Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA


America's Christian Foundation

John R. Houk

© February 11, 2014

 

Not long ago President Barack Hussein Obama delivered the State of the Union Address (1/28/14) before Congress and the American television viewers who decided to tune in. I personally am disgusted with the President’s overbearing roughshod approach of shoving his Leftist transformationism down the throat of America. In other words – I chose not to watch it. Instead I listened to, watched and read the reviews of Conservatives that have a greater regard for Original Intent constitutionalism.

 

With all this in mind I came across an essay from a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that in essence could be themed the State of America’s Existence through the filter of history and our Christian heritage. Pastor Rick Joyner of MorningStar Fellowship Church (and Ministries) is one of those rare ordained Christian leaders that chooses to exercise both his First Amendment Right to Religious Freedom and the Right of Free Speech. Contrary to Supreme Court, the IRS as well as Separation of Church/State enthusiasts Christians and Christian Leaders SHOULD take steps to be an influence on the operation of government. The concept of “Separation of Church/State is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution but rather is a derivative political doctrine twisted from a Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist of Church of Connecticut that was concerned that its parishioners would have to pay tax support for a State Established Church which were STILL in effect on the State level in the novice Federal Union of the United States of America, but were prohibited on a Federal level Constitutionally for the U.S. government. Evidently uncharacteristically Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion that emphasized the bizarre interpretation of the Jefferson-to-Danbury Baptist Church Letter to forbid anything to do with government money to have anything to do with religion – focus on Christianity. This warping of an issue NOT FOUND in the U.S. Constitution occurred in the year 1947. This is 159 years after the Ninth State (New Hampshire) ratified the Constitution creating the United States of America’s present form of government.

 

Pastor Joyner is not complying with the Leftist edict to keep the Church out of the State. His observations are worth reading.

 

JRH 2/11/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Restoring The Republic

MorningStar Prophetic Bulletin #83

 

By Rick Joyner

February 6, 2014

MorningStar

 

America is not the kingdom of God, and it is definitely not the New Jerusalem. Even so, many nations have been called by God for special purposes. After years of studying American history and the founding of our Republic, His hand in our founding became clear to me. America has a purpose in preparing the way for His coming kingdom.

      

The kingdom of God will not be a democracy, but a kingdom. It will be built on many of the freedoms that are foundational to America’s strength and accomplishments. People were created to be free, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. The coming kingdom will be the world’s Jubilee. Like the biblical year of Jubilee in which all debts will be cancelled and all inheritances restored, this will happen for all mankind.

       

In Isaiah 40 we see that we prepare the way for the Lord by building a highway. America is part of that highway. While other nations have a part in this too, my primary calling is to my own nation. With the crisis America is in now, I am focusing on its part although the same principles can apply to others. Though America has had many great crises that have threatened our existence, they have all resulted in a great advance toward our ultimate purpose. The present crises can do the same. As we are engaged in building our part of this highway, the favor and blessings of God have been upon us, and it is His way to save the best for last. We must not give up on our country now. We can be sure that God has not.

 

Crises = Opportunity

         

For many years we have been saying that each year would be more challenging than the last. I don’t think we have been wrong yet. What can we expect for 2014? It will be even more challenging too, but that does not mean it will not be a great year. Keeping in mind that victories don’t come without battles, and no great victories without great battles, this is the year we can expect some breakthroughs and a turning. Now is the time to see these crises/opportunities and prepare for them.

        

 2013 gave us shocking revelations, unprecedented in American history, of the government’s use of the IRS to intimidate and control political opposition, domestic spying by the NSA, and the building of an apparatus that could be used for totalitarian control even beyond the imagination of the authors of 1984 and Animal Farm. The year ended with ObamaCare collapsing, the Administration reeling, stock markets soaring, and the politically incorrect Duck Dynasty rising in popularity far past the President or any other politician. We can learn much from these signs.

         

Not everyone who stood up for Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty agreed with him. However, there was a rising agreement that he had the right to say what he thinks without being penalized. Repulsion to political correctness is on the rise as well as a refreshing embracing of anyone with clear speech and the courage to say what they actually think. This is certainly a good sign.

         

The revelations of our government’s domestic spying apparatus should have caused the greatest outrage of Americans. The relative passivity of Americans about this is troubling. However, there are also signs that people are waking up to this threat as well.

         

As the saying goes, “If you do not change your direction, you will end up where you are headed.” Therefore, we will look at these and other major revelations that are illuminating ultimate issues with serious consequences. We will do this using a slightly modified version of The Three Great Questions:

 

Where are we headed?

 

Where should we be headed?

 

What can we do about it?

 

Where Are We Headed?

         

First we need to understand that where our government is headed may not be where the people are headed or want their government headed. There is a growing disconnect between the will of the people and the Federal Government.    

         

We must also understand that you can be a liberal and not be a socialist. You can be a socialist and not be a Marxist. One of the most destructive deceptions at this time is to judge others, especially other people groups, by their most extreme elements. That being said, America’s turn to the left has gone past classical liberalism toward socialism, with momentum towards Marxism.

         

The Federal Government has been steering us in this direction, although the general population of America remains steadfastly on the conservative side of moderate. A recent study revealed that those who identified themselves as liberal actually increased by 10%. However, that was from 17% to 27% with more than twice that percentage identifying themselves as conservatives. America remains a basically moderate nation, slightly leaning toward the conservative side.

 

Democracy is Being Destroyed

         

Even though America still leans slightly to the conservative side of moderate, that may never again be reflected in voting without election laws that protect the validity and sanctity of the vote. Consider these facts:

        

 In every swing state where voter I.D. was required, Romney won in 2012. In the major swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania where no voter I.D. was required, dozens of precincts had 100% of the vote go to Obama. Some precincts counted more votes (all for Obama) than there were registered voters in the precincts. This is simply not possible. As even the Democratic Party pollster Patrick Caddell stated, “This election was within the margin of fraud.” 

 

Where Should We Be Headed?

         

The American Republic must be restored. The Constitution must be restored as the supreme law of the land.

 

What Can We Do About It?

         

There must be a general education about the Constitution and a resolute insistence that those who hold public office in any form keep their vow to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic. Restoring the integrity of the vote is fundamental to the true will of the people ever being done in America again. How can we require an I.D. for buying a pack of cigarettes and not require one to vote?

         

Overwhelming evidence shows that the 2012 election was not a legitimate election. Increasing doubt will be cast on every election from now on if basic voter I.D. laws are not implemented with all voter fraud being considered a serious felony with serious penalties, and serious enforcement.

         

Voting is the foundation of democracy. To the degree that this most basic of all rights, upon which all of our other rights depend, is so abused, we no longer have true democracy in America. We should challenge the legitimacy of any election where voter I.D. is not required and enforced. Even the U.N. observers declared that it is not possible to have a legitimate election without voter I.D.

         

Those who promote voter fraud by being against voter I.D. should be considered the enemies of our Constitution and of democracy that they are. If there is to be freedom, then the most basic right of every American—to have their vote count—must be restored. Our votes do not count if we continue to allow the level of fraud now common in our elections.

         

The Secretary of State of each state is the one who authenticates elections. It was reported that the Administration invested far more heavily in this office than the Republicans, and in some states, more than they did in the governorship. Why? Obviously, this is a position where the utmost integrity is required to preserve integrity in elections. Without giving this position the importance it deserves, major voter fraud will continue.

        

 Laws should be passed and enforced that any government official who compromises the integrity of any election is guilty of treason—because they are. Voter fraud is the most basic attack against the American Republic and the Constitution.

 

Truth is Built on People of Truth

          

We can have the best form of government and still have bad government, if we have people without integrity running it. We cannot expect those who would gain their position falsely to govern fairly, honestly, or without corruption. We will not rid our government of growing corruption without restoring the integrity of the vote.

          

In a democracy, the people are the sovereign and the government works for the people. With the erosion of our Constitutional moorings, the government has been increasingly brazen to force its will on the people. The Revolutionary War was fought to throw off this tyranny, and it is this tyranny that our Founders encouraged citizens to rise up and throw off again anytime it manifests in our government.

         

In fact, that was the reason for the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms was not for hunting or recreational target practice, it was specifically for the purpose of keeping citizens armed and able to overthrow any tyrant or tyranny that sought to impose itself on the people through the government.

 

Another Revolution/Civil War?

