Treason: Undermining the Constitution and the President


I ran into Dr. Garrow’s post on Facebook while posting one of my own threads. The post is relatively brief yet inspiring. As the Editor of my blog I added embedded links which I believe makes the post a richer read. Thus in full disclosure the links reflect my thought and Dr. Garrow may or may not agree or appreciate my thinking.

 

What Dr. Garrow is implying in a nice way, the Marxist riots ravaging America and actually receiving verbal support from Dems and the Mainstream Media undermines the Founders’ vision of a Republic dedicated to Law abiding Americans rather than a government Marxist principles.

JRH 6/3/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

****************************

Treason: Undermining the Constitution and the President

 

By James Garrow

June 3, 2020 9:12 AM

Facebook Group – Paul E. Vallely – The General’s Group

 

 

Putting aside the kinds of differences in world view that have been obvious since the first Socialists took office in America, it would seem that the shoe banging on his desk and threat to “bury” America was as real as it could get. Since those days in the 60’s when the United Nations played host to the Russian leadership flexing muscles that put fear into the entire world’s hearts, a new and different subtlety has permeated the efforts to undo the Capitalist agenda and lay waste to actual history versus speechifying and flights of fantasy.

 

By replacing real history with an imagined path that led from the rise of the proletariat into the suborning of the dictates of the elites and the notion that the common man was best served by replacing the order of things with Communist/Socialist principles the group think mentality replaced the responsibility of the individual. America’s national psyche answered to a set of morals and mores that reflected the desires of a Supreme Being as outlined in the Ten Commandments. Love and forgiveness completed the evolution of the relationship between the created and the creator. Obedience to His Law and commands was empowered by the assistance of God’s Spirit and the renewing of a sinful nature with a clean beginning. Recognition of God as Supreme was clear from America’s beginnings and formed the foundations of the Declaration of Independence and the development of a Constitution [Blog Editor: See HERE, HERE & HERE] amid hearty debate and thoughtful growth over time.

 

We have reached a place in time where what is being tested is whether mob rule would or could replace the Law of the Land and the social contract entered into by the Founding Fathers and continued for over 300 years successfully. The expectation that orderliness can rise from chaos or that wrongs can be righted through violence and reprisal goes against common sense and the foundations of the Republic itself. Those who would overthrow these foundations to be replaced by a notion that has failed to secure freedom and security in every nation that bought its bitter answer to repression have no answer but authoritarian rule by a new elite that has never proven itself worthy of our fielty [Blog Editor: I suspect the author meant fealty for there is a difference. Fealty vs Fielty – I’ll let you decide]. To overthrow the peace that is brought about by the social contract that has been the envy of the world is to place our bets for the future on a flimsy ghost of an idea. Let’s not do that.

 

– By Dr. Jim Garrow [Blog Editor: Here’s a brief bio in which the photo matches the Facebook version hence I surmise it’s the same person]

 

 

Donald Trump and Religious Liberty


As the Globalist and American Left (cough Dem Anti-Christians) assault the Liberty of Christians in the name of immoral Multiculturalist Humanism trying to ram unbiblical immorality down the throats of Bible Believers, read and comprehend the Originalist thinking of the Founding Fathers and America’s modern supporters of the Founders.

 

JRH 1/21/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

 

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

****************************

Donald Trump and Religious Liberty

 

By Mark David Hall

January 20, 2020

The Imaginative Conservative

 

Many of America’s founders defended religious liberty, believing it grounded on the duty men and women have to worship their Creator. As late as the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans were able to work together to protect that liberty, but unfortunately, the political left has begun to abandon religious freedom.

 

Government and Liberty The featured image is a study for a mosaic in the Wisconsin State Capital, “Government and Liberty” (c. 1912), by Kenyon Cox (1856-1919), courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

 

As the 2020 presidential campaign heats up, conservatives would do well to reflect on two important speeches made last fall that were virtually ignored by the media. In September, President Trump gave an excellent address at the United Nations where he made it clear that religious freedom is not just an American constitutional right, it is a God-given right that should be respected across the globe. A month later, Attorney General William Barr made virtually the same argument in a speech at the University of Notre Dame.

 

As late as the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans were able to work together to protect religious liberty. Most notably, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 passed in the House without a dissenting vote, was approved 97 to 3 by the Senate, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

 

Unfortunately, the political left has begun to abandon religious freedom. The Obama Administration showed little concern for religious liberty when it required businesses to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to employees, even when business owners had religious convictions against doing so. It also offered a rare challenge to the doctrine of ministerial exception, a legal protection which holds that religious groups should be free to choose, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, “who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.”

 

Not to be outdone, then-presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke announced in October that churches that hold disfavored views on same-sex marriage should lose their tax-exempt status. He apparently views this important religious liberty protection as a “reward” that can be withdrawn when the government disagrees with the theology of a church, mosque, or synagogue.

 

In the academy, Professors Marci Hamilton, Brian Leiter, Richard Schragger, John Corvino, Micah Schwartzman, and others have made well-publicized arguments criticizing religious liberty. These scholars have penned multiple works with titles such as Why Tolerate Religion? and “What if Religion Is Not Special?”

 

In his United Nations speech advocating religious liberty, President Trump made it clear that religion is, in fact, special. He observed:

 

The United States is founded on the principle that our rights do not come from government; they come from God. This immortal truth is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Our Founders understood that no right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious convictions.

 

He is absolutely correct. As I argue in my recently published book Did America Have a Christian Founding?, Americans embraced a robust view of religious liberty precisely because they believed that it was a God-given right. Colonial leaders such as Roger Williams, William Penn, Elisha Williams, Samuel Davies, Isaac Backus, and John Leland regularly made biblical and theological arguments to support this freedom. So did the civic leaders who crafted our constitutional republic.

 

Many founders believed that religious liberty is grounded on the duty men and women have to worship their Creator. A fine example of this is George Mason’s 1776 draft of Article XVI of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights:

 

That as religion, or the duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be governed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate [emphasis added].

 

Mason’s draft of Article XVI was reprinted throughout the states and had an important impact on subsequent state constitutions and the national Bill of Rights. But it was not the draft that became law. James Madison, in his first significant public act, didn’t deny that individuals have a duty to worship God, but he objected to the use of “toleration” because it implies that religious liberty is a grant from the state that could be revoked.

