Original Intent – The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right

Embrace In God We Trust

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

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

JRH 3/7/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Embrace In God We Trust

Firmly Believe that America has a Purpose

By Justin Smith

Posted March 6, 2019 1:55 PM

Facebook Group: Social Media Jail Conversations for Conservatives & Counterjihadists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~ Justin O Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Forgotten Americans Spoke

Intro to ‘Forgotten Americans Spoke’

Edited by John R. Houk

By Justin O. Smith

This part-essay and part op-ed piece is quite thought provoking. Justin Smith writes about how Americans rose up and voted for Trump largely repudiating the Obama legacy and the continued Crony-Leftism of Crooked Hillary.

Justin praises the electoral system and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to make that a part of their American experiment. And that made me think of the hysterical Leftist in the tank Clintonistas going ballistic breaking the public order with vandalism and violence. There is a Left Wing push to those responsible for the Electoral College to reject the Constitutional path to POSTUS and revote according to the national popular vote which as of this writing has Crooked Hillary up by a mere .2% over President-Elect Trump.

For those that didn’t pay attention in school, one of the reasons for the Electoral College is to balance political power between populous States and less populous States. If you look at a Hillary vs. Trump map as affecting the Constitutional Electoral College, YOU will notice Trump’s victory is a virtual landslide in terms of the Electoral College.

The below map was for 11/14/16 with Trump at 290 and Crooked Hillary at 228 as of 1:05 PM ET with Michigan nearly to be able to be declared for Trump (add 16 Electoral votes to Trump column):

Electoral College 11-14-16 1:00 PM

JRH 11/14/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Forgotten Americans Spoke

OR — Leftist Heads Spin

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 11/14/2016 12:21 PM

Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States on January 20th, 2017, in large part because he so easily and defiantly laughed in the face of the D.C. establishment types, who thought he was a joke, and he turned the old political order on its head. Trump rejected soul-draining and mind-numbing identity politics and double standards in the law, that centered on whether one was a Republican or Democrat. He addressed the real issues of the day from immigration and “refugee” policies to Obamacare and national security, and he bluntly outlined how our world is filled with enemies, adversaries and competitors as well as friends. He opened a pathway for Americans to forcefully oppose the long-entrenched D.C. establishment, and the hyphen-free Americans took it, as they chose to make America work for all Americans, not just those in power.

Certainly, it is a positive act for any candidate to be magnanimous in victory, as Trump is showing. But he shouldn’t fall for the Leftist Progressive Democrats’ overanxious con — the “poison chalice” — of reaching across the aisle for “compromise”. The Democrats didn’t even know the meaning of the word in 2009 when Obama and his Democrat majority rammed Obamacare down our throats.

Trump needs to stay true to his agenda and to those Americans who put their faith in him. He needs to strike hard, while the stars are aligned and the iron is hot, to accomplish much in his first year. Any delay only gives his political enemies and the Leftist media time to gain control of the valves needed to “drain the swamp” in D.C., so Trump must not be overly concerned with those Leftists who are upset that he won, even if their heads are spinning on their shoulders and their tears are making the oceans rise.

And conservative Americans must also drive home the lessons of the benefits of a conservative free-market capitalist system, guided under the Founders’ Original Intent in the U.S. Constitution, over Marxist socialism. We must continue to illustrate how capitalism expands liberties, while socialism limits and destroys those same liberties.

On November 8th, Obama and most of Americas thought Hillary Clinton was poised early on to win, which prompted Obama to say that (regardless of who wins) “the sun will come up in the morning.” And as the sun rose the next day, a shocked Obama found himself expressing “hope” that Trump would be invested in unity, respect for American institutions and the nation’s way of life and the rule of law; all of this coming from Obama, a man and a U.S. President who had no respect for any of those things.

Let’s not forget too quickly that over the last eight years, Obama and his criminal cohorts, radical progressives/communists, used the Executive Branch to unleash the IRS dogs on conservative Americans and conservative political groups. He worked to destroy the coal industry that supported thousands of families, all on an ideological whim based on false science, and he attempted to intimidate conservatives away from exercising their constitutional rights for fear that armed federal agents might arrest them.

Let’s not forget how normal Americans have been depicted as racial “cowards” by Clinton associate Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General, after being attacked as “xenophobes” and “nativists” by progressives and RINO immigration expansionists. Don’t easily forgive the incessant accusations of “Islamophobia” by Hillary and the progressives in the wake of numerous islamofascist attacks on America. Hold on a bit longer to that anger resulting from baseless accusations of “homophobia” over our protest of homosexual marriage, and continue to mourn those police officers ambushed by murderous thugs seeking racial vengeance — all of this coming from Democrat Progressive policies and propaganda.