       

Some think another revolution or civil war could never happen in America because a majority of Americans would never allow it. It would not require a majority, or even close to a majority, for this to happen. Marx was right when he declared that a tiny percentage of the passionate would rule the majority who are indifferent. This was proven when just twenty thousand Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar and took over Russia, a nation of millions and one of the strongest countries in the world at the time.

       

 During the American Revolutionary War, roughly 30% of colonists were in favor of the Revolution, and only a small percentage of those actually participated in the conflict. Another 30% were loyal to the king and steadfastly opposed to revolution. The remaining 40% of the people tended to drift from one side to the other depending on who it looked like was winning, or they turned against one side because of the atrocities they were committing.

      

 The revolutionaries during the American Revolution were liberals. The conservatives were loyalists to the British crown. The definition of liberal and conservative has changed since then but, after over 250 years, we continue to have the same general political breakdown: 30% liberal, 30% conservative, and 40% in-between. The American Civil War had a similar breakdown, and the acrimony is growing as it did before both of these two most terrible conflicts.

 

It Is Still About Slavery

      

Signs are strong that if we are not soon drawn back together as a nation, we will be torn apart. The basic issue dividing us continues to be slavery. This is not about a single people group being enslaved, but whether we will all become slaves of the state or remain a free people.

      

Many have attempted to give the impression that slavery in America was less cruel and diabolical than it really was. Some slave owners may have been relatively humane in their treatment of slaves, but the key word here is “relatively.” Slavery itself was inhumane and diabolical, and the American form was as bad, or worse, than what was found anywhere in history. The point is not to stir up old wounds, but to make a connection to the totalitarian slavery America is headed for if we do not change our direction. Neither Hitler nor Stalin had the technology for the kind of totalitarian control apparatus that is now in the hands of the U.S. Government. In the hands of the wrong people, whether from the right or the left, the kind of totalitarian control that could be imposed on America would be worse than has ever been known before.

      

The revelations of 2013 regarding the use of the IRS to suppress political opposition is the worst abuse of power since the Civil War, and to date, there have been almost no political repercussions for it. Recent news reports say that the IRS is planning on handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to “increase the morale of the agency.” Well I guess millions of dollars could help just about anyone’s morale! Certainly not everyone in the IRS should be implicated in the suppression of conservative groups. Many IRS agents and employees are faithful public servants. Even so, this could hardly be a more “in your face” insult to the victims of IRS abuse and a clear revelation of just how callous the IRS remains.

       

Then we have the revealing of domestic spying by the NSA: the U.S. Federal Government not only developed the most sophisticated and comprehensive totalitarian control apparatus in history, but they are already using it against U.S. citizens.

       

With the revelation of this apparatus, we cannot help but wonder if this is the reason why blatant violations of our Constitution by our Federal Government surface continually, yet only a few of our elected representatives, who vowed by solemn oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, have the courage to protest it, much less seek the impeachment and maybe even the arrest of those responsible.

      

The Supreme Court found the Affordable Care Act (ACA) constitutional on the basis of a decisive vote by Chief Justice Roberts, that it was in fact a tax which no one could understand, and which Roberts could not even explain. How could we not believe that someone had gotten to him? Was he threatened with the revelation of something about himself or a family member that is now being used to control him? Nothing else seems to make sense of Judge Roberts’ decision.

     

This will now be a cloud that hangs over all government officials—they are being controlled to keep them from speaking out or possibly voting as they would like, because something is being used to silence them. Just the threat that NSA information is being used in this way greatly erodes the trust of citizens in their government.

 

The Power Grab

     

The Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA or ObamaCare) is the single biggest power grab in American history, and if fully implemented, could result in the worst tyranny ever. Just as rat poison is 98% food and only 2% poison, ObamaCare is filled with elements intended to appeal to almost everyone, but a most deadly poison is sown throughout it. Senator Rand Paul warned this in his letter released February 4:

 

President Obama’s NSA was caught spying, collecting, and storing data on virtually every American citizen.

 

And some are now saying the “ObamaCare” database may end up being even worse.

 

But I’m afraid the worst spying and data collection scheme of them all could turn out to be the massive National ID database buried deep within the so-called “Immigration Reform Bill.”

      

Do you remember early in President Obama’s first term when he implemented the “Cash for Clunkers” program? The auto dealers logged onto the government site to take advantage of this and found that they had to agree that their computers and all of their contents became government property upon signing up. This requirement created such an immediate outcry that the Administration quickly backed off. However, they have not stopped using every means to seize private information on American citizens. A pattern persists in this Administration that you would have to be intentionally blind not to see.

      

ObamaCare is not likely to ever be fully implemented. If we were shocked by the mismanagement of the website, the actual implementation of this law would be beyond even that. We can expect the outrage to continue to grow as millions lose the health coverage that President Obama promised they could keep. Outrage will grow as all others end up paying many times more than they were paying only to receive even less coverage, while the quality of our healthcare system continues to erode under the present mismanagement. We will not just be losing our freedom and our money, but many lives will be lost as this impossible red tape machine gets loosed upon America. Even if the ACA gets tabled soon, it has already infected the country with enough poison to be devastating.

 

America’s Lifeblood

            

America’s strength was built on the freedom that released human initiative. This was summed up as the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Elements in the ACA attack all three of these basic freedoms at their roots. Just the threat of the ACA has dragged our economy to a virtual halt, costing millions of jobs, and will cause millions more to be laid off or dropped to part-time status.

           

Those who promoted the ACA, and forced it upon America against her will, may not have intended to destroy our economy. Even so, the madness of this worst-ever devised legislation will accomplish this by mismanagement. If the government cannot design and run a website, how can it run the entire healthcare industry? This has now gone beyond Einstein’s definition of insanity—we actually need another word for the madness we are being subjected to by our government.

         

If healthcare really was the Administration’s purpose with the ACA and not the control of the people, why was the IRS assigned to police it? The intent and ability of the IRS to suppress dissent has now been clearly exposed. Through the ACA, the government will have access to all of our financial records, as well as the authority to withdraw from our accounts at will. Then, as was illuminated a few weeks ago, we now know that buried within this law the government is given authority to seize the assets of estates to pay the medical costs of the deceased. Wasn’t the insurance supposed to do that? With the implementation of the ACA, Americans can kiss inheritances goodbye.

         

We no longer have a government that is of the people, for the people, or by the people. Totalitarian control is reaching its tentacles deeper into our lives each passing day. Will we change our course, or will we end up where we are headed?

         

We will change our direction. We will have a Jubilee. Our inheritance will not be stolen, but restored.

____________________________

Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA

John R. Houk

© February 11, 2014

__________________________

Restoring The Republic

 

© 2011 MorningStar Ministries

 

[Editor: It looks like MorningStar tech guys have to update copyright]

The Season is Emerging to Battle Against Christianity


Birth of Christ - Nativity Scene

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2013

 

There has been an open war by Leftists and atheists on Christianity for some time in the USA. Thanks to Madalyn Murray O’Hair (focus on Communist Connection), the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Establishment (or is it Disestablishment [Full PDF of link]) Clause of the First Amendment to go beyond preventing the government from establishing a State Church but to include that anything representative of taxpayer money must exclude Christianity. The annual Christmas period of the year is when this war on Christianity seems to rear up on a national basis in the media. Hence the war on Christianity becomes the war on Christmas.

 

Too many Corporations (AFA 2012 Naughty or Nice List) operate stores that have fallen prey to the concept that it is politically incorrect to promote Christmas because it promotes Christianity. AND any promotion of Christianity might be offensive to a minority of people in the USA that would prefer to distant themselves from any open association with Christianity; e.g. atheists, Muslims, Jews and perhaps other identifiable anti/non-Christian entities. This PC marketing is idiotic and an insult to the majority of Americans that relish the Christmas season as a time of giving, compassion and just a downright period of joy. I mean Americans who are not particularly religiously observant of the Christian faith still make this a time of family get together and enjoy an interruption from the daily tasks of the old J-O-B.