 

The Virginia Convention agreed with Madison and amended Article XVI to make it clear that “the free exercise of religion” is a right, not a privilege given by the state. Like Virginia, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which was largely drafted by John Adams, grounds religious freedom in the “duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.”

 

President Washington agreed with Madison that it was far too late in the day to speak of religious “toleration.” In his wonderful 1790 letter to the “Hebrew Congregation” in Newport, Rhode Island, he noted that all citizens

 

possess alike liberty and conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

 

Like Mason, Madison, Adams, and Washington, President Trump and Attorney General Barr recognize that religious liberty is a God-given freedom that must be robustly protected, both in America and throughout the world. As we contemplate who we should vote for in November, we should remember which political party is most committed to protecting what many founders called “the sacred right of conscience.”

+++++++++++++++++

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

_____________________________

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

 

About the Author: Mark David Hall

Mark David Hall is Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Politics at George Fox University and author of Did America Have a Christian Founding? Separating Modern Myth From Historical Truth.

 

The Imaginative Conservative is sponsored by The Free Enterprise Institute (a U.S. 501(c)3 tax exempt organization). Your donation to the Institute in support of The Imaginative Conservative is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. (Gifts may be made online or by check mailed to the Institute at 9600 Long Point Rd., Suite 300, Houston, TX, 77055.)

 

Copyright © 2020 The Imaginative Conservative | All Rights Reserved | The views expressed in essays are those of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of The Imaginative Conservative or its publisher or its editor.

 

Embrace In God We Trust


Justin posted his thoughts on the centrality of what has made America great. I say “thoughts” rather than “essay” because the post is remarkably short. I use the thought “remarkable” because though short, a little self-thought of Justin’s content (and this Editor’s awesome source linking — 😉) should turn you into some form of activist to keep America great.

 

Centrality spoiler alert: God Almighty was and so is or must continue to be, is the reason for an exceptional America.

 

JRH 3/7/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

******************

Embrace In God We Trust

Firmly Believe that America has a Purpose

 

By Justin Smith

Posted March 6, 2019 1:55 PM

Facebook Group:  Social Media Jail Conversations for Conservatives & Counterjihadists

 

In the beginning, we embraced In God We Trust. But we’ve allowed ourselves to become distracted bythe worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things.” Not only has our nation been on a lengthy path of turning away from God, due to half the nation forgetting our purpose, Conservatives and Christians have allowed this course due to their own apathy, complacency and fatalistic acceptance.

 

I firmly believe that America has a purpose. The purpose of leading the world toward what’s good, but we can’t fulfill that purpose so long as half the nation sides with Evil and Satan and every deceit, deception, perversion and deviancy that goes against God and the Word.

 

One need not be Christian to follow its commandments as a simple and effective way to lead a good, clean life and understand that by so doing, all society reaps the benefit.

 

But for one’s own salvation, one should consider following the TRUTH as offered by Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ and accept His Salvation and one’s redemption.

 

We can still be the beacon of hope for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the world, if only all America returns to Her Founding Principles and the Original Intent of the Founders to create the most Liberty for all Americans, if only America returns to God and a truly moral society.

 

Maybe it will take a miracle to get there. We sure need one right now.

 

Otherwise, the course we’re on is taking us straight over the cliff and headlong into an abyss of massive civil strife and the high likelihood of civil war.

 

Pray for each other and Your Families and Pray for Our Beloved America.

 

~ Justin O Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Us vs Them


Justin Smith tackles the existence of political gridlock in America today, blaming it on the irreconcilable differences between the Dems and GOP. Justin quite correctly points to the gridlock as the Dems have lurched toward Marxism sanitized under the term – Democratic Socialism. Just like the Dems like to call themselves Progressives to disguise their current Marxist agenda, telling Americans that a Democratic Socialist is a Socialism for the people.

 

Spoiler alert: Justin believes (and I agree) that the Two-Party system as it exists today makes America ungovernable. When America is ungovernable, what will it lead to?

 

JRH 2/12/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

***************

Us vs Them

The Republic Hangs In The Balance: Communists, Devils and SOBs

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/10/2019 9:07 PM

 

Most of the American public feels that the future of the Republic hangs in the balance. “Four more years of Trump… and it will be the end of us…” they say. Or… “I hope those Democrats don’t get into office; did you see those taxes they’re proposing?”

 

We are programmed to see the world that way. It’s “Us vs. Them.” You just have to decide which “Us” you’re part of.

 

But what if you’ve chosen the wrong “Us”? What if neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will save the Republic?

 

We’re pretty well stuck with the Two-Party System for Now — the Choice We made Despite George Washington’s admonishment against parties — until we can kill the parties off, DISCARD THEM LIKE OLD BROKEN DOWN SHOES.

 

America needs to kill the two party system and simply allow the best man or woman with the best ideas and vision for the nation win the day. But that will not be an easy thing, since parties determine the ballot; however, it can be done, if the people will it so.

 

Short of this, patriotic Americans must help both parties purge their ranks of anti-American communists, socialists, Muslims and globalists, who do not work within the confines of the U.S. Constitution and do not protect and defend it and our nation’s Founding Principles. It’s past time we make it known that the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao have absolutely no place in America’s culture.

 

I am afraid it’s going to take a civil war to drive this point home. Our divide has never been so great, all due to one side’s abandoning the vision and the mechanisms placed in our system, by Our Founding Fathers.

 

We have arrived at the day described by Washington, when men and women place party allegiance over allegiance and loyalty to America. But it’s even more serious than many can know. We have allowed a large segment of the population to be indoctrinated by the advocates and progenitors of Marxist Socialism, a foreign ideology that is antithetical to our Founding Principles, acting through sedition and treason against our nation; and this large segment is now represented by the Democratic Party, just as RINOs are its agents in the Republican Party.

 

Communism has long infiltrated our nation and both parties [Dems], from its spawning in 1848, and it seeks our subjugation and the end of individual liberty.

 

So, as we proceed rather warily and regard the future for America’s Children, when You select a candidate for any office, try to get Your community on the same page to vote for someone — A Person, A Statesman and Not A Party — who holds proven views that support the greatest economic prosperity through an individual’s own efforts and free choices; who supports known ideas, virtues and principles that allow for the greatest realm of individual liberty possible.