Hillary Clinton, in a conciliatory tone stated during her concession speech, “We owe him an open mind and as chance to succeed.” She was probably quite fearful that Trump would follow through on his promise to prosecute her, however, this is most unlikely to happen given Trump’s statement in his victory speech that “we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.” This in itself is a troubling start to Trump’s presidency, although he did tell ’60 Minutes’ on Nov. 13th that he wants “to think about it.” He also is now back-pedaling on immigration.

An unreasonable fear has also gripped the Leftists and anarchists who either purposefully, or from ignorance, misinterpret Trump’s proposals as “racist”. They have protested and rioted in several major U.S. cities like Los Angeles, Portland, New York and Miami, since November 9th, shouting “not my president”.

The Washington Post reported that issues of national security, rule of law and scope of government and rejecting Obama’s liberal agenda propelled Trump to victory, rather than any racist considerations. They assert that “on average, the counties that voted for Obama twice and then flipped to support Trump were 81% white”.

Isn’t this ironic? Now that the shoe is on the other foot, all of a sudden the Leftist Progressives, who wanted Obama to ignore the Constitution and take full advantage of “the pen”, are showing a great and renewed interest in that old tired concept of “checks and balances.”

And in the meantime, Americans who love God, Family and America are rejecting the corruption in our government. We reject the elites who hold us in contempt. We reject any government official, any leader and any unconstitutional “law” attempting to silence us and make us bow, kneel and obey the arbitrary whims of an out-of-control State.

Pray for America. Pray for Donald Trump and Mike Pence as they face this massive responsibility of healing and unifying America the best they can, and help them keep America safe and Free.

“Ours was not a campaign, but rather an incredible and great movement, made up of millions of hard-working men and women who love their country and want a better, brighter future for themselves and for their families … a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs, who want and expect our government to serve the people, and serve the people it will. … Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.” — Donald Trump’s presidential victory speech

By Justin O Smith

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith

Disestablishmentarianism, Constitution, SCOTUS & UN

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia – 1830

New York – 1846

Massachusetts – 1833

Maryland – 1867

Delaware – 1792

Connecticut – 1818

New Hampshire – 1877

Rhode Island – 1842

Georgia – 1798

North Carolina – 1875

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

Pennsylvania – 1790

New Jersey – 1844

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

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

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

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

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

…

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

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

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

…

Roe v. Wade, 1973

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

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

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

Specific to throwing out Original Intent Disestablishmentarian Clause:

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

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

…

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

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

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

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

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

Here’s the full article.

JRH 7/4/16

Please Support NCCR

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

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

By Tim Brown

July 1, 2016

Eagle Rising

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

The Telegraph reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reposted With Permission From Freedom Outpost.

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

______________________

Disestablishmentarianism, Constitution, SCOTUS & UN

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

____________________

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

About Tim Brown

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

About Eagle Rising

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

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

… READ THE REST

Long Live Freedom

Justin Smith provides some very legitimate thoughts on President Barack Hussein Obama’s unconstitutional actions with his pen and phone. Just a heads up there is a section in Justin’s essay that addresses the wealthy elites of the late 19^th and early 20^th using their Capitalistic attained riches to advance socialistic agendas in Great Britain (these days now more often referred to as United Kingdom).

The families Justin writes about are the Morgans, Rockefellers and Rothschilds. These three names are high fruit on the Conspiracy Theory tree. The Rothschild family holds a particular venom from antisemitic Conspiracy Theorists. (Debunking the NWO spun by Rothschild family: HERE, HERE, HERE & HERE. Promoting Rothschild family NWO laced with antisemitism: HERE and HERE.)

I am certain that the Conspiracy Theorists will come out of the word work with Justin’s post. (Incidentally on a personal level I believe there are some facts involved in the theories, but that the theories too often go off into a ditch on the Left or the Right side of the road.) Justin’s essay is specifically an attack on Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders.

JRH 3/8/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Long Live Freedom

By Justin Smith

Sent: 3/7/2015 10:33 PM

“Es lebe die Freiheit” [Long live freedom] – Hans Scholl’s [Jewish Virtual Library] last words (White Rose opposition to Hitler)

American freedom and liberty, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent, are being rapidly destroyed by Obama and the Progressive Democrat fascists, who are advancing the U.S. government towards autocratic and dictatorial rule. They are destroying our Shining City on the Hill, through statist policies rife with the cancers of economic and cultural Marxism and other insidious tactics that are eradicating our traditions, national sovereignty and the historical memory of the American people, and Americans must find the determination and courage to fight this anti-American Progressive movement through every means available.

Too often, the Republican Party advances the Progressive agenda, inadvertently or not, through its own statist propensity and love of protected markets and monopolies, despite its protestations of being completely “conservative” and 100% for free market capitalism. During the 2008 economic crisis, fascism became the rule of the day, and the interests of the American people were sacrificed in order to save huge economic conglomerates like AIG, which were deemed “too big to fail.”