 

Corporations do have a Constitutional right to utilize whatever marketing strategy they deem fit; however as a Christian I find it nauseating when Christianity is the focus of diminishment to accommodate some foolish PC concept of multicultural diversity. Even more nauseating though is when Leftists and atheists impose their sanitized and/or ungodly beliefs on those that embrace Christianity via the taxpayer support Public venues. The imposition is exacted by using “Living Constitution” (Constitutionalist Criticism) parameters rather than “Original Intent” (In support of Original IntentNeutral Explanation) parameters in the Constitution to make sure the bedrock of America’s morality is not supported whatsoever. The result of this legal ploy of redefining the meaning of the Constitution has successfully turned America into which families are divided, single parent families are as common as heterosexual families, homosexuals are allowed to raise children further warping the societal fabric and a host of other deviations I am certain you can think of that escape my memory as of this writing.

 

The result of this moral dilution in America’s family unit has led to a society in which public dishonesty overrules the decency of honesty, children need protected on their routes to and from school, armed guards are becoming common place on Public School grounds, children bring weapons to harm others singularly or on a multiple basis, children are told they cannot play traditional play acting any longer (such as cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, etc.) because imaginary weapons may inspire real weapons, childhood aggression is increasingly common (such as bullying – physical or cyber), underage children – most often teenagers – are increasingly enabled on a parental level to participate in rabble-rousing partying that includes drinking, sex, property destruction, drugs, teen pregnancy and MORE.

 

These societal behaviors are a direct result of the Leftist and atheistic assault to prevent Christianity from being an integral part of American Culture in the name of Multicultural Diversity.

 

The first anti-Christmas story I heard this was a Public School imposing restrictions on an annual High School Christmas Carol Concert due to concerns of a phrase that is found NO WHERE in the Constitution called Separation of Church and State. Here is a good synopsis of how this anti-Christmas story developed:

 

The state of Wisconsin once again sits center stage in the War on Christmas. The Wausau School District has issued an edict about Christmas music that has caused several school associated music groups to either disband or cancel December performances.

 

Phil Buch, who has directed Wausau West High School’s choral programs since 1981, said the decision to halt rehearsals for the Master Singers was made after a meeting Thursday with district officials and Frank Sutherland, an attorney who represents the school district.

 

Buch said district administrators gave music educators at Wausau schools three options for December concerts, which typically contain a significant amount of religious music: choose five secular, or non-religious, songs for each religious song performed; hold a concert and have no holiday music whatsoever; or postpone any concerts in December. Because the 20-member Master Singers group is invited to sing at nearly a dozen holiday concerts each year, Buch said, those options were unacceptable.

 

“This group sings at Christmas programs,” Buch said. “We sing for nursing homes, grade schools, businesses. To do that without Christmas music doesn’t make sense.”

 

District administrators did not return calls Friday seeking information about the rules, but Wausau School Board President Michelle Schaefer said the change in direction stems from legal concerns over the amount of religious music performed in the schools. The decision will not eliminate religious music altogether but will give teachers a better idea as to how much religious music is “too much,” Schaefer said.

 

“From a School Board perspective, we look for music that is balanced,” Schaefer said. “Yes, we are a predominantly Christian society, but we are also a society of many faiths, and we want to respect that.”

 

(Wisconsin School District Cancels Christmas; By Editor; Defend Christmas; 10/6/13)

 

I actually first heard this story on Fox News but the below story is an excellent synopsis. This first shot over the bow against Christmas has an early victorious ending. Evidently once this story went viral the School Board relented on this attack on the Christian faith. Here is a story I found about this victory in Jesus.

 

JRH 10/12/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Wisconsin Christmas Music Battle Goes Viral; Students Claim Victory

 

By Kallsign Snoopy

October 11, 2013

Kallsign Snoopy’s Hamshack

 

We reported the story last Sunday — the media ran with it Tuesday. By Wednesday Freedom From Religion Foundation got in on the act. It appears to be the first big national story in the War on Christmas 2013.

 

In an update after a late Thursday meeting with the school district students and parents are claiming victory and that the Christmas concerts are now back on — with traditional Christmas music put back in place.

 

Here’s the issue: without warning the choir director at West High School in Wausau, Wisconsin was called to discuss plans for the upcoming music events to be held in December. It was reported early on that Wausau schools three options for December concerts, which typically contain a significant amount of religious music: choose five secular, or non-religious, songs for each religious song performed; hold a concert and have no holiday music whatsoever; or postpone any concerts in December. The choir director was outraged and in response he opted not only to cancel concerts — he disbanded the music groups who would traditionally perform.

 

The school district claims it is merely making sure they don’t violate the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution (because educators in Wisconsin have SUCH a great track record with constitutional issues). They also say now they never came up with the plan to perform a certain amount of secular songs for every religious song performed. They claim that was a “misunderstanding”.

 

Needless to say, as with many battles we’ve seen before about Christmas in public schools, this one too will end with someone being very unhappy.

 

 

Freedom from Religion Foundation president Annie Laurie Gaylor claims no responsibility in this latest fight but was quick to pitch in with FFRF’s support of the school district:

 

“There can be a fine line, and we understand in some instances there can be sacred classical music in the schools, but it’s so easy for something like this to turn into a message of indoctrination. When you have a chorus going out to 15 places to sing religious music, it really does give the appearance that the school is celebrating Christianity.”

 

Yes, Christianity as gained so many converts over the decades by going to nursing homes to sing “Silent Night”.

 

The tip off of a problem was that the school choir director met with school district officials with an attorney present. In other words, they were ready for a fight.

 

According to a story on The Blaze tonight, the choir director at West High is known for his religious nature.

 

All this intense attention to the issue appears to have been resolved as of late Thursday. The Wausau School District has backed off on the requirements and have left the decision of local program content to school principals.

 

The crux of the issue comes down to this: when a school group performs Christmas music with religious themes does it in fact constitute promotion of that religion? The “establishment clause” prohibits the “establishment”…does a school group singing actually do that?

 

Oh, and by the way, where exactly in the Constitution is the establishment clause?

 

Another silly chapter in the War on Christmas.

 

(I am glad that this all got cleared up but I really wish people would get it through their heads that there is no such thing as an “establishment” clause. There is a “Government shall make no law” clause. And it only applies to the Congress. Leave my Christmas alone! If you don’t like it, don’t celebrate it. Just don’t ruin it for everyone else!

 

Publius)

___________________________

The Season is Emerging to Battle Against Christianity

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2013

________________________

Wisconsin Christmas Music Battle Goes Viral; Students Claim Victory

 

Retired warrior, Full time pilot, Part time political blogger. Always a Patriot. Amateur Radio Operator – MORE

 

The Left Destroying America Inside Out


Typical Liberal

 

John R. Houk

© July 24, 2013

 

America’s Left – which means the Democratic Party and President Barack Hussein Obama – preach the acceptance of Diversity, Multiculturalism and Equality. As benevolent as those terms are they mean one thing to Leftists and promoted as something else to the typical Joe American voter.

 

Diversity

 

Joe American is told Diversity is fair and equal acceptance of belief systems and such ungodly practices as homosexuality. Compassion for all ways of thinking and lifestyle practices sounds very high minded and agreeable, right?

 

A Latin motto that can be seen on U.S. money and the Great Seal is E Pluribus Unum – Out of many, one. This addresses diversity in America. Below is the original intent of the motto. Also the early flow of immigrants in America expanded on the original intent:

 

On the Great Seal of the United States, the phrase appears in the banner held in the beak of the American eagle. The busy eagle is also holding an olive branch and a quiver of arrows in its left and right talons, respectively. The phrase is meant to symbolize the union of the 13 original colonies, and their close relationship with the federal government. Over time, people have also taken “e pluribus unum” to refer to the ethnic diversity in the United States. (What Does “E Pluribus Unum” Mean? wiseGEEK)

 

E Pluribus Unum does not emphasize an Out of many, ensure multiple ethnic and gender identities. Rather the motto emphasizes out of a diverse amount of people ONE America emerges. An article I found at The Road to Emmaus reproduced an essay from The Patriot Post. The essay addresses America’s immigration policy under the original intent of the Founding Fathers adoption of E Pluribus Unum. I like the assertions of the early part of the essay:

 

THE FOUNDATION

 

“[T]he policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”
—George Washington

 

Out of many, one.

 

That was the national motto proposed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Both simple and elegant, it embodied the notion that all who had come to America’s shores, and all who would come, must be united—must all form one front—in defense of freedom and liberty. For 200 years, we were, largely, one people united behind constitutional republicanism. But soon after the social turbulence of the ’60s and the economic woes of the ’70s, that unity began to crumble. This was the era in which multiculturalism emerged—the era in which ethnocentricity became chic.

