesus was not concerned about the color of people’s skin but the darkness of people’s hearts. He brought light and life to people who believed in him and forgiveness to those who trusted in his Cross. The Christian symbols used by some of these racist groups represents a message that is different from the message used by these racists.

Neither white racists or black reactionists are following the foundations they claim for their support. The solution to the problem of racism is both the rule of law and faith in Christ Jesus. Jesus opened the Gospel to all nations, it was not just for Jews. And the New Testament tells us that government should hold people accountable for their own actions, not their color.

The recent tragedy in Charlottesville, SC, highlights these problems that persist in America. These problems begin with the human heart that is darkened by sin and in need of the forgiveness of sin. This is a message taught by Christians like the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. As Christians follow the Jewish Messiah, we also advocate the rule of law for all people.

Lady Justice has a blindfold and is not supposed to look at people’s color when a judicial decision is provided. The idea of uniform justice provided by long standing principles is called ‘prae judaicum.’ But when lady justice peeks at a person’s color that would be called ‘racial prae judaicum.’ That is where we get the word ‘racial prejudice.’ Liberty and justice for all, liberty under law, is supposed to be provided without prejudice of color.

As white racist and reactionary black movements collided in South Carolina, we are witnessing movements that do not follow the principles they claim as their symbols. White racists should follow Christ and abandon racism. Black Lives Matter should promote the rule of law and respect of law enforcement officials. When these groups combined in South Carolina the result was a tragedy. That tragedy, including the loss of life, is the end of principled solutions to the ongoing problem and perceptions of racism in America.


My great-grandfather, Hiram Craig Wallace, was a solider in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. He fought during the war, he surrendered at the end of the war, and he swore an oath to support the Union and rejoined the USA. I have no reason to do otherwise. I support the Union called the United States of America! God Bless the USA! It is time to remove the statues of Civil War Confederates from the grounds of government buildings. I am proud of my great-grandfather but not with these symbols of racism. There is no reason to keep these symbols that do not promote faith and justice in modern America.

PRK’s Leader – A Great Leader

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Kim Jong Un

Kim Jong Un is the Leader of the People of North Korea. He inherited this role from his father and grand-father. He also inherited an uneasy truce between the United States and North Korea. After the end of the Cold War, relations between the U.S. and Korea have grown more heated. With a new Leader, the people of Korea have a great opportunity for freedom. Kim Jong Un, has the opportunity to provide for the people of Korea, religious freedom. In providing for the People’s freedom to worship God, the Leader of North Korea will become more than just a Leader for his People, he will become a Great Leader.

Greatness is not bestowed upon oneself, by others, or by great deeds. Greatness is bestowed upon others by God and by history. Great men do not intend to be great; they pursue great principles in their lives and greatness follows. The work of any man is never considered great until after some deed is done; greatness is bestowed not in advance of some great work but afterwards; not as a means to achieve greatness but as a recognition of merit employed.

The record of history is full of examples of leaders who promote religious freedom and those who do not. Those leaders who promote the freedom of people to worship God are recorded in history as great leaders. Those leaders who prevent the freedom of people to worship God are considered evil dictators in history. The decisions of leaders are their own but God will promote those leaders who let people worship him. In this leaders may choose the path to greatness or ruin.

God is not absent in any country. God will open the doors to freedom to any people. The desire of God is in the heart of the people of any country. Religious freedom is a basic liberty for all people everywhere. Any Leader who opens the doors of religious freedom for their people will find God working on their side. God will promote the Leader who pursues religious freedom. And God will make any Leader a Great Leader if they serve the people with liberty.

Please Pray for Kim Jong Un and the People of Korea

God in heaven, show favor to Kim Jong Un and the People of Korea like you did to Moses and the People of Israel when they were in Egypt. Release them from the bondage of oppression and allow them to walk with you and worship you in peace. Bless the People, Bless the land, Bless the Leader of this great people in North Korea. Please show Kim Jong Un your grace and grant him the requests of his heart. With great reverence and respect, please open the doors for religious freedom for the People of Korea. And with your hand upon Kim Jong Un, grant that one day he too will become a Great Leader of the Korean People. In Jesus’ name, we pray. Amen!


© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Nye pic

Bill Nye, a Religious Atheist, wants to:

Imprison people who believe in God,

Deny them their Right to Vote, and

Indoctrinate their Children to his way of thinking.

