Dr. Brown Answers Your Emails and Takes Your Calls

1. God bless!

   Dr. Brown I want to be as brief as possible. Our Bishop of our Congregations “Iglesias de Evangelizacion Misionera Jovenes Cristianos”, will be running for mayor of New York this coming term. His name is Rev. Erick Salgado. A humble Christ loving individual is at the same time president of “Radio Cantico Nuevo Inc.” (740am). He is a Lord fearing leader who has a huge heart for the lost. His message is very Christ center while at the same time very conservative. Please pray for him, so as for God to continue to open up doors for his ministry to flourish in this secular world that we live on.

   Thanx, your brother in Christ

   Martin

   P.S. I am currently looking over your material that I just received on “revival” thanks so much for encouraging me on a daily basis!

2. I have 2 questions, One, Is there a show in the Line of Fire archives on the Trinity? Also, How do you reconcile 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel:1? There is a muslim who has been abusing these verses and saying that Christians worship Satan.

3. RE: The 1st Amendment and Islam

   Would you provide clarification as to the extent of the 1st amendment’s protection of religious freedom? More specifically, I want to know whether the founders defined “religion” as:
   1. Religion-only?
   2. Religion + civil government, i.e. a “theocracy?”
   a. Does the 1st amendment allow a parallel, theocracy (religious-government) to run in tandem with our own? Islam is a theocracy and is being integrated into U.S. law. It has its own civil laws, religious courts, and political ideology, all of which are inseparably united. Islamic law is totally incompatible with and in total opposition to the laws of the United States under the U.S. Constitution. Islamic law is foreign law combined with a totalitarian religious enforcement mechanism, better known as terrorism, temporarily suppressed here, but in full bloom in other places around the world where it has ascended to full power. Islam is not a dichotomy of peaceful and violent members, but a range of Jihad (struggle for world domination) activities within a single ideology that ranges from peaceful (political) to violent (terrorism & military aggression). The unvarnished truth is that it is an international Mafia type criminal organization, a crime syndicate, with a religious front.
   b. If the 1st amendment was designed to protect the religious aspects of Islam, please explain why the founders would allow the same provision that protects our religious liberties to also shield the establishment of a theocratic government whose doctrines and entire ideology are designed and have the expressed purpose to overthrow those liberties? In plain English, isn’t the presumption that Islamic theocracy is protected under the establishment clause essentially a violation of that clause by assigning the federal government to the role of co-opting the establishment of a religious government? We don’t seem to recognize that the 1st amendment protects religions-only, not religious-governments.
   c. So, in light of these facts, does the Constitution protect Islam?

   Question: Why is it so difficult to understand that America’s founders did NOT intend that the same provision designed to protect our religious liberties would be used to overthrow those liberties? Does this question present a conundrum that is beyond the ability of John Q. Public to comprehend, or am I just inept at making it clear, or am I missing a key issue? I get it that other constitutional protections come into play that address the issues of punishment for “actionable offenses” like treason, sedition, murder, etc, which are generally understood as to their meaning. But, the 1st amendment is different because if we do not define the term “religion” in the manner that the founders intended, the 1st amendment can, and in my view, is being used (by Muslims) to hijack the Supremacy Clause (Article 6); and THAT is not what the founders had in mind.

   The sources that I have studied about what the word “religion” meant prior to, and during the time the constitution was written, conclude that it meant (a) one of several denominations of Christianity, or Judaism, (b) but, when applied to its use in the constitution, it included the toleration of all other non-theocratic, religious faiths; however, (c) they never envisioned our government to be based on the precepts of any non-Christian religious belief system. They included the language of the 1st amendment to allow people freedom to worship as they pleased, but not to use their worship as seditious cover to overthrow the U.S. Government and replace it with a theocracy. Those precepts were first proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, and then codified in the U.S. Constitution. The entire verbiage is about avoiding a similar repeat of what the colonies had just thrown off, the totalitarian unity of the British government and the Anglican Church of England. In 1789, under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the Anglican Church was removed from its official unity with the government of Virginia. Jefferson understood that the only true and legitimate Theocracy in history pertained to the Jewish people under the past dispensation of the nation Israel, which ended when Titus and his Roman legions overran the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A. D.. It is important to focus for a moment on what the word Theocracy really means, because the doctrinal teachings of Islam emphatically require that people submit to an ecclesiastical enforcement authority within an international Islamic one-world government framework, just the opposite of our constitution’s teaching that the government has no religious dictatorial authority but is to submit to the people. To my knowledge, until September 25, 2009, no Muslim prayer service has ever been held at the Capitol in Washington. That occurred after Obama announced (in 2010) that we were no longer a Christian nation, and cancelled the 21st annual Day of Prayer at the White House. If we are not a Christian nation, we are no longer America. Having historically functioned as a nation under Judeo-Christian laws, we have allowed all faiths to worship freely. Now we have a new group whose faith demands that we retrogress back to an even worse ecclesiastical governmental tyranny than we suffered during English rule.