 

Arthur Schlesinger, a former Harvard professor and senior advisor to JFK, published a retrospective on this era in 1991 called “The Disuniting of America.” Schlesinger wrote primarily about the orthodoxy of self-interested hyphenated-American citizen groups—who, rather than unifying to become one, were diversifying to become many. He warned that the cult of ethnicity would result in “the fragmentation and tribalization of America,” the natural consequence being that these special-interest groups would be co-opted by the political parties.

 

“Instead of a transformative nation with an identity all its own,” Schlesinger wrote, “America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien identities—groups ineradicable in their ethnic character.” He asserts, by way of inquiry, “Will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?”

 

The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the debate about immigration.

 

The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the current security, economic and social debate (both rational and irrational) about immigration. This is the concern that a nation, which is already ethnically fragmented internally, risks complete disunity of its national integrity in the absence of borders. (E pluribus unum? Posted by The Road to Emmaus, Written by The Patriot Post [07 April 2006    |    THE Patriot Post.US  http://patriotpost.us/   |    Patriot No. 06-14] READ THE REST)

 

The Leftist concept of “Diversity” is not an American concept.

 

Multiculturalism

 

Multiculturalism and diversity go hand in hand. Multiculturalism is the practice of upholding cultural standards that are foreign to America rather than to assimilate into American culture. Assimilation brings unity of purpose to a nation. If each diverse culture separates from America in emphasizing a foreign heritage and language above that which unifies America then disunity will ensue. Disunity in a nation magnifies conflict. Conflict leads to social chaos. Intense social chaos leads to the fracturing of the fabric of a nation. When the USA fractures kiss that which has made America great goodbye. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution which have formed a Union of States will become interests of past history rather than the center piece of American cultural unity.

 

Multiculturalism is a body of thought in political philosophy about the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity. Mere toleration of group differences is said to fall short of treating members of minority groups as equal citizens; recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required through “group-differentiated rights,” a term coined by Will Kymlicka (1995). Some group-differentiated rights are held by individual members of minority groups, as in the case of individuals who are granted exemptions from generally applicable laws in virtue of their religious beliefs or individuals who seek language accommodations in schools or in voting. Other group-differentiated rights are held by the group qua group rather by its members severally; such rights are properly called group rights, as in the case of indigenous groups and minority nations, who claim the right of self-determination. In the latter respect, multiculturalism is closely allied with nationalism.

 

While multiculturalism has been used as an umbrella term to characterize the moral and political claims of a wide range of disadvantaged groups, including African Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled, most theorists of multiculturalism tend to focus their arguments on immigrants who are ethnic and religious minorities (e.g. Latinos in the U.S., Muslims in Western Europe), minority nations (e.g. Catalans, Basque, Welsh, Québécois), and indigenous peoples (e.g. Native peoples in North America, Maori in New Zealand). (Multiculturalism; Sarah Song; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.))

 

Here are some excerpts from a Thomas Sowell essay on the evils of Multiculturalism:

 

Among the many irrational ideas about racial and ethnic groups that have polarized societies over the centuries and around the world, few have been more irrational and counterproductive than the current dogma of multiculturalism.

 

Intellectuals who imagine that they are helping racial or ethnic groups that lag behind by redefining their lags out of existence with multicultural rhetoric are in fact leading them into a blind alley.

 

 

Multiculturalism, like the caste system, paints people into the corner where they happened to have been born. But at least the caste system does not claim to benefit those at the bottom.

 

Multiculturalism not only serves the ego interests of intellectuals, it serves the political interests of elected officials, who have every incentive to promote a sense of victimhood, and even paranoia, among groups whose votes they want in exchange for both material and psychic support.

 

 

The biggest losers in all this are those members of racial minorities who allow themselves to be led into the blind alley of resentment and rage even when there are broad avenues of opportunity available. And we all lose when society is polarized. (READ ENTIRETY – The Dogma of Multiculturalism; By Thomas Sowell; National Review Online; 3/15/13 12:00 AM) 

 

Frosty Wooldridge on the evils of Multiculturalism:

 

 

Those people with hyphenated nationalities manifest “multiculturalism.”

 

By its very name, it destroys one culture by breaking it into many. It’s like throwing a baseball through a window in a house, fracturing it into many pieces. The window can no longer protect that house from rain, winds or snow. Additionally, with numerous cultures come multiple languages. Linguistic chaos equals unending tension. The writer, Kant, said, “The two great dividers are religion and language.”

 

 

On the other hand, millions respond and respect their one allegiance as that of being an “American.” Thus, we grow as a country at odds with itself. We lose our national identity with every added citizen who calls him/herself a hyphenated American.

 

Europe provides a peek into our future. Their Muslim-British immigrants stand at odds with everything English. If you visit London, you will find two separate societies. The Muslim-French immigrants balk at everything French. The Muslim-Dutch backlash against everything in Holland. Ethiopian-Norwegians will not assimilate into Norway’s culture.

 

 

Today, America’s grand 232 year run fractures, falters and degrades under the march of “multiculturalism.” The word sounds unifying, inclusive and respectful. Yet how unified can a nation remain where a foreign language forces its way into our national character?  Los Angeles provides a peek into our future where Mexican culture “overtook” its way into dominance.

 

….

 

A recent PEW report shows America adding 138 million people in four decades. Of that number, 90 million immigrants will reach America’s shores by 2050. One in five citizens will be born out of our country. They drag in 100 incompatible third world cultures.

 

The mind-boggling first question remains: should all these immigrants that arrive from failed cultures succeed in their demands that we respect the injection of their culture and language into ours?

 

 

Yes, integrity mandates respect for all cultures and people. However, when will Americans leap past “political correctness” to stop the death of America? (READ ENTIRETYMulticulturalism – Destroying American Culture; By Frosty Wooldridge; Rense.com; 3/13/08)

 

Regardless of what Leftists tell you, Multiculturalism is nation destroying and NOT nation building.

 

Equality

 

“Equality” is another one of those words that evoke fairness. Here are three online dictionary definitions of equality:

 

1.     [T]he state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities – Oxford Dictionaries

 

2.    [T]he state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability. 

 

[U]niform character, as of motion or surface. (Dictionary.com)

 

3     [T]he quality or state of being equal: the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.

racial/gender equality  the ideals of liberty and equality  women’s struggle for equality (Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary)           

 

As a Conservative Equality and Liberty are not interchangeable as Leftists view the terms. The best concise differentiation I have found on Equality and Liberty that I have ran into so far is from the website Community Of Liberty:

 

 

Here is the overview of this lecture by Thomas West, the Paul and Dawn Potter Professor of Politics at Hillsdale.

 

The Declaration of Independence

 

The soul of the American founding is located in the universal political principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The meaning of equality and liberty in the Declaration is decisively different than the definition given to those principles by modern progressivism.

 

Liberty is the right to be free from the coercive interference of other people. It is derived from nature itself, and is a natural right—something possessed simply because one is a human being.

 

Equality means no one is by nature the ruler of any other person. Each human being is equal in his right to life, liberty, and property which the Declaration calls “the pursuit of happiness.”

 

Equality, liberty, and natural rights require a certain form of government: republicanism, based on consent of the governed. Legitimate government, based on the consent of the governed, must accomplish three things: the establishment of civil laws that protect man’s natural rights; the punishment of those who infringe on others’ natural rights; and the protection of natural rights through a strong national defense.

 

The people themselves also play a vital role in protecting their rights. They must be educated in “religion, morality, and knowledge.”

 

Modern liberalism uses the same language of “liberty” and “equality” as the Declaration of Independence. Yet modern liberals mean something other than what the Founders meant by those words. For the Progressives, “equality” means equal access to resources and wealth, while “liberty” means the ability to utilize a right, rather than the right in itself. Both of these ideas necessitate government programs that help mankind liberate itself from its “natural limitations.”

 

The Declaration of Independence and modern Progressivism are fundamentally opposed to each other. The modern misunderstanding of “equality” and “liberty” threatens not just the Declaration of Independence, but the whole of the American constitutional and moral order. (What Did the Founders Mean by Equality and Liberty? Community of Liberty)

 

Equality under the Founding Fathers is closer to equality of opportunity rather than an egalitarian Equality in the State that takes from some to distribute others that are less innovative or less entrepreneurial in their financial portfolio. Equality is not providing the same benefits to an immoral person as a moral person. Equality does not mean equalizing ungodly lifestyles to godly lifestyles. Equality does not mean shutting out Christianity in order for Secularism and other religions enjoy extra rights to equalize with the majority cultural religion America.