 

Work like hell to get them elected.

 

And then push all elected representatives to rescind superfluous laws and bad or illegitimate law that impedes any God-given right or the Bill of Rights, and make these legislators ask the following before each bill is voted upon.

 

Does this bill help all Americans? Or does it harm more Americans than it helps?

 

Does this bill create real potential for greater prosperity? Or does it impede economic growth?

 

Does this bill take anything away from individual liberty? Too many bills do this very thing simply due to the fact they fall under the auspices of the government; by this alone, Congress should be passing VERY FEW “Laws” each year, instead of thousands of new laws that not one citizen in the nation can possibly know or obey in their entirety.

 

There are only two things worth fighting for. You are either protecting your stuff or you are protecting yourself. But against whom?

 

Those devils in the Republican party? Or those SOBs, the Democrats?

 

The Democrats are vying with each other to see who can come up with a new tax, likely to be seen at the 70% mark, to take away our property; we surely don’t want them in charge.

 

But wait… the Republicans increased spending by some $500 billion over two years… and added $2 trillion to the federal debt. Where did they think that money would come from?

 

Where is the “Us” worthy of support? Where is the “Them” that should be annihilated? Well … for starters we definitely can say it is those illiberal and intolerant Communists, Socialists, Fascists and Muslims within our borders, who should be annihilated; since they have just about forced our nation to Her knees as they repeatedly and often attack our Founding Judeo-Christian Principles, Our Constitution and Our Freedoms and Liberties and God-given Rights.

 

Tell Your Congressmen and Senators, that You would PREFER THEY DO NOTHING RATHER THAN PASS BAD, ILLEGITIMATE LAW THAT FURTHER ERODES OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.

 

Make this a plan for ELECTION 2020!!!

 

~ Justin O Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the /editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Liberty First and Foremost


Justin Smith writes a powerful essay about the dangers of dependence on Big Government by American citizens. A Big Government incidentally, wholly endorsed by the American Democratic Party as a remedy for molding American lives.

 

Molding lives via government is the paradigm goal of Communism to bring an unreachable political utopia devoid of humanity’s Creator and hence devoid of the Creator’s plan of morality bring about the true utopia of the created unified with the very Will of the Creator.

 

Reaching for the unreachable is merely man-think for despotic few to dominate the individual lives of the many duped into doing what they are told … or else.

JRH 10/21/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Liberty First and Foremost

Free Men Reject Big Government

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 10/19/2018 1:01 PM

 

The Democratic Party has grown to be the enemy within our country, and the communist Democrats working in federal positions are the same as foreign agents infiltrated into federal agencies, seeking to do whatever is needed to end this republic. However, an equally dangerous enemy is found in a government that no longer adheres to the limits the document that created government imposes upon them, and now, it very nearly does not matter who occupies the seats of power within government, because government itself has become a monster that devours the freedom it was established to protect.

 

Our country is too expansive to be governed effectively by a strong central government without that government becoming tyrannical.

 

If America ever hopes to restore itself anywhere close to the Founding Principles [Blog Editor: Web posts this Editor believes demonstrate the Founding Fathers’ concept of Founding Principles: HERE, HERE, HERE and a very important 2011 essay – HERE], the people of America must place liberty first and foremost on their list of priorities and stop asking government to pass laws that are designed to somehow help them in life. A free man does not need government for anything; they succeed or fail based upon their own merit and accept whatever hand life deals them without asking for any assistance from their government.

 

Sadly and unfortunate for America, far too many of our countrymen — an extremely high percentage — have the mentality that they shouldn’t be required to take care of themselves; that should be the job of the federal government.

 

When we tolerate laws that criminalize the defense of our lives, liberty and property, we make ourselves slaves to those who dictate when and where can defend ourselves. To pass laws which require that a portion of society be required to subsidize the existence of another is also a violation of our right to enjoy the full benefit of the fruits of our labor; i.e. or income. Thomas Jefferson expressed that belief as follows,

 

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

 

Freedom, or liberty, is a two sided coin; you are free to do as you please as long as you don’t restrict others from doing the same. At the same time you and you alone are responsible for the consequences of your decisions and actions. People say they want freedom, and yet, they shun the consequences of their actions, as they seek political candidates who will provide a safety net for them should they fail to achieve success or riches. Much less than freedom, they have embraced the cold chains of serfdom and bowed at the altar of the State, and when you are dependent upon someone or something you are a slave to it.

 

The American people must stop looking to Uncle Sam to do everything for them. Uncle Sam isn’t going to do a damned thing that reduces the power its agents already hold over you; all you can do is put of some kind of barrier that blocks, or nullifies, their ability to exercise that power, unless and until that power grows so obtrusive and repressive that it is intolerable by way of its arbitrary rule and acts of tyranny, rather than representation. At this point, freedom loving Free Born Americans worth their salt will Rise Up In Armed Rebellion.

 

Rather than allow matters to progress to that point, if Americans want to curb the influence of the federal government — Uncle Sam — in their respective States, they do not need to focus their attention upon candidates too focused on attempting to reduce the power wielded by Uncle Sam. Americans must choose and elect candidates who will tell Uncle Sam that he has no jurisdiction in their Sovereign State, especially when our federal government enforces UnConstitutional junk “law”, illegally and extralegally, such as the President Obama’s “Dreamer” executive order, Obamacare, homosexual marriage and abortion.

 

As noted in Section 177 of the 16th American Jurisprudence:

 

“An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since it’s unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

 

Such [Blog Editor: The versions of this quote found by Editor does not have “Such” but rather the word “Since”.] an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follows that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it.

 

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

 

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

 

Americans must awaken to the fact that our federal government no longer serves the limited purposes for which it was established. It is a government that consistently and regularly encroaches on our rights of life, liberty and property, ignoring or dismissing them altogether, just as we witnessed in recent years, with its attempted overreach on our Second Amendment and numerous violations of the Fourth Amendment and the abuse of Cliven Bundy’s family and the Hammond family and the murder of Robert Lavoy Finicum at the hands of its agents, using force when it has no authority or right to do so.