In 1920, H.G. Wells explained: “Big Business is in no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger the business grows the more it approximates Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to collectivism.”

Many men, such as the Morgans, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, funded the socialist takeover of Great Britain, and these very same men helped President Woodrow Wilson create the Federal Reserve Bank (centralized credit) and a heavy progressive income tax, two of the Ten Tenets of Communism; in this context, control of one-sixth of the United States economy through the Affordable Health Care Act by the federal government and future Progressive regimes, like Obama’s, puts us all on an open road to serfdom and a new authoritarian world in America.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild often stated, “Let me issue and control a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”

In this sense, one must question the moral clarity of vision and the political and legal understanding and knowledge of Republicans, such as Representatives Bruce Polinquin (Maine), Bob Dold (Illinois) and John Katko (New York), since they voted against the repeal of the ACA [Obamacare] in February. They were more interested in “fixing” its flaws and having replacement legislation ready. These politicians are symptomatic of the problem America faces.

Who do these Republicans represent after all? Certainly not conservative America.

Free market economies do not need the imprimatur of any government in order to decide what is acceptable to the people. Consumers must be free to decide on purchases for themselves, and health care providers should supply plans that are acceptable to the free market. If they cannot, the consumers’ purchases will guide the market, without government collusion or coercion.

In a July 2012 appearance on Fox News Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell contradicts his October 2014 assertion that 60 votes would be needed in the Senate to repeal Obamacare, as he states: “The Chief Justice said (Obamacare) it’s a tax. Taxes are clearly reconcilable (in the budget). That’s the kind of measure that can be pursued with 51 votes in the Senate.”

Shortly after the House voted to repeal Obamacare (239 to 186) on February 3rd, 2015, Senator Ted Cruz told CNS News: “If it can be passed with reconciliation, it can be repealed with reconciliation. And we need to use every procedural means possible to stop the train wreck that is Obamacare.”

Following the G.B. Shaw template to advance a Utopian Hell in America [“Bernard Shaw and Totalitarianism” and “The Language of Degeneration: Eugenic Ideas in…”], Obama has used deception and subverted U.S. law. He has also formed a despotic habit of legislating from the Oval Office, which is not a legitimate and Constitutional function of the Executive Branch.

Far from “prosecutorial discretion”, Obama’s most recent executive order grants five million illegal aliens “executive amnesty”, social security cards, three years of Earned Income Credit back-payments and $25,000 each from U.S. taxpayer money, even though they never paid any taxes. This is illegal and unconstitutional, and Obama is breaking U.S. law, as he helps other criminals in the process.

Obama’s illegal “executive amnesty” is an overt attempt to change the face of America and legitimize a mass of people, who are greatly inclined to vote Democrat. This is, in large part, aimed specifically at turning Texas into a Democrat majority state, ensuring that Progressives will be virtually unstoppable election after election and far into the future.

Where is the aggressive action against Obama’s “executive amnesty” that Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner and many other establishment Republicans promised?

Sadly, America learned on March 3rd that 75 pathetic Republicans had joined 182 more pathetic Democrats to fund the Department of Homeland Security, as the succumbed to the false narrative that refusing to fund DHS and Obama’s executive amnesty would adversely affect national security. This legislation also funds Obama’s executive amnesty, and in the process, it severely damages Congressional power for years to come.

Didn’t any of these 75 republicans consider that the large number of crimes committed by these illegal aliens against U.S. citizens is a matter of national security?

A brilliant thinker and founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly recently exclaimed: “It’s an insult to everyone who voted to elect the Republicans in the last Congressional election. The American people clearly voted against Obama’s illegal, unconstitutional bills of all kinds … He’s a disaster for our country, and he doesn’t have our national security at heart.”

And now, Obama is planning an egregious infringement on our Second Amendment rights by banning 5.62 mm M855 ammo through executive order, because it pierces soft-body armor. This is a deception aimed at the eventual ban on all firearms and ammo, since 168 other rounds (e.g. .308, .223, 30.06) also pierce soft-body armor. If he proceeds, everyone should fill the Oval Office with .223 ammo, by way of UPS or 3000 feet per second muzzle velocity, depending on one’s vision for America – Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide.

Even in America vigilance is required to keep freedom and liberty alive. The Progressives of both parties hold, in part or whole, post-Constitutional ideas that advance Obama’s fundamental transformation, which eradicates our Founding Principles and traditional precepts concerning the rule of law. They are advancing this Progressive agenda through illegitimate, extralegal and illegal means, as they assault our American Heritage and place many Americans in an unendurable situation, which will eventually lead to armed rebellion, unless any future Statesmen can successfully repel this tide of fascism: If not, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty will fight once more in order to restore Constitutional governance and the Republic in Our Beloved America.