 

Liberty means individual autonomy beyond the collective to accomplish a financial portfolio according to one’s ability and to live a life of any ideology or religion that does not break the equal protections in the rule of law that is dispersed on a collective basis. The rule of law must be enforced equally to the entire collective of the nation regardless of Race, Religion or Personal Beliefs. If ethnicity, Religion and Personal Beliefs diverge from the rule of law then it is the ethnicity, Religion and Personal Beliefs that transform to the rule of law. In America the rule of law is influenced by the first British and Europeans that came to America for Religious Liberty not experienced in the Old World where the State Established Church was preeminent. Another group of British came to America seeking economic opportunity that was not available back on the European continent. People that became the intelligentsia of early America were trained in the classical academics and Christian theology of the period. Ancient writers from Greece and Rome were an influence in an emerging political philosophy that the Founding Fathers combined with Christian principles that coalesced the nascent socio-political structure that became a part of America’s Founding Documents culminating in the United States Constitution.  

 

Political Correctness has been kind to ideological appellations of the left side of the political spectrum. Such names as “Progressive” and “Liberal” are as misleading as the terms Diversity, Multiculturalism and Equality. People who wittingly or unwittingly (unwitting = mesmerized by altruism) look leftward for a principal of life are LEFTISTS.

 

I originally intended these thoughts as an introduction to a Eugene Delgaudio email that informs about how the Leftist influenced government is silently criminalizing Christianity. The silence is because the Leftist natured Mainstream Media (MSN) does not report on the slow criminalization of Christianity on a National basis. On the other hand the MSM is quick to denounce anything related to Christianity that prays in a public forum that taxes are associated. Also the MSM is quick to denounce Christianity that confronts moral degradation in America such as homosexuality or pornography. This secret persecution of Christianity is reprehensible. I will use Delgaudio’s email in the next post so you too can feel my outrage.

 

JRH 7/24/13

Please Support NCCR

The New Marxist Infiltration


Taking USA back from Hammer-Sickle-Swastika

John R. Houk

© April 1, 2013

 

There was a time in America that being a Communist or Marxist sympathizer was an expression of un-American treason. Senator Joseph McCarthy was initially looked upon as an American hero for exposing Soviet-Communism in the U.S. government. After McCarthy’s vigilance began to spill-over into the First Amendment protected Right to believe in Marxist ideology outside of the direct manipulation of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), then Liberal Democrats and Center-Left Republican began an agenda to smear the character and agenda of Senator Joe McCarthy. McCarthy was publically transformed from an American hero into an American witch hunter. Witch hunting of course is viewed as a profession of creating lies to convict people of crimes that really do not exist.

 

For example in the ‘real world’ there is no such thing as witches with supernatural powers to wiggle their noses and speak a few Latin words and create some evil ex nihilo. McCarthy’s agenda was painted as finding Communist spies ex nihilo from influential people that believed in the principles of Karl Marx or flirted with the idea Communist utopianism in their youth out of a dissatisfaction of a Free Market society favoring the opportunity of individuals utilizing hard work for prosperity while the less entrepreneurial and oft time poor people seemed stuck in lower income working class misery.

 

In defense of a Free Market society that experiences the Liberty guaranteed with a Bill of Rights; whether there is Marxist society or a Free Market society there will always be people stuck in low income working class situations. The reality is the low income people in a Free Market society usually have a better life than the Liberty-Less low income people of a Marxist-Socialist society. The innovative prosperity of the few more often provides a better income for the poor in a Free Market world than for the income of the poor in a Marxist-Socialist world.  Scarcity reigns for the poor of Marxist-Socialism and abundance reigns for the poor of Free Market Capitalism.

 

Painting McCarthy as a Communist witch hunter was the beginning of the slow acceptance of stealth Marxism in American society. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU – See Also HERE and HERE) used their Marxist sympathies to aid in the eradication of Christian morals in America which has paved the way to removing prayer from schools, making abortion-murder on demand as a birth control method normal, validating ungodly homosexuality as normal rather than as an abomination toward God, using the tax code to prevent Ministers of the Gospel from endorsing godly political candidates for Office and now the pervasive anti-Christian of entrenched Liberals has emboldened more attacks on Christianity in America.

 

Prayer at public sports events (as in Public Schools and Colleges) or City Council meetings is being attacked with the threat of litigation that Public Schools and small to medium sized cities cannot afford to litigate. In these cases Marxist ideals are infused into our Free Market society ironically because the financial clout of Leftist-minded organizations and individuals can out-fund the local Public Schools or the Local Governments. It is the use of the Free Market to destroy the Free Market Liberty society.

 

It is time to publicly rehabilitate the image of Joe McCarthy where he was correct and to criticize him where he was incorrect on a First Amendment basis. It was evil for the old Soviet Union to infiltrate our government to bring down the U.S. Constitutional government from within. It was wrong for McCarthy to brand people as a threat to the nation because of a mere belief in Marxism. As much as Marxism is against the Liberty principles of initiated by America’s Founding Fathers, it is a First Amendment Right to believe in Marxist principles.

 

And yet when dedicated Marxists utilize Liberty to terminate Liberty via deception to purposefully eradicate the Constitution, we who still believe in Liberty must begin to take a stand even if Marxists have convinced society it is politically incorrect to take public stands that contradict stealth Marxist principles.

 

For example preventing Christianity influencing government is our Constitutional Right. Marxists may take the words of Thomas Jefferson that he wrote to Danbury Baptists that the government has no Right to enfranchise or disenfranchise a Church in the Federal Government; those words are not in the Constitution. Not only that, but Jefferson was not one of the principle framers of the Constitution.

 

Another example is the use of a Left-minded Judiciary to redefine the Constitution as a Living parchment in which it can be interpreted according to what the Left find culturally relevant in the present. This kind of Judicial fiat creates Law unconstitutionally. The Constitution that frames the three branches of government that exist with checks and balances under the concept that not any government branch has absolute power limits the Judiciary to only interpreting Law and NOT Bench-Legislating Law.

 

The Constitution insures that a duly elected Congress and the sovereign States make the Law with the President signing off or vetoing legislation and with the duly elected Congress having the expanded privilege to override a Presidential veto. The sovereign State’s Right in this Constitutional process is the required percentage to ratify Constitutional Amendments that Amends a section of the Constitution or adds to the Constitution. In which the Judiciary has no power to terminate a State approved Amendment.

 

Marxist utopians such as our President Obama and the Dems intend to use the Living Constitution deception to terminate portions of the Constitution and current Amendments to mean something not Originally Intended (See Also HERE) as the Law.

 

And this is where the accusation that our President is a Manchurian Candidate comes into play:

 

The Manchurian Candidate (1959), by Richard Condon, is a political thriller novel about the son of a prominent US political family who is brainwashed into being an unwitting assassin for a Communist conspiracy.

 

The novel has been adapted twice into a feature film by the same title, in 1962 and again in 2004. (Wikipedia)

 

I am not such a Conspiracy Theorist that I believe President Obama is a brainwashed individual from a Communist nation. The international vision of Soviet-Communism collapsed at the dissolution of the USSR into separate sovereign nations shedding off the hegemony of a Russian dominated Communist government. The only other Communist Super Power that still exists is more interested in its National Interests that the global domination of Maoist-Marxist world. The People’s Republic of China (Red China) is interested in regional hegemony and confronting other powers that may conflict with those regional National Interests. For Red China that may include a wary eye on Russia as much as on the USA. It is only when Russia’s and China’s National Interest intersect in keeping the USA at bay do Russia and China appear as friends against the USA.

 

I am such a Conspiracy Theorist that President Obama is involved in some sort of nefarious Marxism to change American culture to seem closer to Marxist utopianism rather than our Founding Fathers’ concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness based on a combination of Christian Morality and Greco-Roman political thought.

 

Whether or not Obama’s Marxist-Socialist utopianism is based on the individual precepts he developed from the Marxist influence of family and mentors OR from a network of stealth Marxist Global Elitists is something I cannot put my finger on. Whether Obama’s change agenda is individual or networked is irrelevant. That which is relevant is Obama has a Gramsci-like agenda to transform America away from its roots into a Communist utopia in the near future or to create a foundation for future Marxist-Elitist to build on.