 

Uncle Sam derives its power by way of our consent. If we simply withdrew that consent, saying “I will no longer comply”, in a unified voice, whenever our federal government violates one of our God-given Inalienable Rights, there wouldn’t be a damned thing they could to about it.

 

If liberty is the primary reason for which all governments should serve to protect, the American people need to place that first and foremost on their list of priorities, so their children’s children and generations beyond will grow up in a land of true freedom and liberty. And they must stop voting for any candidate who seeks to limit liberty, or will not defend liberty to their last dying gasp.

 

by Justin O Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text embraced by brackets as well as source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Until My Last Dying Gasp


President Trump has drawn back a bit on his support for the NRA in reaction to the recent Parkland Massacre in which 17 people (students & adults) were killed by an ex-student of the High School Nikolas Cruz. Second Amendment proponents view this as a betrayal. Justin Smith shares his feelings on the issue.

 

On a personal level I believe something must be done to protect soft targets (like schools, but there are many more soft targets) from terrorism and nut jobs. HOWEVER, gun confiscation or restriction is NOT the solution. I won’t delve into alternative solutions here, but I will state my largest concern about gun control that will affect in law abiding American.

 

Especially due to Obama weaponizing government agencies – including law enforcement and intel agencies – I have zero trust in government to not force some unwanted way of life down my throat. Gun control will lead to tyrannical totalitarianism. Justin Smith’s thoughts below should warn of future potential government tyranny that begins with gun control.

 

JRH 3/3/18

Please Support NCCR

****************

Until My Last Dying Gasp

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent March 2, 2018 7:18 PM

 

Let me be as clear as I can be. I don’t give a good damn how many Americans have died in recent shootings, when their lives are placed next to the liberty of millions of Americans, for generations to come. President Trump and Democrat and Republican senior senators, those who beamed at the prospect of exerting greater gun control during their February 28th meeting, seemed to forget that so many more lives have been saved by the right to self-defense, as they attacked the Second Amendment, due process under the law and individual liberty; and regardless of any new illegitimate and unconstitutional “law” they may implement, through coercion or “might makes right” action, they will still be wrong and spitting in the faces of the Founders and the American people.

 

Today’s criminals are nearly always armed with semi-automatic weapons, so police are not the only ones who need AR-15s. Criminals victimize the public, and if citizens are to stand a fighting chance against criminals, they too need effective weapons.

 

However, America now finds itself saddled with a Trump administration, which is not so different from a Clinton administration on the Second Amendment after all. Trump endorsed the “assault weapons” ban, background checks for private sales at gun shows and raising the age for purchasing firearms to twenty-one. He also contended Congress was “petrified of the NRA”, as he tore into fellow Republicans as tools of the NRA and handed Democrats a propaganda victory.

 

As Katie Pavlich, journalist and Fox News contributor, recently noted [Outnumbered Video], despite the AR-15s popularity, data from Homeland Security shows that handguns are the weapon of choice when it comes to mass shootings. She also stated: “And let’s not forget that during the church massacre in Texas … it was an NRA-certified instructor who used an AR-15 to stop the killing … “.

 

During the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that the right to self-defense pre-existed government, which had already been confirmed by U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1875 and never overturned. The court went further in Heller, and it articulated the right of the individual to use firearms, that are at the same level of sophistication as firearms one’s potential adversary might have, whether that person is a criminal bad guy, psychopath or a soldier of a tyrannical government. And this must negate any attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles, even those deemed “assault weapons”.

 

The suggestion to raise the age limit is a non sequitur argument, and once again, a punishment of law abiding Americans. Age is not indicative of good sense or good moral character. Timothy McVeigh was in his late twenties when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building and the Las Vegas shooter was sixty-four. Aside from this, guns aren’t the problem any more than age can denote one’s mental stability, or lack thereof.

 

Forty-eight years ago at the age of thirteen, I would often walk through the main streets of Dixon, Missouri, with my twelve gauge shotgun slung across one arm and on my way to the fields and backwoods trails to shoot wild hogs, and I would happily wave at the police and sheriff’s deputies, as they drove by. No one thought this to be anything unusual.

 

Mental illness and its role in gun violence was also part of the discussion, and President Trump revealed his despotic side, when he explicitly denounced due process of the law, saying: “… take the firearms first, and then go to court … because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, I like taking the guns early … take the guns first, go through due process second.”

 

Who deems these people dangerous? the government? family? friends? It takes more than just one assertion, one allegation, and it must receive due process consideration, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, the mere accusation of mental illness might become a subterfuge to disarm thousands of normal people, perhaps political opponents, by any future administration.

 

Trump’s far left suggestion to grab guns without legal cause was radical, idiotic, fascistic and unconstitutional. Such a comment from any Democrat president would have resulted in armed stand-offs with the police, calls for impeachment and a fury from the American people hotter than a thousand 100 megaton nukes exploding.

 

Senator Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the only Republican to openly oppose President Trump, as he stated: “Strong leaders don’t automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them. We have a Second Amendment and due process of the law for a reason. We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn’t like them.”

 

At what point are Trump’s supporters going to hold him accountable for his outlandish statements? At what point will they stop excusing him?

 

God forbid that America should ever descend into real tyranny, however, Trump’s remarks show precisely the reason America must not allow the Second Amendment to be eroded. Modern history is replete with examples of fascist and communist regimes that exterminated a combined total of 160 million of their own people, between 1940 and 1980 [Closest citation I could in cursory search], and, in light of our own early history under the British, it is ever more important for Americans to retain the right to possess modern semi-automatic weapons, to ensure that our government never feels it is more powerful than its citizens.

 

Foremost among our unalienable rights, the Framers of the Constitution recognized our right to life and to defend life — one’s self, one’s family and one’s property — by ratifying the Second Amendment. They wrote the amendment understanding that it did not grant this right and the right to self-defense was not dependent on that instrument for its existence. It was written to ensure that all future U.S. governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms, as a natural extension of the right to self-defense, in natural law and God’s law, standing alone and independent of the Constitution.