This is the face of the future.

[see note below]

Atheistic terrorism is growing in the United States. It may not be obvious but the definition of terrorism is as close to defining radical atheism as anything I’ve seen. I’m not saying that all atheists are terrorists; but there are radicalized atheists who have a religious/political agenda to end the American way of life that is centered upon a universal respect and reverence of the Creator God.

The U.S. military has been fighting Islamic terrorism for decades, at least since the 1980s. The DoD has a definition for terrorism that provides insight into another kind of a-terrorism that we see in the U.S.

Although there is no universal definition for terrorism, the Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political. [Joint Publication 3-07.2 (JP 3-07.2); Antiterrorism; 24 November 2010.]

Atheists use a mischaracterization of the Separation of Church and State to secularize American society and government. Although they carry the cloak of the law, their work is actually unlawful. By the use of litigation, religious radicalized atheists issue the threat violence to instill fear and coerce people in society and government. These a-terrorists (atheistic terrorists) are religiously, politically, and ideologically motivated by their atheistic beliefs to pursue the religious political goal of a secular world.

The definition of terrorism by the DoD is a near match to the work of religious/political atheists who wave the threat of a violation of the separation of church and state around as a bully club to get their way. Sadly, the U.S. Court system has supported them in their unremitting reign of terror.

My own definition of terrorism is slightly different than the DoD’s version.

Terrorism is the use of belligerent force (criminal or military) from a minority group who is willing to overthrow the majority authority because they feel underrepresented religiously, politically, economically, or ideologically. Terrorism begins in the home country where this belligerence force dominates a local population. Once domesticated by violence, terrorism is exported to other countries where this belligerence continues.

This definition provides a deeper perspective as to the domestication of terrorism. A-Terrorists are a minority group in America (again, not all atheists are a-terrorists). They feel underrepresented religiously, politically, and ideologically as a majority of Americans believe in God and not evolution. And as we have seen with recent campaigns, the Democrat Party has not only tried to kick God out of its Party platform, they sponsored secular campaigns like Hillary Clinton’s. Once domesticated (Democrats) it is exported (Clinton as Secretary of State/Presidential Candidate) worldwide.

Defining the problem is the start of solving the problem. This website has repeatedly defined the proper historical definition of the Separation of Church and State and shown the atheist version to be unfounded and illegitimate. Although a secularized Court system in America facilitates the secular agenda of religious atheists, it is without legitimacy.

Recent activity by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) demonstrates their form of a-terrorism. They are willing to sue anyone who remotely connects religion with government. The idea that there is a right to a ‘freedom from religion’ is born of the Soviet idea of a ‘right to anti-religious propaganda.’ Religious atheism was combined with State power during the era of the Soviet Union to terrorize people who believed in God. This was an atheistic terrorist state that domesticated political violence against religious people and then exported its methods to the U.S. Madalyn Murray O’Hair is but one example. The FFRF is an example of how this type of violence, once domesticated in Russia and exported to the U.S. is now being domesticated in the U.S.

We are not about to change the foundation of groups like the FRFF, which is the U.S. Court system, in the foreseeable future. The Courts will continue to misuse the First Amendment to facilitate religious and radical atheism. But identifying the a-terrorism symbiosis that exists between religious atheism and the Courts is a start to bring it to an end.

Religious freedom is not freedom from religion, it is what America was founded upon. Our history is replete with examples of people fleeing religious persecution abroad and migrating to the U.S. for the freedom of religion. It is time to take a stand against the a-terrorism of religious a-theism.

Notes to figure above are based upon Nye’s own book, Undeniable:

Nye is so convinced that his religious beliefs are right, he thinks he has a right to put people in jail who disagree with him (chapter 31).

The science is clear; certain church-derived ethics reflect an understanding that’s murky at best and just plain ignorant at worst. Perhaps we should be prosecuting people who espouse these views…

Nye even thinks there needs to be a religious test for voters that would exclude creationists from voting (Chapter 2).

I hope that all of us will consider the potential consequences of this sort of thinking – or nonthinking. If there were a test of competency for voters, how well would they fare?

Bill Nye has clearly said that the children of pastors need to be rescued (Chapter 2) from their parents and indoctrinated with evolutionary thinking.

Here’s hoping we can work together to bring the children of the creationist’ preachers’ flocks to a more enlightened, boundless way of thinking about the world around us.