 

That is what makes President Barack Hussein Obama a Manchuria Candidate.

 

VIDEO: The Manchurian President

 

The inspiration for these thoughts is an article by Kris Zane found at Western Center for Journalism (WCJ) entitled – you got it – The Manchurian Candidate.

 

JRH 4/1/13

Please Support NCCR

Valued By Free Men


Bear Arms - Founding Fathers vs Dictator Socialists

Justin O. Smith provides an excellent essay on upholding the Original Intent of the Second Amendment in the face of Leftists making the attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment.

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (Legal Information Institute; Cornell University of Law)

 

JRH 1/15/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Valued By Free Men

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 1/14/2013 12:22 PM

 

As cold as it may seem to some in light of the aftermath of the murders of twenty beautiful little children at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut… and I was shaken and my heart was torn along with all America… the facts still show that Our Second Amendment right is sacrosanct, it protects all of our other rights and responsible, sane gun owners have prevented many more crimes and deaths than the number of robberies and murders committed by armed uncaring, sometimes unhinged and mentally impaired, criminal and insane thugs. Unfortunately, Obama and the Democratic Party do not feel the same and never miss taking advantage of a crisis, and these political opportunists did not wait even 24 hours before deciding to once again attempt to infringe upon the right of each and every American to “keep and bear arms.”

Our Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

How different things might have ended in Newtown if only an armed citizen, an armed teacher or teachers and an armed Student Resource Officer had been nearby on that terrible day. People still may have died, but at least the chances would have been better that the assailant would be the only one dying, rather than twenty innocent and precious children.

Banning semiautomatic rifles just because they look like military weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines will not prevent every future horrific act of violence or eliminate evil from our society. In 1927 an insane former school superintendent killed children in North Carolina by detonating an ammonium-nitrate bomb inside their school. Criminals will always find ways to acquire weapons and use them to commit acts of violence.

Vice-President Joe Biden’s gun control commission is on track to offer proposals to the White House and Congress for new gun control laws and regulations shortly before this piece makes print. With his usual gall, temerity and arrogance, Obama stated that if Congress does not act in a timely fashion on this issue, he will enact gun controls by fiat and executive order. Nowhere is there any authority given to the U.S. President to countermand or modify any amendment to Our U.S. Constitution. Some on the Left, such as NY Mayor Bloomberg, are even counseling Obama to regulate guns through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which once again, not only bypasses Congress as the Legislative Branch of government but also violates the U.S. Constitution.

No clause in the U.S. Constitution can be interpreted to give Congress, the President, any of the States’ legislatures or the District of Columbia a power to disarm the people or to control guns to the point that many now aspire. This flagitious attempt to abrogate Our Second Amendment Right… God given… is occurring in plain sight through incremental actions and under a general pretense in blind pursuit of inordinate power. This is what men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Locke had in mind when they gave the American people the Second Amendment in order to prevent such abuse of power, preserve the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, restrain the federal government and keep America and Americans Free… And in his ‘Commentaries on the Constitution’, Joseph Story, the first U.S. Chief Justice, considered the right to keep and bear arms as “the palladium of liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers…”, which deters tyranny and enables the people to  overthrow their government should it prove necessary!

In the ‘Federal Gazette’ June 18, 1789, Tench Coxe wrote: “As civil rulers…may attempt to tyrannize…and…might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (2nd Amend) in their right to keep and bear arms.” No writer of that era disputed or contradicted Coxe’s analysis that the Second Amendment protected the people’s right to keep and bear their private arms.

“Swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birth-right of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people,” wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #29. Hamilton, like many Americans today, did not view the right to keep and bear arms as limited to only active militia members or the National Guard.

Former Tennessee National Guard commander Richard A. Hamblen was closer to the Founding Fathers’ intent than the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v Miller-1939, which provided most of the rationale for all gun control laws since then. As Hamblen answered charges of possessing nine unregistered machine guns in 2009 (6th Circuit Court of Appeals), he stated, “There are no qualifiers on the Second Amendment. There are qualifiers on the Fourth (also the Fifth), so if the Founders had intended to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, they knew how to do it.” Under the Second Amendment each and every single one of us are well within our rights if we wish to carry Mr. Ronnie Barrett’s world renown .50 caliber automatic rifle down Broad St in Murfreesboro, TN.

Debra Maggart failed to retain her seat in the Tennessee House of Representatives after blocking a bill allowing people to keep guns locked in their cars in parking lots; and, while fairly recent Supreme Court rulings, District of Columbia v Heller-2008 and McDonald v Chicago-2010, upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right rather than only a collective militia right, they have failed to address the Framers’ Original Intent to allow all Americans to carry their arms in an unrestricted environment. Regardless of this truth, most states require a “fee” (registration or background) in order to obtain a “license” (concealed carry license) before keeping and bearing a firearm; a federal and/or state “tax” (firearms/ammunition sales “tax”) is always levied at the time of a firearm transaction: A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a Constitutionally protected right, Murdock v Pennsylvania-1942, and requiring licensing or registration of any Constitutional right is itself unConstitutional, Follett v Town of McCormick SC-1944. Any citizen’s license to openly carry any handgun or rifle in public is the U.S. Constitution!

As the debate on gun control continues, it will be interesting to hear the Left-Progressive Democrats’ response, as they attempt to reconcile their desire to take our guns with the Darling of the Left and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s 2010 statement that the individual’s right to bear arms has “binding precedent” in the Supreme Court and “is settled law”. And, as late as December 22, 1012 even Obama mouthed the words of political expediency, “Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms,” but that is not what his record shows, nor is it how the Left has misinterpreted this amendment for a long time.

As an American citizen, I repudiate the Progressive Democrats’ view on the Second Amendment and any attempt to ban semiautomatic weapons that have perfectly legitimate uses, under the guise of conducing (sic) our safety. One does not become something other than American in order to solve American problems, especially once one understands the uniqueness of our free institutions and the freedoms found in America… unknown in any other land. And this is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our Founding Fathers forged a land “conceived in Liberty”, they did so by “watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of Tyrants” with musket and rifle. They reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions and to keep them from establishing a free nation as a nation of armed men. And… when they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against government interference. All Americans should give proper recognition and respect for this right most valued by Free Men!

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?” -Tench Coxe (Pennsylvania Gazette Feb 20 1788)

 

By Justin O Smith

_____________________

© Justin O. Smith

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Supreme Court: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional


 

#ooid=p1OGE5NTrByW5XzMH2EjQpAW5iQfkVrQ

I am sure I’ll be posting more on the Supreme Court’s astounding decision to uphold the individual mandates of Obamacare later. Until then the best Conservative viewpoint I have found in the early hours of the decision is on The Blaze.

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Chief Justice Roberts usually considered an Original Intent Constitutional Justice voted with the Leftist Justices to uphold the 5-4 decision!

 

JRH 6/28/12

Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional

 

ByBecket Adams

June 28, 2012 at 10:16am

The Blaze

 

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that President Obama’s landmark healthcare bill, including the controversial “individual mandate,” is constitutional by a 5-4 majority.

 

“The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter [because] there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power,” SCOTUS Blog reports. “The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”

 

The court’s decision comes as a major defeat to those who have fought against the healthcare overhaul since before President Obama signed it into law in 2010. U.S. citizens are still legally required to purchase insurance via the federal government and the bill’s expansion of Medicaid, although now limited, still stands. This means roughly 30 million uninsured low-income Americans are still eligible for coverage through the bill’s expansion of the state-run entitlement program.

 

However, if it’s any consolation, the court also ruled that the Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to compel Americans to purchase a product. So at least there‘s there’s that, right?

 

“I am disappointed with today’s Supreme Court decision because the Court has cleared the way for what looks like a very broad use of the tax power.  But we can still be very thankful that the court has defended the contours of the Commerce Clause,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel, Judicial Crisis Network.

 

Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor in upholding the mandate.

 

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments,” Roberts writes in his opinion (page six).

 

“Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices [emphasis added],” he adds.

 

Needless to say, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion has shocked many people.

 

“Wow. So Kennedy voted with conservatives, Roberts with liberals. Umpire, indeed,” the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein tweeted.