   Jefferson, more than any other leader in American history is known, but grossly misunderstood, for his statement about the relationship between church & state. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123
   The Danbury Baptist Association wrote him a letter asking in effect whether the new constitution would put the government back into dictating a particular religious (Christian) denomination, or whether it would simply allow religion (Judeo-Christian principles) to influence the moral conscience of government. Please note that Jefferson did not reject the principle of “religion” (Judeo-Christian Biblical concepts), or that those teachings had a rightful place in influencing the conduct of government. After all, from 1795 (before the Capitol was completed or occupied by Congress), he and the other 91 founders, and many ordinary citizens regularly participated in non-denominational “Christian” worship services in the Capitol Building, later in the Treasury Department and other government facilities in D.C. until sometime after the Civil War. For a while, the Marine Corps band even played at the services. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=90
   It is unseemly that including Islamic totalitarian worship services, which are antithetical to everything the Capitol building represented, would have been welcomed and surely would not have been tolerated by our founders in those halls of freedom. Allowing such a thing today is tantamount to the desecration of hallowed ground. But that is what Muslims do. They stake out conquered lands by building Mosques, and establish their laws in opposition to those of the host countries where they reside. It is their way of conquest.

   RE: Tragic Dereliction of Duty by State Legislatures.
   In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court overturned 150 years of judicial understanding about the meaning of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” statement. The imperial judiciary of the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Vinson, who joined justices Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, William F. Douglas, and Frank Murphy in that specious unconstitutional decision, created a legal precedent that has caused us to deny our spiritual heritage and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who gave us the legal system that is tempered with Biblical law, not foreign law or the religious law of any other belief system. No other nation in history can claim to have a foundation that is the moral equivalent of the U.S. Constitution as written in 1787.

   Questions (to be answered in light of the founders’ original intent):
   1. Why didn’t past state legislatures immediately use their 10th amendment right to reject and nullify such an egregious violation of their 1st amendment rights?
   2. Does the freedom of speech, “expression clause” protect organized revolution against our government, and exclude the published threats, sedition and subversion as actionable offenses?
   a. Are the many declarations by Muslim organizations, which have either openly or secretly stated their intentions to overthrow the U.S. Government, constitute actionable violations of the establishment clause?
   b. Is it possible to ignore the overwhelming evidence that all Islamic activities in America are the result of a centrally controlled and directed insurgency, and that such activities constitute a rebellion which has already resulted in establishing Sharia law governance in foreign trade, domestic Islamic mediation courts, dress code, and search requirement exceptions for Muslims regarding airport security measures, plus many other such biased compliance-waivers of our laws and societal norms?
   3. Are we to consider the following examples to be protected by the 1st amendment?
   a. The Holy Land Foundation secret documents linking CAIR’s direct support for HLF’s activities to overthrow the U.S. Government.
   b. The Muslim Brotherhood “Manifesto” with its clear statements of hostile intent.
   c. The long list of unindicted co-conspirators.
   d. The many documented reports in the book, Muslim Mafia by David Gaubatz which is replete with cases discovered in undercover FBI operations, and revealed by U.S. prosecutors like the following people who have courageously spoken out:
   i. John Guandolo, retired FBI agent
   ii. Tim Pitchford, retired FBI agent
   iii. George Sadler, retire FBI agent
   iv. Gordon Kromberg, U.S. Prosecutor
   4. Isn’t it likely that the violence and legal inroads by Muslims will only get worse because Islam, is by definition the worship of totalitarian government, and is predicated on the Islamic doctrine that “peace” occurs ONLY when all people on this earth are subjugated under Islam’s dominion? As in all other totalitarian systems, the means are justified by the end. It seems that those who believe “true” Islam is “peaceful” must ignore all the contrary evidence and consider the five daily genuflexes as proof that it is just a religion. Now it has a partner. The federal government co-opts its pseudo legitimacy in defiance of article 6, courtesy of the misplaced tolerance of 1st amendment neophytes.
   5. The core issue in determining whether or not Islam is protected under the 1st amendment depends on specifically defining what it is that the Quran and Sunnah of Islam require Muslims to “worship.” I am trying to make the case that their god centers on the worship of totalitarian population control, subjugation of all the peoples of the earth, intolerance of not just religious freedom but all human freedoms. It is characterized by vindictiveness, implacable hatred for all non-Muslims, and particularly vehement anti-Semitism. In my view, their violations of our laws include treasonous and rebellious actions that qualify for prosecution under RICO statutes, and make ALL Muslims subject to mass deportation. Whether deportation is politically feasible is irrelevant because the real purpose of investigating the issue is to provide constitutional clarity as to the founder’s original intent of the 1st amendment’s religious protective limits. My argument is that there were limits on religious liberty, i.e. those that were defacto theocratic religious organizations.