Justin O Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text and/or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Religion and the Constitution

A Precursor to ‘OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS’

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2015

(Read ‘Our Constitutional Rights’ by Robert Smith below)

Robert Smith stipulates that the U.S. Constitution does not validate any rights for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle. And he is correct. Smith’s reasoning by correctly stating God Almighty considers the practice of homosexuality an abomination.

Homosexual Activists and Leftist believers of a Living Constitution (as opposed to an Original Intent Constitution) stick to the position that the Constitution updates itself according to the cultural times we exist in. Hence, homosexuals are entitled to the same Rights as heterosexuals because culture accepts homosexuality as normal.

Supporters of Original Intent combined with Biblical Christians take the stand that America’s Founding Documents are highly influenced by Colonial America’s dedication to the Christian faith. The Original Intent/Biblical Christian block point to the dedication to God through Jesus Christ by a majority of America’s earliest colonialists to the influence of America’s Christian heritage. Ergo, since America’s foundations are Christian, Constitutional Rights and Liberties are assured via a Judeo-Christian mindset.

Separation of Church/State Leftists and unfortunately a few Conservatives demand the First Amendment forbids government to define the Rule of Law through the eyes of religion meaning Christianity. Actually the First Amendment says NO SUCH THING. The First Amendment doesn’t even use the words that Church and State must be separated. What specifically does the First Amendment say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment; Legal Information Institute [LII] – Cornell University Law School)

The Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has too often read the First Amendment as religion cannot be a criteria in any fashion within the framework of any government entity: Local, State and Federal. In the case of separation of Church and State the Supreme Court has used the horrible decision of a past Supreme Court to enlist and misinterpret a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Church which did not enjoy the benefits of an individual State that institutionalized a specific Protestant Denomination which was not Baptist. To be clear in the early days of our Constitutional government individual States did have State Churches supported by the State government. The Supreme Court NEVER ended the State practice, rather on a State by State basis individual States joined the U.S. (i.e. Federal government) Constitution First Amendment prohibition of government (i.e. Federal government) establish a State Church. It was duly recognized that the Federal government could not establish a State Church but in a Tenth Amendment fashion each individual State decided the Church/State issue. Further the First Amendment speaks to nothing pertaining to religion (and everybody understood religion to mean Christianity) influencing government but ONLY that government cannot interfere in religious activities whatsoever.

Who was that Justice that wrote the majority opinion that prohibited religion from all things government which in effect extra-constitutionally enshrined separation of Church and State? It was Justice Hugo Black in the SCOTUS decision of 1947 in Everson vs. the Board of Education. Just to be clear. Did your read the year? It was 1947 two years after WWII. Before Hugo Black, religious activity within public (i.e. government locations, schools and even legislative bodies) functions of various Christian Denominations including the Catholic Church was a common occurrence.

New Hampshire became the required 9^th State needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution on 6/21/1788. The constitutional Federal government began operation on 3/4/1789. In doing the math that means religion and government interacted freely for 158 years with the Federal Government forbidden to tell religious practitioners how to worship or practice their faith.

Daniel L. Dreisbach lays out the false reasoning of Justice Hugo Black which began a Case Law foundation to keep religion from influencing or contributing to government:

…

In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the United States Supreme Court was asked to interpret the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” …

…

… At the dawn of the 19th century, Jefferson’s Federalist opponents, led by John Adams, dominated New England politics, and the Congregationalist church was legally established in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Baptists, who supported Jefferson, were outsiders–a beleaguered religious and political minority in a region where a Congregationalist-Federalist axis dominated political life.

On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Jefferson penned a missive to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter in October 1801, congratulating him on his election to the “chief Magistracy in the United States.” They celebrated Jefferson’s zealous advocacy for religious liberty and chastised those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State^.[3]

…

Jefferson’s Understanding of the “Wall”

Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the “high and impregnable” wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own “wall of separation.”

Jefferson’s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. …

…

The Wall That Black Built

The phrase “wall of separation” entered the lexicon of American constitutional law in 1879. In Reynolds v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court opined that the Danbury letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment thus secured.”[⁶] Although the Court reprinted the entire second paragraph of Jefferson’s letter containing the metaphorical phrase, Jefferson’s language is generally characterized as obiter dictum. [Blog Editor: The obiter dictum link is by this blog Editor]

Nearly seven decades later, in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education(1947), the Supreme Court rediscovered the metaphor: “In the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’…. That wall,” the justices concluded in a sweeping separationist declaration, “must be kept high and impregnable. …

Justice Hugo L. Black, who authored the Court’s ruling, likely encountered the metaphor in briefs filed in Everson. In an extended discussion of American history that highlighted Virginia’s disestablishment battles and supported the proposition that “separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle,” attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union quoted the single clause in the Danbury letter that contains the “wall of separation” image. …

The trope’s current fame and pervasive influence in popular, political, and legal discourse date from its rediscovery by the Everson Court. The Danbury letter was also cited frequently and favorably in the cases that followed Everson. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the following term, and in subsequent cases, the Court essentially constitutionalized the Jeffersonian phrase, subtly and blithely substituting Jefferson’s figurative language for the literal text of the First Amendment.[⁹] In the last half of the 20th century, it became the defining motif for church-state jurisprudence.