 

In his dissent, Justice Kennedy said “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”

 

After hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the bill in March, the Supreme Court Justices focused on these four points:

 

1)      Whether the “individual” mandate is constitutional

 

2)      Whether SCOTUS has the authority to rule on a tax law even though it hasn’t come into effect

 

3)      If the individual mandate is overturned, will it be cut from the rest of the law as a separate entity or will other provisions fall with it?

 

4)      Whether the law’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional

 

Of the four points discussed, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that, as a tax, the individual mandate is constitutional. Under the Commerce Clause, it doesn’t work, but as a tax, it’s legitimate.

 

Several analysts predicted that if the court ruled against the mandate, it would have negative long-term consequences on the president’s legacy and would weigh heavily on his reelection bid.

 

It doesn’t seem that way now.

 

Chief Justice Roberts, whose vote saved “Obamacare,” announced the court’s decision at 10:07 EST.

 

The BlazeVIDEO OF SCOTUS ANNOUNCEMENT

 

______________________________

All information © 2012 TheBlaze LLC

 

Criticizing the Current Interpretation of Disestablishment Clause


Fisher Ames Framer 1st Amendment

Fisher Ames

 

John R. Houk

© June 16, 2012

 

On my AC2C blog I posted this title: “Keep Govt. OUT of Church – NOT Church out Govt.” The main focus of the post was a Youtube video of excerpts of President Ronald Reagan speeches with a definite portrayal of Christianity on the U.S. government.

 

I wrote this as a little introduction to the Ronald Reagan excerpts:

 

The disestablishment clause of the First Amendment is a one-way action as far as Separation of Church and State is concerned. That one-way is that government must be separate and out of the religion business AND NOT that the Church be separate from the government.

 

Here are the limited comments on my AC2C blog pertaining to my introduction to the Reagan video:

 

Comment by CJ on Wednesday:

 

If they want to keep their tax exemptions they can’t preach it at the pulpit.  So, what? … they [can] go out in the political world. the church can interfere, influence government but government can’t interfere with the church…???????

 

I do believe the Founders wanted “religion” out of politics and politics out of ‘religion”.

 

Let’s just agree to disagree John.

 

Comment by John on Wednesday

 

I respectfully disagree CJ. The Church in various denominations can and should be an influence on government and the government should never interfere with the Church in its various denominations. Both sides of that coin can work and did in America until the 1960s.

 

Comment by CJ on Monday

 

[N]ot sure about this….can’t have it both ways…if you want government out of the church then let the church stay out of the government….

 

Now just for clarity’s sake I am not criticizing CJ. We are friends on AC2C. Indeed, at AC2C CJ is a big fish and I am just a little mackerel. I am thrilled when CJ reads my posts and comments on them. We are both Conservatives. You should also know Conservatives do not agree on all issues. On the Church/State issue I am all about the government needs to mind its business relating to the Church and the Church needs to be a moral foundation for the rule of law in America and thus the U.S. government.

 

As the moral foundation, I am not advocating that Christianity itself be the law of the land. I am advocating that Christian morality and principles be the measuring stick for the rule of law in Congress enacting laws and the Executive Branch enforcing those laws or appending rules in conjunction to Congressional enacted laws to define enforcement. Neither the President nor the Judiciary Branch should enact laws according to the U.S. Constitution that are outside the scope of duly enacted Constitutional Congressional laws. The Executive enforces or manages the rule of law and the Judicial Branch merely interprets the enacted law or the enforcement of an enacted law according to the U.S. Constitution and the duly State ratified Amendments.

 

As far as the Church, the State and the Constitution are related I like this statement on a Jeremiah Project article:

 

While the concept of separation of church and state might be implied by the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”, it says nothing about the “separation of church and state.” And, even if you accept the principle of the separation of church and state being implied by the First Amendment, it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

In their desire to promote their secular humanist philosophy using the power of government, many liberals today want to alter America’s Christian heritage and replace it with the 10 Planks of Communism. They want to remove religion from our history and replace it with the Soviet doctrine of the separation of Church and State. They don’t want to safeguard denominational neutrality by the state as the Founders intended, rather they want to eradicate every vestige of religion from our public institutions. (The bold emphasis is mine. America’s Godly Heritage; Jeremiah Project)

 

For me the First Amendment in its Original Intent means that which I placed in bold print above: “it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

 

This is what I meant by Church and State separation is a one-way street. This is why I disagree with CJ. In CJ’s reasoning there is no two-ways about it; i.e. if government cannot be involved Church then Church cannot be involved in government. There is one I can agree with CJ’s reasoning. That agreement is the Church cannot be a Branch of the government say like Islam is a part of the Iranian government making Iran a theocracy. In this line of thinking CJ is absolutely correct in keeping religion/Church separate from government.

 

The USA is a democratically representative Republic by the people and for the people. There is nothing theocratic about America. In promoting Christian principles in government Americans are doing that which keeps America great. The more God that is prohibited in American government the less America is great. So on government property whether it is Federal, State or local government the emblems of America’s heritage should remain to remind the government what the basis for the rule of law comes from. Part of that heritage is also Judeo-Greco-Roman influence. There is no shame for a secular government to emblemize reminders of our heritage following the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman line.

 

This is the one-way street: no government meddling in religion; however religious influence on government is needful for good government for the people and by the people.

 

The thing is most Democrats disagree with the one-way street paradigm I briefly stated because of the Living Constitution doctrine has allowed Left oriented activist Judges to begin slowly aligning the nation away from the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers to utilize Christian morality and love to be the foundation of the rule of law.

 

Here are some remarks that disfavor the Living Constitution doctrine from deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

 

At least three serious difficulties flaw the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution. First, it misconceives the nature of the Constitution, which was designed to enable the popularly elected branches of government, not the judicial branch, to keep the country abreast of the times. Second, the brief writer’s version ignores the Supreme Court’s disastrous experiences when in the past it embraced contemporary, fashionable notions of what a living Constitution should contain. Third, however socially desirable the goals sought to be advanced by the brief writer’s version, advancing them through a freewheeling, nonelected judiciary is quite unacceptable in a democratic society.

 

 

The brief writer’s version of the living Constitution, in the last analysis, is a formula for an end run around popular government. To the extent that it makes possible an individual’s persuading one or more appointed federal judges to impose on other individuals a rule of conduct that the popularly elected branches of government would not have enacted and the voters have not and would not have embodied in the Constitution, the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution is genuinely corrosive of the fundamental values of our democratic society. (The Notion of a Living Constitution; by William H. Renquist – Read Entire PDF Document)

 

Here are some thoughts from Justice Antonin Scalia:

 

 

In a 35-minute speech Monday [2005], Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. …

 

“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,” Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. “You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”

 

“Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?” he said.

 

 

Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

 

“Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution,” said Scalia … (Scalia Slams ‘Living Constitution’ Theory; by AP on Fox News; 3/14/05 – Read Entirety)

 

Here is excerpted definition of Original Intent from The Free Dictionary:

 

The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.

 

Sometimes called original understanding, originalism, or intentionalism, the theory of original intent is applied by judges when they are asked to exercise the power of Judicial Review during a legal proceeding. (The power of judicial review is the power of state and federal courts to review and invalidate laws that have been passed by the legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)

 

… Judges who do attempt to apply this judicial philosophy generally agree that only through its application may courts be bound by the law and not their own views of what is desirable. They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution.

 

 

… They argue that the interpretation of most written documents, legal or otherwise, involves a form of “communication” in which “the writer seeks to communicate with the reader”, Constitutional interpretation is no different, originalists say, because it involves the attempt of judges, as readers, to understand the meaning of a constitutional provision as conveyed by the Framers and ratifiers who authored it. Originalists believe that judges who fail to employ this method of interpretation transform courts into naked power organs.

 

Originalists contend that judges who deviate from the original understanding of a constitutional provision are forced to replace that understanding with their own subjective sympathies, social preferences, and notions of reasonableness. When judges substitute their own value choices for those actually written in the Constitution, federal courts become super-legislatures that make decisions based on the personal will of judges and not the law of the land (Day-Brite Lighting v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 72 S. Ct. 405, 96 L. Ed. 469 [1952]).