   My study of Islam began shortly after 9/11 with reading books by Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, Bridgette Gabrielle, Gert Wilders, Nonie Darwish, David Horowitz, and reports by Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and others. I have come to understand that tyrannical cults like Islam (if there exists any that are as evil), even if they were successful in subduing all other faiths, they would continue then as they do now; to exterminate each other until no living creature would be left alive.

   The demise of the U.S. Constitution is the result of American citizens having gradually abandoned the spiritual roots that allowed God to provide His blessings which have been bestowed under the banner of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Islam is simply a parasitic enemy, one of many that attack the flesh of a spiritually sick nation. Bill Warner, with the Center for the Study of Political Islam estimated that Islam has been responsible for the deaths of over 270 million people, so far.

   Please give me your views on these two major issues. I believe that the demise of our Constitution and national decline is the result of the spiritual apostasy of moral relativism and the abandonment of Biblical absolutes on both a personal and national policy level. As a consequence of those factors, Islam will become an unchallenged major alien predator. It has been steadily unleashing its “peaceful religion” mind-control brainwashing propaganda onto a totally unprepared generation of Americans who have been on a steady diet of spiritual pabulum by churches whose pastors have failed them. America’s enemies are conducting a propaganda war against an ignorant generation of Americans who have already acquiesced to a socialist economy and now retain only the shadow of a once great constitutional government. I fully expect that to be followed by an increasingly antagonistic Sharia culture & legal system like the European model.

   I would value your comments.

   Thank You,

   John Noble

4. I was taken aback at the “redneck” jokes on your program. Considering the history and ridicule Appalachian people have suffered, and still do, I really dont think it appropriate on a broadcast level. Instead of laughing might we better spend out time to study how it is that a people well impoverished are remarkably lacking in the kind of crime that we see daily in the inner city. And I think its too often missed that of all the different classes and people throughout the mid-atlantic states, Appalachia was where slavery was least seen.

   Italians, Polish, Irish, Indians, Hispanics and many others have established names we cant use to describe them–let alone joke about– when will the “redneck” be added to that list?

   I get the humour but not the double standard. Just think, would we ever be making Polish jokes?

5. Dear Dr. Brown,

   I listen to your radio program in Salt Lake City, AM 820. Today, 1-21-2013, you spoke of a major Christian revival in the world. I am wondering if Revelation book 7 is speaking of your idea?

   Sincerely,

   Suny Townsend

6. Magnus,

   I truly apologize for any offense the jokes may have caused. I often joke about New Yorkers, I have joked about Jewish personality traits, and having lived in the south (actually living in Alabama) for 7 years, this was totally innocent to me. We joked about these things among ourselves when living with Southerners.

   So, it was because of familiarity and friendship that I shared the “Redneck Medical Dictionary” terms, but if I was lacking in sensitivity and wisdom in doing so, please forgive me.

Comments are closed.