The “high and impregnable” wall central to the past 50 years of church-state jurisprudence is not Jefferson’s wall; rather, it is the wall that Black–Justice Hugo Black–built in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education.

…

Jefferson’s wall separated church and the federal government only. By incorporating the First Amendment non-establishment provision into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Black’s wall separates religion and civil government at all levels–federal, state, and local.

By extending its prohibitions to state and local jurisdictions, Black turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head. A barrier originally designed, as a matter of federalism, to separate the national and state governments, and thereby to preserve state jurisdiction in matters pertaining to religion, was transformed into an instrument of the federal judiciary to invalidate policies and programs of state and local authorities. As the normative constitutional rule applicable to all relationships between religion and the civil state, the wall that Black built has become the defining structure of a putatively secular polity.

… It would behoove you to READ this article in Entirety (The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse; By Daniel L. Dreisbach; Heritage Foundation; 6/23/06)

Now I went through all this legal rigmarole to demonstrate how America’s Judiciary has become dominated by Leftist-minded activist or has fallen into the Living Constitution fallacy that essentially placed a wall of separation between America’s Christian Heritage and Lady Liberty’s secular paradigm. This forced divorce from the Left has eroded America’s moral principles as a nation in which the abomination of homosexuality has been normalized, adultery-fornication has become a cultural eye-wink, violence in schools is something to watch out for, pornography is distasteful but not aberrant, it becomes risky business to allow your children to walk home from school or play in their neighborhoods and on and on.

I started this post as an introduction to Robert Smith’s thoughts on homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution. Now I completely agree with Smith’s thoughts; however I think his tone is a bit harsh. The kind of harshness that might inspire violence by those disgusted by homosexuality and inspire violence by homosexuals offended by Christian morality.

For me the thing about defending Christian morality and criticizing a homosexual lifestyle is NOT to inspire violence. Rather my goal as to add a voice to the Good News of Jesus Christ delivering humanity from the evil hold of Satan’s kingdom leased to slew-foot by Adam’s betrayal. The Deliverance in Christ occurs when one believes that Jesus died on the Cross for Adam’s bequeathed sin-nature, that Jesus was in a tomb for three days and on the Third Day Jesus arose in a glorified but bodily form and currently sits at the Right Hand of the Father awaiting the right time to complete and seal the task of human beings be restored to God Almighty spirit, soul and body. Rejection in this faith in the Risen Christ leads to a very uncomfortable eternal living consequence separated from God’s Presence.

¹⁶For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

¹⁸“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ¹⁹And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. ²⁰For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. ²¹But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” (John 3: 16-21 NKJV)

Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2014

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold text mine – Amendment I from Legal Information Institute of Cornel University Law School)

The controversy here is Original Intent vs. Living Constitution. Conservative prefer to err on the side of Original Intent while America’s Leftists prefer to err on the side of a Living Constitution.

Original Intent:

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.

Sometime 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 legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)

Not every judge adheres to the theory of original intent, and many adherents fail to apply it in a uniform and faithful manner. Judges who 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.

Originalists observe that the democracy created by the U. S. Constitution is marked by three essential features: : a Separation of Powers, Federalism, and a Bill of Rights. The Constitution separates the powers of the federal government into three branches, which help foster what is known as a system of checks and … (Original Intent; The Free Dictionary)

… The phrase original intent usually means the subjective opinion of those who wrote the Constitution as to what a particular provision was supposed to communicate. Original intent also is called the intent of the Framers. Researchers try to deduce the original intent by examining both direct evidence (what the 55 drafters said during the Constitutional Convention), and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Examples of the latter include, among other things, what people said about the instrument during the ratification debates, the meaning of key words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries, and their meaning in legal and literary sources.

…

The original meaning (or original public meaning) is how a reasonably intelligent, involved member of the public would have interpreted a provision. Primary evidence of original meaning is how words were used in common discourse and the definitions in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources. Circumstantial evidence includes the drafting and ratification conventions, public debates, and so forth.

Obviously, the evidence used in prove each of the three concepts overlaps. In practice, moreover, the original intent of a provision is usually the same as the original understanding or original meaning.

In the event of a conflict between intent, understanding and meaning, which should control?