 

Originalists assert that judges who legislate from the bench violate the separation of powers by making law rather than interpreting and applying it. These judges also violate the principles of federalism, the second essential feature of U.S. constitutional democracy identified by originalists. Under these principles, courts must strike an appropriate balance between the sovereignties of state and federal governments, not allowing the smaller state governments to be wholly consumed by the ubiquitous federal government. Originalists contend that this balance impermissibly tips in favor of the federal government when federal courts invent new constitutional rights that state governments are then required to enforce.

 

 

Respect for principles of federalism, then, is intimately connected with the third essential feature of U.S. Constitutional democracy identified by originalists, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects certain freedoms from the popular will no matter how democratically the majority attempts to trample them. In all other areas, originalists assert, state and federal majorities are entitled to rule for no better reason than that they are majorities. Originalists explain that majority tyranny occurs if legislation invades areas properly left to individual freedom, and minority tyranny occurs if the majority is prevented from ruling where its power is legitimate.

 

Originalists argue that the judiciary facilitates minority tyranny by improperly interpreting the Bill of Rights to guarantee liberties not contemplated by the language and intent of the Framers. To avoid this pitfall, originalists believe, judges must safeguard only the liberties that can be clearly derived from the Constitution. Originalists cite a series of cases in which the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy as the antithesis of proper constitutional interpretation.

 

… (Read Entire Definition)

 

That is stage I have attempted to refute on the so-called Separation of Church and State theory the courts have maintained since the mid-20th century to stop America’s Christian Heritage on or in anything that is supported by any kind of taxpayer money.

 

In 1947 a five to four decision in the Supreme Court ex nihilo added Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church assuring them that the Federal Government would not establish a National Church thus that Church would not have worry about its parishioners paying taxes to a State Church as the British citizens had to do to support the Church of England (Anglican Church – Episcopalian in USA). In that letter Thomas Jefferson promised a “Wall of Separation” between the Church and the State.  Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the five Justices that egregiously added to the Constitution via a misinterpretation of Jefferson’s intent in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. (Dissenting Opinions of Everson v. Board of Education: Jackson and Rutledge)

 

Here is a great rendition of Original Intent pertaining to the First Amendment and the Disestablishment Clause.

 

JRH 6/16/12 (Thanks to CJ for inspiring me to ponder)

Please Support NCCR

 

The Homosexual Classrooms Act is an Assault on the Constitution and Christianity


Sodom and Gomorrah

 

John R. Houk

© December 21, 2011

 

Homosexual Activists are using the clout of MSM and Hollywood/TV propaganda to brainwash homosexuality is normal and acceptable in American culture. The Homosexual Activist lobby appears to be in the driver’s seat gaining huge support for a bill entitled Student Non-Discrimination Act. Eugene Delgaudio of Public Advocate correctly says [SlantRight Editor: Read Delgaudio at the end of this post at SlantRight 2.0] the bill should be labeled the Homosexual Classrooms Act.

 

The propagandized design for the Bill is to protect deviant homosexuals from discrimination in public schools. The nuts and bolts reality is the Bill forced feeds public school students to accept the homosexual lifestyle as normal rather than the Biblical description as an abomination. Because of Judicial precedents utilizing a Left Wing secularist interpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, Homosexual Activists are making sure public school students do not hear that Christian Biblical faith speaks of homosexuality as deviant sin against God.

 

Regardless of what atheists, Secular Humanists and Separation of Church-State morons will tell you, the United States of America has a Christian Foundation in its colonial beginnings and the foundation thoughts of the Founding Father’s including those Founders involved in writing the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

 

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

 

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. (Fisher Ames – Framer of the First Amendment; An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

 

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. (Charles Carroll of Carrollton – Signer of the Declaration of Independence; Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

 

[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion. (Oliver Ellsworth – Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court; Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut)

 

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

 

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service. (Benjamin Franklin – at Constitutional Convention; James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

 

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death. (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

 

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers. (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

 

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience. (James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution; Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)

 

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. (Benjamin Rush – Signer of the Declaration of Independence; Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)

 

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” [Matthew 1:18] (Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

 

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support. (George Washington – Father of Our Country; The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

 

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

 

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (George Washington – Father of Our Country; Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

 

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both. (James Wilson – Signer of the Constitution; The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

 

The Above Quotes from WallBuilders

 

President James Madison was the primary framer and defender of making the Constitution the law of the land. Madison was huge on equal rights for all religions and all Christian denominations (or sects). Many a Secular Humanist will thus point out that Madison was big on separation of Church and State. AND in a many he was big on the Church-State separation; however not in the manner that activist Left Wing Judges have reinterpreted Original Intent. Madison wanted government to stay out of the religion business but fully expected Christianity to be an influence on the rule of law.

 

“Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it.”  (James Madison, referring to the establishment of tax-supported denominations in Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117. [1st emphasis SlantRight – 2nd emphasis James Madison Quotes])

 

In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.

 

“An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”  James Madison

 

We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth “that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. (— James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785 in response to an attempt to pass a law that would have instituted the anti-biblical practice of taxing the general population for the support of the church.  Note: The purpose of this bill was to try to help the Protestant Episcopal (Anglican) church with their financial problems.   Today, the same type of tax support has been accomplished quite handily by the Secular Humanist religion, and no James Madison was there to object and stop it from happening.  For more information on the history surrounding this, go here. [Emphasis SlantRight])

 

The Above Quotes from James Madison Quotes

 

Alexander Hamilton was also a supporter of the Constitution becoming the law of the land for the United States of America.

 

“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.” Alexander Hamilton

 

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.” Alexander Hamilton

 

“For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” [Alexander Hamilton, 1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

 

“I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.” Alexander Hamilton

 

Note: Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:

 

(1) Christianity

 

(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.

 

The Above Quotes from Alexander Hamilton Quotes

 

Anti-Christian and Separation Church-State apologists love to point out a significant number of the America’s Founding Fathers were Deists. Even if it is true that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, their Deism was quite different than the Deism practiced in Europe. Whatever acceptance or denial of the miraculous inherent in the Holy Bible, the Founding Fathers universally followed the Biblical Moral code. In following the Moral code of the Bible the practice of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle in America would horrify the Founding Fathers.

 

Only a foolish Secular Humanist or Separation of Church-State proponent would deny the strict adherence of the Founding Fathers to Biblical Morality. This is when those that demand that Christianity can have zero to do with the government because of Separation of Church and State will say something like the times are a changing. The U.S. Constitution is a living document don’t you know and thus the rule of law inherent in the Constitution changes according to the evolution of the mores of society.

 

Did the Founding Fathers view the Constitution as a living document?

 

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.  —Thomas Jefferson

 

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.  —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States

 

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington

 

Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so? — James Madison

 

The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. — James Madison

 

Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution. — Thomas Jefferson

 

To take a single step beyond the text would be to take possession of a boundless field of power. — Thomas Jefferson (The Founders on a Living Constitution; By Jon Bruning and James Best; What Would The Founders Think?)

 

The Founding Fathers expected the Constitution to be interpreted with the Original Intent in which it was written. The only change to occur in the Constitution was via the Amendment process or another Constitutional Convention to write a new document to replace the last document.

 

This Living Constitution malarkey is an invention of the Left to validate a Socialistic-Secular Humanistic culture despising our Christian foundation to allow such deviancy as homosexuality to be valid and to have special protection from Christians that subscribe to Biblical Morality.

 

We Christians must rise up and be an influence on our government as the Founding Fathers Originally Intended!

 

JRH 12/21/11

Alexander: Mr. Boehner, et al., Honor Your Oath!


We the People

I posted Charles Krauthammer’s article at SlantRight.com entitled, “Constitutionalism.” In my opinion Krauthammer is what might be described as a Neoconservative Establishment Republican Intellectual. I don’t always agree with Krauthammer nonetheless I am appreciative of his Neocon leanings since my current leanings tend to be Neocon oriented. My greatest divergence from Neocon ideals is that I am a Christian Right Social Conservative.

 

I reference Krauthammer’s article because I just read an excellent post from Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post. Alexander is oriented toward a Tea Party Conservative of less government, less taxation and Original Intent Constitutionalism.

 

Alexander has some praise for the new Speaker of the House John Boehner’s decision to open the 112th House of Representatives with readings of the U.S. Constitution. The part of the article that really caught my attention is the proposal of a House rule that Bills coming through the House must cite the jurisdiction of the Constitution to insure Constitutional principles in the rule of law. It is a good READ!

 

JRH 1/8/11