 

President Trump is a damned dangerous fool, and anyone who seeks to undermine our right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, through Trump’s proposals, isn’t a friend to the American people. Those who seek added “security”, in any manner other than targeting the criminals, who mock our existing gun laws, rape laws, robbery laws and homicide laws, only ensure security will not exist, our liberty will be eroded, and we will cease to be a free people. And for everyone who thinks Trump and his fellow despots are right, you can relinquish your rights like sheep, and I’ll keep and defend my God-given Rights Until MY LAST DYING GASP.

_____________________

John R. Houk, Editor

All source links or any text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

A Visitor from the Past (2014)


Joe Berlyak, a Facebook person that is probably a member of a group I belong to, sent a Facebook messenger video I found very Patriotic and stirring. I enjoyed the video so much I sent a friend request and looked it up on Youtube to make it easier to share on a blog. Below is that video.

 

JRH 12/12/17

Please Support NCCR

*********************

A Visitor from the Past (2014)

 

Posted by Stan Arthur

Published on Jul 19, 2014

 

A short film for American patriots. From a poem by Thelen Paulk. Directed by Stan Arthur.

 

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”


The best intro to this essay submission from Justin Smith can be summed up from an excerpt:

 

Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

JRH 8/6/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/5/2017 3:36 PM

 

The Founding Fathers believed that government’s role in religion should be limited. We cannot discount that the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” either establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Rather than articulate an affirmative responsibility for government to protect religion, the Founding Fathers felt it was enough to keep the government out. If nothing else, the language of the First Amendment makes it clear the goal was to restrain government when it came to religion. There is no suggestion the Founders felt the establishment clause and the free exercise clause were in any way competing. Otherwise, why would the Founders include the two clauses together?

 

The point was to keep government out of both realms. Both clauses were needed because it was not sufficient to restrain government from establishing a state religion; government also had to be restrained from any attempt to interfere with religious practices and beliefs. The negative language of the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that promotes religion, provided the judgement does not promote one religion over others.

Before the bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education (1947), the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America.

 

The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s an interesting thought on how the Left and Activist Judges misused the 14th Amendment to rob the Original Intent of the First Amendment:

 

When did things change?

 

Charles Darwin theory’s that species could evolve inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve. This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the “case precedent” method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

This occurred near the same time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, introduced by Republicans in Congress to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South. The evolutionary “case-precedent” method provided a way to side-step the Constitutional means of changing the Constitution through the Amendment process.

 

Activist Justices began to creatively use the 14th Amendment to take jurisdiction away from the states over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, farming, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

 

Freedom of religion was still under each individual state’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

 

In 1937, FDR nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, who also concentrated power by writing decisions taking jurisdiction away from the states in the area of religion. He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a state” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.” READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (THIS IS HOW ATHEISM BECAME OUR OFFICIAL ‘RELIGION’; By BILL FEDERER; WND; 1/15/16 9:01 PM)

 

Now I can’t vouch for this being Justin Smith’s thought on the 14th Amendment, but using the effect of Darwinism in the development of Case Law to have more authority than Original Intent is enlightening to me.]

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist [Blog Editor: Federalist/Anti-Federalist Perspectives – HERE, HERE & HERE], clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

The First Amendment compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed, then government acting to remove religion from the public sphere would have seemed to Our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to Our Founding Principles.

It is almost as if Justice Black decided the First Amendment was equivalent to the biblical admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, under the assumption that a discernible distinction could be made without conflict between what was Caesar’s and what was God’s. The whole point of the First Amendment’s attempt to protect freedom of religion is that over time Caesar tends to intrude upon God.

 

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollom v Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) that religious education provided by churches on public school grounds in Illinois during the school day was unconstitutional. Then in 1952, in Zorach v Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), the Supreme Court found that allowing New York students to leave school grounds for religious education was constitutional. Dissenting in Zorach, Justice Black wrote, “I see no significant difference between the invalid Illinois system and that of New York here sustained.” If Justice Black, the author of the court’s majority opinion in Everson, could not distinguish these cases, how could state, county, city or municipal school officials be expected to make the distinction reliably?

 

A Godless public square could not be more antithetical to what Our Founding Fathers thought they were achieving when drafting the First Amendment, and the Courts distort precedent whenever they use the Establishment Clause to crush all things religious Ironically, the very language crafted to protect religious freedom has now reached the point at which Americans can only be assured freedom from religion in all places within this nation, with the possible exceptions of prayer confined to church and free expression of religion confined to the privacy of one’s home.

Jefferson made a poignant remark in Notes on the State of Virginia, which clarifies his thinking: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?[Blog Editor’s Emphasis]

 

Why didn’t the Supreme Court choose this text for their ruling? [Blog Editor’s Emphasis] Or his use of “natural rights” in other documents? Justice Clarence Thomas once stated: “… this Court’s nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than “judicial predilections … It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public square and the public schools, it is replaced by other religions, including Secular Humanism, which is specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court.”
In order to combat this assault on religious freedom and religious liberty, to date, twenty-one states have enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts since 1993. Currently, ten states [5/4/17 – 9 States] are considering legislation on the topic this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Virginia amended their state RFRA, but otherwise no states have passed their legislation.
For eight decades, the ACLU has been America’s leading religious censor, waging a largely uncontested war, until recently, against America’s core values, utilizing every fallacy, piece of misinformation and outright LIE imaginable in its war against religious liberty, with the support of much of the current Marxist media; both are intent on destroying traditional America, including the nuclear family. We now live in a country where our traditional Christian and Jewish faith and religion — civilizing forces in any society — are openly mocked and increasingly pushed to the margins, and our weapon to stop them is the Founding Fathers’ own words and their Original Intent regarding the U.S. Constitution.
Ultimately, two very diverse thinkers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams concluded, that without virtue based on a solid belief in God, Liberty was inevitably lost. In other words, if the Supreme Court, through the efforts of Communists, atheists and fools and ACLU prompting, succeeds in removing the Judeo-Christian God from American public life, a foundation pillar upon which American liberty has depended will have been removed, perhaps irretrievably. Without the open expression of religious freedom so fundamental to American liberty that it is written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, American Liberty will not long persist.

 

Americans cannot and must not allow the Communists and atheists of this nation and the ACLU to secularize America to the point where our tolerance is turned into silencing and punishing religious speech. Life is valuable; marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman, and families are comprised of a male father and a female mother with any number of children. Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Purging History


Intro to ‘Purging History’

John R. Houk Editor

Posted June 10, 2017

 

Those horrible White slave owners of American history should be purged, right? NO!