The key to answering that question is to answer another: “When the Constitution was adopted, what was its legal force? In other words, how would the courts of the time have interpreted it?

The Constitution is, of course, a legal document, so you can find the correct response to this question by investigating how judges, and other lawyers and public officials interpreted legal documents of the same general kind during the Founding Era. …

…

Thus, the original legal force of the Constitution—as it would have been applied by Founding-Era judges, lawyers, and officials—is based on the original understanding; if this is not recoverable, then you apply the original meaning. Original intent is useful only insofar as it tends to prove understanding or meaning. (Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning; By Rob Natelson; Tenth Amendment Center; 5/21/12)

Law School claims to teach Constitutional Law, but the Constitution is never opened. The entire concept of Constitutional Law in Law School is based on Case Law. The original writings, the original language, and the original intent of the U.S. Constitution is not even considered.

Those who wished to subvert the Constitution from the very beginning worked to use the courts, and “implied law,” to disarm the Constitution, so as to allow the federal government a greater opportunity to grow beyond the limitations placed on it by the specific language of the Constitution.

…

Along with studying the histories of Rome, Greece and Slovenia as examples of past republics, the primary research by the Founding Fathers was from their own Mother Country, England. The Anglo-Saxons provided the principles the founders needed to establish a lasting system of freedom, and liberty. They also recognized how easily statists could use the courts, or the living and breathing concept of Common Law, to change the Constitution, so the founders put into the Constitution strict standards, and a limited means for changing the Law of the Land (through amendments), while also making the Judicial Branch the weakest of the three branches of government.

…

Judicial Review allows the courts to review the law and determine if it is a just law, or even if it is a constitutional law. This is a commonly accepted concept, and it flies in the face of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who wanted the States to be the final arbiters of the Constitution – not the courts.

… Judicial Review is indeed a sinister power for the courts to have. For the federal courts to decide if a law is constitutional is for the federal government to determine its own authorities. That, my friends, is hardly in line with the idea of limited government as originally prescribed by the founders.

The courts, through case law, have acted as an agent for the forces that are determined to bring down our system, and change it into a tyranny. Those who have bought into the case law myth, as has our female lawyer twitter friend of my friend, are accomplices in the effort to bring down our system of liberty, and limited government.

The damage is widespread, and the statist opinions are entrenched in our system.

… READ ENTIRETY (U.S. Constitution, Original Intent; By DOUGLAS GIBBS; Conservative Action Alerts; 8/15/13)

See the CATO Institute’s panel discussion video “Originalism and the Good Constitution” in which the authors of said book (John O. McGinnis) are also member.

Living Constitution:

Living Constitution is a term used to describe the Constitution’s ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of U.S. It is based on the notion that Constitution of the United States has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time. Therefore the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

There are many views for and against the theory of Living Constitution. The pragmatist view contends … (Living Constitution Law & Legal Definition; USLegal.com)

…

… Mr. Obama found himself engaged in a subject that stirs up his leftwing passions. Below are some of his bombshell comments (emphasis added):

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and [sic] Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

That straightforward excerpt provides a clear window into the constitutional philosophy of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. As radical as “people tried to characterize” the Warren Court, Mr. Obama hints that the Constitution may be interpreted even more radically: in a way which would give the federal government power to tell the people what the feds (and states) must do on their behalf.

…

… Mr. Obama believes he can “break free” from the additional “constraints” placed in the Constitution by the founders. Toward that end, Mr. Obama’s nominees to the federal judiciary share his leftist worldview. From his “wise Latina” and “gay rumor” appointments to the Supreme Court, to his legion of federal appellate and district court nominees, the common denominator is the idea of appointing high-ranking judges who see the Constitution as a “living document.”

In President Obama’s words from The Audacity of Hope, the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

…

In his co-authored book, Keeping Faith with the Constitution, Liu, in Obamian fashion, posits a new method of interpretation: constitutional fidelity. “Fidelity” has a nice ring to it, but unfortunately, “what we mean by fidelity,” clarifies Liu, “is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.”

In other words, Liu is a “living Constitution” theorist who, like Obama, uses conservative-sounding words to support his radical positions. A Constitution that is interpreted by a few robe-wearing elitists “in a way that adapts its principles” is effectively no Constitution at all.

After many decades of “living Constitution” interpretation, the people have … READ ENTIRETY (A Clear Danger: Obama, a ‘Living Constitution,’ and ‘Positive Rights’; By Monte Kuligowski; American Thinker; 10/2/10)

In the Original Intent vs. Living Constitution debate is the issue of the folly known as Separation of Church and State; thus Leftists have brainwashed Americans to accept Judicial tyranny to mold the public question: Is allowing religion on tax supported institutions and/or property a government endorsement of religious faith?