 

Ending slavery was an awesome end result of the Northern States defeating the Southern States by the end of 1865. Regardless of the immoral slave culture these Southern Confederates tried to perpetuate, many were great Christians and supporter of the heritage of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

 

The break-away Confederate States had their capital city in Richmond Virginia. The Confederate’s primary general was Robert E. Lee from Virginia. Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was raised in what is now West Virginia, but was a part of Virginia at the beginning of the Civil War.

 

Why the emphasis on Civil War Virginia? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all came from Virginia – former British Colony turned into one of the original Thirteen States. Those three Virginians were extremely instrumental in the formation and founding of the sovereign United States of America.

 

Washington: Commander-in-Chief the Revolutionary War army that ultimately prevailed and forced the recognition of an independent United States; President of the Constitutional Convention AND the first President of the United States.

Jefferson: Writer of the Declaration of Independence; Revolutionary War Foreign Diplomat; much of Jefferson’s Virginia legislation influenced the U.S. Constitution but not a fan of the Constitution central government yet an ardent supporter once ratified AND third President of the United States.

Madison: Madison was involved in Virginia politics during the Revolutionary War widely influential in writing Virginia’s new State Constitution; wrote the drafts of the U.S. Constitution and designed the Bill of Rights – hence known as the Father of the Constitution; one of the principle writers of The Federal Papers used to encourage the ratification of the Constitution AND the fourth President of the United States.

 

Now I realize my little synopsis of Founding Father heroes of our American is hardly complete. Also I realize that many other influential Founding Fathers both in and out of Virginia are not mentioned. MY POINT is leading to the fact these remarkably influential Virginia Founding Fathers ALL were slave-owning Plantation businessmen of their day.

 

Should we allow the hysterical American Left to purge their names from U.S. history?

 

Justin Smith wonders why We The People of America allow Confederate history to be scrubbed because of slavery? Here are some introductory words from Justin Smith:

 

This piece is by no means intended to defend the evils of slavery or the sins committed by slave owners. It is simply an attempt to illustrate the fallacies relied upon by the Left as they attempt to portray the Civil War only in the context of the slave issue; it truly was much more complex than most people understand, and this one article barely scratches the surface. Now however, the past is being improperly used as a tool of commie progressives to undermine America, as much as they are allowed by the normal population of America.

I hope this peaks the curiosity of many and moves them to halt these sort of movements whenever they arise near them or in their home towns.

 

JRH 6/10/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Purging History

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/8/2017 4:20 PM

 

Monuments honoring heroes of the Confederate States of America, American heroes in fact, are being removed from the public square, due to a successful presentation of oversimplified arguments and lies by the same progressive Leftist Democratic apparatus that seeks to fundamentally transform America. These assaults on the Southern heritage by politically correct propagandists and arrogant activist ideologues are assaults on our American culture and heritage, or “AmeriKKKa” as the Left calls America; and, it is nothing short of a cultural cleansing campaign, a purging of the truth and history and a national disgrace.

 

In 2015, the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP called for the destruction of the Stone Mountain Confederate Monument, that honors Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee and General Stonewall Jackson. They wanted the nearly 2000 square feet and 12 feet deep carving “sandblasted away”.

 

In February, the city council of Charlottesville, VA sought to remove Robert E. Lee’s likeness from its 100 year resting place. They have been temporarily blocked by a lawsuit filed by the Monument Fund and 29 other plaintiffs.

 

Soon protests arose in Charlottesville and NAACP President Rick Turner told the crowds: “I think a decision must be made to remove the statue by any means necessary.”

 

However, the City of New Orleans successfully removed the Battle of Liberty Place obelisk on April 24th and statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and General Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard on May 11th and May 17th, consecutively. The statue of Robert E. Lee was removed from New Orlean’s Lee Circle on May 19th, while other efforts are appearing nationwide, in places like Houston and Baltimore.

 

[Blog Editor: A great pro-history article at The Federalist.]

 

Starting in 1784, Thomas Jefferson and many righteous men afterwards attempted to abolish slavery until the end of the Civil War, including former slave owners such as James Madison. It is worth observing that while General Ulysses S. Grant owned one slave and his wife owned four slaves until 1859, General Robert E. Lee never owned any [Blog Editor: The no-slave claim is disputed. WaPo says yes & another source implies no. The “no” is representative of R.E. Lee’s disposition against slavery even though he managed his wife’s inherited slaves as a Plantation owner until Lee freed them by order of his father-in-law’s will.].

 

General Beauregard’s statue was taken down in the dark of night and Lee’s was coming down, when New Orlean’s Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D) revealed an astounding level of ignorance of history, stating: “They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These monuments celebrate a fictional sanitized Confederacy.” Landrieu could not be any more egregiously wrong.

 

On December 27th 1856, Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife: “Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country … a greater evil to the white than to the black race … nearly two thousand years [of Christianity] … and even among the Christian nations what gross errors still exist!”

 

Many Confederate generals did not want to secede and neither did Jefferson Davis. More than the issue of slavery that had profited both New England slave traders and Southern plantation owners, the South saw secession as a necessity in the face of the unfair tariffs the North had applied against the South from 1828 to 1832 and beyond. And so, they too pledged their lives, fortune and sacred honor as they seceded from an oppressive federal government to retain their sovereignty, their Constitutional rights and a free government.

 

President Abraham Lincoln was not any “Great Emancipator” himself. On August 22nd 1862, he wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, founder and editor of the New York Tribune, who supported a general amnesty for Confederate officials and angered Northeners by signing a bail bond for Jefferson Davis. In part the letter read: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

 

So why do the Leftist mobs of Antifa and Black Lives Matter castigate, impugn and demonize the character and honor of a noble man such as Robert E. Lee, while giving Ulysses S. Grant a pass?

 

General PGT Beauregard was a St Bernard Parrish native and a man of contradictions, who spent most of his non-military life in New Orleans. He fired the first shots in a war to preserve states rights and slavery, and yet in defeat, Beauregard argued passionately for the right of black people to vote.

 

So, Beauregard is impugned, while a statue of Senator Edward Carmack (D-TN) still stands in Nashville on the south side of Tennessee’s State Capitol Building. Carmack advocated for the repeal of the 15th Amendment, which granted black men the right to vote; he was also the editor of the ‘Nashville Tennessean’ and a coward, who was shot and killed, on Union St. in Nashville, as he hid behind Mrs. Charles Eastman after firing on Duncan Cooper, his nemesis.

 

It is nearly impossible to find any truth behind the Left’s assertions, that they are campaigning against the “white supremacy” symbolized by Confederate monuments, when most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves by the time the Civil War was burning hot. To claim that the majority of non-slaveholder soldiers, who fought for the South, could have fought and sacrificed their lives and those of their families, so a minority of wealthy aristocrats could retain the “right” to own slaves is preposterous on any analysis.

 

The logic behind these character assassinations make it inescapably clear that the Left will not be satisfied until every white figure who doesn’t pass their “progressive” scrutiny is cleansed from the Southern culture and American culture too. How much truth must be sacrificed to mold history to fit a single strain of a prevailing political ideology?

 

Mitch Landrieu and Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh and many other Democrats, along with some misguided and ill-informed “conservatives” say that these men don’t deserve to be honored. Who does then?

 

President McKinley had fought against “Stonewall” Jackson, as a teenager, in the Shenandoah. McKinley was at Antietam, the bloodiest single-day battle of the Civil War; and at the start of the Spanish-American War, when Southern volunteers and former Confederate soldiers paraded through Atlanta to fight for a united America, McKinley removed his hat and stood for the singing of ‘Dixie’.

 

Nearly half of the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention owned slaves or facilitated the slave trade. Is anything associated with Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other Founders now considered to be immoral too?

 

Are Americans really going to allow more monuments to be torn down? Are Americans going to sandblast Stone Mountain Confederate Monument and even Mount Rushmore, sandblasting away our American Heritage? I say “NO”.

 

Left unrestrained, the radicals of this nation will attempt to purge and destroy every vestige of anything remotely associated with any slaveholder. Our Constitution and even our Declaration of Independence have long been under their assaults, because both were written by white men and slave-owners, and these amended documents halt their own authoritarian agenda. They would scrap these documents altogether if they could, placing them in the dustbin of history and divesting them of honor.

 

A history hidden away and purged is a half-truth and a lie, no history at all. America’s sins in slavery are despicable, abominable and dark, however, Her inalienable rights that served as the mechanism to end slavery are virtues to be praised, brilliant as a rising sun.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

All links as well as text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Disestablishmentarianism, Constitution, SCOTUS & UN


Flag, Constitution & Bible

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

 

I’m not a huge believer in the American’s Left interpretation of the Disestablishmentarian Clause of the First Amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or … (Amendment I: FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION; National Constitution Center)

 

The Left and Secular Humanists interpret this clause as meaning religion (Founding Fathers meant Christian Church) and State must be absolutely separated from each other. No government in the Church and no Church in the government. But you can read the clause. Tell me where it is written that a separation must exist. YOU CANNOT because there is no such wording!

 

All the clause says is that the Congressional Branch of the Federal government shall make NO LAW establishing a state religion or as the Founders understood, no state Church established by the Federal government.

 

In fact, did you know that several of the original 13 States retained their Established Christian Church for some time after the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land for the United States of America? The Federal government was constitutionally forbidden from enacting any law pertaining to religion on State level because of the Disestablishmentarian Clause in the 1st Amendment and the 10th Amendment which states:

 

 “The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 ([SCOTUS Decision of 2/14] 1931). – “About the Tenth Amendment”; Tenth Amendment Center)

 

It is a bit interesting that the Tenth Amendment Center in the quote above, that a 1931 SCOTUS decision is used as an affirmation of the purpose of the 10th Amendment. Why is it interesting? Because SCOTUS is the very reason that the Left has successfully utilized the term Living Constitution to make laws not authorized by the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Of the Thirteen Original States after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, several had Established Churches even after the Civil War. Here is post-ratification State Established Churches with the year Establishment ended:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • South Carolina – 1868 (Actually a SCOTUS decision ended all State support of Christian institutions in 1925 to be retroactive to 1868: “14th Amendment to US Constitution was ratified by South Carolina in July 1868. The US Supreme Court ruled that this amendment ended state support of religion in all US states in ruling of Gitlow v. New York, 1925” [The link within the quote is by the Blog Editor])

 

 

 

… (Religion in the Original 13 Colonies: ProCon.org; Last updated on 1/6/2009 7:26:00 AM PST)

 

I believe most of these states disestablished soon after the Constitution was ratified but was involved in some kind Church oriented support via organizations until the end date list above. In all cases it was the state legislature that ended Church Establishment and not SCOTUS. Primarily in the early 20th century SCOTUS began extra-constitutionally whittling away at the religious freedoms of the Christian Church influencing government on the local, state and federal level.

 

Here is an excerpted short scope on how SCOTUS evolved to acquire more power than intended by the Framers of the Constitution:

 

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

 

With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall established the Supreme Court’s role in the new government. Hereafter, the Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution.

 

 

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

The Constitution does not consider slaves to be U.S. citizens. Rather, they are constitutionally protected property of their masters.”

 

Chief Justice Roger Taney authored this opinion— one of the most important and scorned in the nation’s history. Dred Scott, a slave, had moved with his master to Illinois, a free state. He moved again to a slave state, Missouri, and filed suit to gain freedom, under that state’s law of “Once free, always free.” Taney held that Scott had never been free at all, and cited Constitutional grounds for placing the slavery decision in the hands of the states. In trying to put an end to the slavery controversy, Taney instead sped the nation toward civil war. The decision was later overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

 

Roe v. Wade, 1973

The Constitutionally implied right to privacy protects a woman’s choice in matters of abortion.

 

Norma McCorvey sought an abortion in Texas, but was denied under state law. The Court struck down that law, on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricted the woman’s right to choose. The opinion set forth guidelines for state abortion regulations; states could restrict a woman’s right to choose only in the later stages of the pregnancy. Later modified but not overruled, the decision stands as one of the Court’s most controversial.