If the courts were only allowed to use Originalism to validate or invalidate non-Amendment laws (legislative or executive regulations), the issue of Religion influencing government BUT NOT government influencing religion or religious practice would be understood as the intent of the Founding Fathers.

In effect American Leftists and atheists have managed to transform the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government into the very tyranny that was intended to be avoided.

Alexander Hamilton in authoring Federalist #78 spells out the constitutional powers attributed to the Judicial Branch of government:

…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. [Emphasis added (by Faith and the Law blog).]

…

During the past 60 years, many federal judges (followed closely by their state counterparts) have gradually strayed from the constitutional role of interpreting the law – providing “judgment,” to use Hamilton’s word – to actively legislating from the bench, especially in controversial areas of social policy. In other words, activist judges at the federal and state level have abandoned the Founders’ understanding of the constitutionally limited judicial function and have usurped the legislative function (without admitting it, of course) in order to impose a radically liberal vision for America. That vision includes such things as creating previously unknown constitutional “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage, for example.

Since federal judges are appointed for life, their lack of accountability to the democratic will of the people makes such judicial activism especially dangerous. Hamilton argued in Federalist #78 that the Constitution’s “good behavior” qualification on judges’ lifetime appointments would suffice to keep them in line, but in practice it has not been used to rein in activist judges. It is ironic that the Founders proposed lifetime appointments for federal judges because they most feared overreaching by the legislative branch, while considering the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch.

…

For judges to effectively bypass that procedure by creating new constitutional “rights” out of whole cloth is at once unconstitutional and anti-democratic. A “living Constitution” philosophy is nothing less than an excuse for activist judges to impose their personal preferences upon an unwilling citizenry in the name of “evolving standards,” which they alone are entitled to discern.

… READ ENTIRETY (Judicial Philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution; posted at and by faithandthelaw; 5/11/10 – Derived from Focus on the Family, the updated link there: Judicial Philosophy Series)

The point I am attempting to drive home here is that Judicial Tyranny has usurped the Original Intent of the design of the Founding Fathers. In the realm of religion and politics Judicial Tyranny has become the despotic tool of America’s Left to transform America away from Christian morals. The Left has a vision of society/culture mirroring morality as dictated by a like-minded elitist few that feels people are not capable of leading a life that benefits what is good for humankind.

Founding Fathers viewed this mentality as statist tyranny; hence the common language in matters of dissolving any union with the British Crown and forming a rule of law under the authority of We The People constantly alluded to God’s superiority as the measuring stick for the morals of a good and effective government.

Leftists mindful of a societal paradigm shift realized the best way for people to depend morals established for the good of society rather than defined by the Creator of all that exists is to discredit the efficacy of the Judeo-Christian paradigm Western Society is based upon. ERGO Judicial Tyranny has step by step dissolved any effect Christian morals and culture has on government.

This whole exercise in a brief examination on the distortion of America’s Constitution at the hands of an activist-tyrannical judiciary is due to an excellent essay by Michelle Malkin about the systematic exercise of godlessness in America can be demonstrated in violent and inherent moral selfishness flowing from younger generations in America. Without a Christian infusion being allowed back into our culture without a tyrannical judiciary’s countermanding, this moral selfishness will be the moral fiber of America’s future.

JRH 11/14/14

Please Support NCCR

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

One Nation Under Godlessness

By Michelle Malkin

November 14, 2014

Townhall.com

Cheating. Bullying. Cybersexting. Hazing. Molestation. Suicide. Drug abuse. Murder. Scanning the headlines of the latest scandals in America’s schools, it’s quite clear that the problem is not that there’s too much God in students’ lives.

The problem is that there isn’t nearly enough of Him.

With the malfunction of moral seatbelts and the erosion of moral guardrails, too many kids have turned to a pantheon of false gods, crutches and palliatives. They’re obsessed with “Slender Man” and “Vampire Diaries.” Alex from Target’s hair and Rihanna’s tattoos. Overpriced basketball sneakers and underdressed reality stars. Choking games and YouTube games. Gossip and hookups. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat.

It’s all about selfies over self-control, blurred lines over bright lines.

In a metastatic youth culture of soullessness and rootlessness, the idea of high school teens voluntarily using their free time to pray and sing hymns is not just a breath of fresh air. It’s salvation.

But leave it to secularists run amok to punish faithful young followers of Christ.

Last week, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a religious freedom lawsuit against Pine Creek High School here in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. Chase Windebank, a senior at the District 20 school, had been convening an informal prayer group for the past three years “in a quiet area to sing Christian religious songs, pray, and to discuss issues of the day from a religious perspective.”

Windebank and his friends weren’t disrupting classroom time. They shared their Christian faith during an open period earned by high-achieving students. Other kids used the time to play on their phones, eat snacks, get fresh air outside, or schedule meetings for a wide variety of both official and unofficial school clubs.