 

(Twenty-Five Landmark Cases in Supreme Court History; ConstitutionFacts.com)

 

Specific to throwing out Original Intent Disestablishmentarian Clause:

 

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

 

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

 

 

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

 

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) – Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

 

 

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

 

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

 

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether “pure” moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

 

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of “creation science” in all instances in which Uncons[titutional] evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

 

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

 

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

 

(U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (arranged by date); Secular Web – Internet Infidels)

 

I find it ironic that an atheistic group like the Secular Web provided the information I needed to demonstrate the manipulation by SCOTUS of the 1st Amendment Disestablishmentarian Clause away from the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent.

 

You have to realize that the Leftist transformation agenda implemented strongly by Obama would continue if Crooked Hillary is elected by either adoring Dem voters and/or duped anti-Trump voters. A Crooked Hillary Administration would certainly nominate more SCOTUS Justices that would adhere to the Living Constitution principles over Original Intent principles. It is the Living Constitution principles is what has allowed SCOTUS to successfully erode the U.S. Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended it as a tool of limited government by We The People as opposed to the ruling elites of the Establishment from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

 

The elitist Establishment is very supportive of the globalist agenda of the United Nations. It is my humble opinion the Left of America and the globalist Left of the UN is using Islam as a tool to completely disenfranchise Christianity as the moral influence of the Western World. This is the reason the Multiculturalists of Europe, the American Left and the UN is hot to encourage Muslim migration to Western nations. The Leftist gamble to use Islam as a tool is dangerous to the point of idiocy.

 

The purists of Islam – often called Radical Islam by blind PC Westerners – have their own agenda. These adherents of the literal wording of the Quran, Hadith and Sira desire to establish a global Caliphate under the submission principles of Sharia Law. There is no room for Western Liberty or the U.S. Bill of Rights in Islam. Western principles of Liberty and the rule of Law are absolutely contrary to Islamic principles of submission. By the way, the Arab to English of Islam is peace is a lie. The phrase is better rendered Islam is submission is the more accurate translation.

 

So when I read that the UN is giving special privileges to Islamic worshippers over Christian worshipper (as well as excluding other non-Muslim religions), it chaps my hide a bit.

 

In case you don’t follow the duplicitous hypocrisy of the United Nations, that world body has elevated “radical” Muslims to high positions. Notoriously Saudi citizens are on the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in leadership positions.

 

And more recently I discovered from Eagle Rising that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Evidently UN globalism is dictating to sovereign nations how they teach Christianity to children in private and public schools. In this report on the UNCRC is saying children experiencing compulsory Christian rituals is violating their freedom of conscience:

 

… the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

 

 

“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,”

 

Here’s the full article.

 

JRH 7/4/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

The United Nations Said Teaching Christianity to Kids is Wrong for This Reason

United-Nations- logo 

By Tim Brown

July 1, 2016

Eagle Rising

 

Here is just another in a long line of examples of why the United States needs to not only defund the United Nations, but remove ourselves from it and the organization from our soil. In a recent paper put out by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

 

The Telegraph reports:

 

Britain must stop forcing children to attend Christian school assemblies because it undermines their human rights, a United Nations committee has said in a controversial new report.

 

The authors called on ministers to repeal a law demanding a daily act of Christian worship at schools because it may contradict a child’s “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

 

The report was produced by an 18-person group of “independent experts” of “high moral character” including representatives from Bahrain, Russia and Egypt.

 

Critics dubbed the demand “ludicrous” and said the government should responded by “respectfully” putting the report “in the bin”.

 

It was just one of 150 recommendations about where Britain could be contravening the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child.

 

“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,” reads a portion of the report.

 

Surely, Oliver Cromwell is rolling over in his grave as he was one who defended Protestant Britain from King Charles’ tyranny and treason.

 

“The Committee recommends that the State party repeal legal provisions for compulsory attendance at collective worship in publicly funded schools and ensure that children can independently exercise the right to withdraw from religious worship at school,” the report added.

 

Britons called the report “ludicrous” and “mad.”

 

“The collective act of worship is not an indoctrination exercise,” Parliament Minister David Burrowes told The Telegraph. “It is recognizing and respecting the Christian heritage of the country and giving people an opportunity to reflect before the beginning of the day. The UN should spend more time doing its main job of preventing war and genocide rather than poking its nose in other countries’ classrooms. We can respectfully put those kind of reports in the bin where they belong.”

 

However, some in the UK were all too happy with the report, namely anti-theists.

 

The British Humanist Association Director Pavan Dhaliwal said, “The UK state fails its young people in far too many ways today. Almost uniquely among economically developed countries, it segregates them in schools along religious lines. We are pleased to see the UN agree with us that UK law needs to change.”

 

So, parents have been sending their kids to school knowing full well that this has been going on, but don’t have a problem with it because they hold to Christianity, right? On what authority does the UN act to even recommend interfering or giving advice or counsel to anyone regarding children, Christianity, education or parenting? They just simply are attempting to usurp authority.

 

Parents have a duty before God, apart from any law being enforced on them, to train up their children and teach them the Law of God. They should be doing this at home, in my opinion. I have constantly encouraged parents to take advantage of free homeschool curriculum and remove their children from public indoctrination centers. While I agree that if there is going to be schooling like in Britain that having the Bible taught and expounded upon is a good thing, I do not agree that it somehow violates a child’s human rights. In fact, leaving a child without a worldview based on the teachings of the Bible leaves them open for all sorts of faulty thinking, much like those of the British Humanist Association. They forget that true liberty only exists under the Lawgiver, and that only tyranny exists apart from Him.

 

Reposted With Permission From Freedom Outpost.

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

______________________

Disestablishmentarianism, Constitution, SCOTUS & UN

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

____________________

The United Nations Said Teaching Christianity to Kids is Wrong for This Reason

 

About Tim Brown

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, husband to his wife, father of 10, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the brand new Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle.

 

Copyright © 2016. EagleRising.com is a member of Liberty Alliance. All rights reserved. 

 

About Eagle Rising

 

Eagle Rising seeks to share breaking news about culture, media, politics, etc., from a Christian perspective.

 

Eagle Rising is a division of Bravera Holdings, LLC. Founded in 2013 by Gary DeMar and Brandon Vallorani.

 

READ THE REST