A Pine Creek choir teacher had given permission to Windebank and his fellow worshipers to meet in an empty music practice room. No complaints ever ensued from other students or faculty. For three years, the group encountered no problems, according to ADF’s complaint. But in late September, Windebank was summoned to the assistant principal’s office and ordered to stop praying because of “the separation of church and state.”

The school singled out the young man of faith’s harmless activities and banned members of his group from discussing current issues of the day from a religious perspective during an open period in an unobtrusive meeting place.

As Todd Starnes of Fox News, who broke the story of the lawsuit last week, lamented: “Public school administrators and their lawyers have succeeded in suppressing and oppressing the Christian voice at Pine Creek High School.”

It defies common sense that in conservative-leaning Colorado Springs, home to a vibrant faith community and leading evangelical organizations, students would be reprimanded and deprived of basic constitutional rights. As a letter from local parents to the school district decried: “To what benefit does it serve a school to limit the ability for a student to pray with their friends, fellowship with their friends, or discuss daily events from a Christian perspective? It is obvious that School District 20 is taking a freedom FROM religion perspective, not a freedom OF religion perspective.”

Think about it: If the high-schoolers gathered in the cafeteria to listen to Billboard magazine’s No. 1 pop hit “Habits (Stay High)” — “You’re gone and I gotta stay high/ all the time/ to keep you off my mind” — school officials would have no issue.

If they lounged in a courtyard to joke about the latest girl-fight videos or off-color joke memes posted on Vine, no problem.

If they discussed the latest “Walking Dead” episode or napped in the library? All good.

But singing “Amazing Grace” and studying scripture? This subversion must be stopped!

How did we get here? And in Colorado Springs, of all places — not Berkeley or Boulder or Boston? Blame cowardice, ignorance and politically correct bureaucrats pledging allegiance to one nation, under godlessness, without religious liberty, and the occult of extreme secularism for all.

________________________

Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2014

_______________________

One Nation Under Godlessness

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010).

Townhall.com About Page

Townhall.com is the #1 conservative website. Townhall.com pulls together political commentary and analysis from over 100 leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from 100 partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.

Townhall.com is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political debates.

By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion, journalism and political participation — and enables conservatives to participate in the political process with unprecedented ease.

As a part of Salem Communications Corporation, Townhall.com features … READ THE REST

In Support of Conservative Principles and Biblical Christianity

John R. Houk

© August 15, 2014

I have been having a discussion with a commenter on my NCCR blog. I had posted that discussion in portion under the title, “So who’s Full of Baloney?” As you can expect that discussion has continued in the comment section at the NCCR blog. We have both entered the realm of antagonism once in a while but for the most part the discussion has been civil. I have always assumed Bryan the commenter was a Leftist due to his way Left of Center defense. In his last comment he said he was neither a Leftist nor a Right Winger but read info and made his own decisions. I will probably get into trouble by trying to find a place on the political spectrum for a guy that puts up a stiff defense for Left Wing principle yet considers himself neither Left nor Right on that spectrum. So I won’t.

Anyway, Bryan posted a rather lengthy comment to a comment I made knocking a previous Bryan comment. Bryan’s most recent comment is an impressive evenhanded response to my comment. I am going to do you – the reader – a small disservice by not posting Bryan’s last comment. Bryan’s comment was posted on August 5^th so I am a bit behind the curve in actually responding. As you read my most recent response you may feel the need to go to Bryan’s comment to read exactly what I am responding to. HERE is the link to Bryan’s most recent comment as of this post if you choose to read.

Thus begins my response:

Bryan I appreciate the civility of this last comment. The only thing I can get behind 100% is the concept of the Free Choice and the 1st Amendment. As you can guess there are some nuances that I can never agree with.

Leftists, Atheists and perhaps centrists that interpret the 1st Amendment as the Freedom from religion in the sense of Christian Morality is flawed. And you can realize why from our exchanges. On the other hand I absolutely support one practicing any faith that does not run contrary to the American-style of the rule of law and I absolutely support a non-religious life if so chosen. What I cannot support is for Leftists, Atheists, Centrists or non-Christian faiths forcing the practice of Christianity out of the public forum. That was never the Original Intent of the Constitution. Rather the Original Intent was to make the rule of Law to not force anyone practice a particular form of Christianity and I’ll accept by extension to not force anyone to practice any form of religion or atheism. However, unconstitutional Separation of Church and State enthusiasts force Christians NOT to practice their faith quite forcefully under the false that practicing faith forces the non-faithful to practice a religion or ideology that is against another’s faith or lack thereof.

The Original Intent of the First Amendment was to offer anyone to practice their faith even in a public forum without restrictions than with restrictive prohibitions. The government is not endorsing any religion because the public forum allows one to freely practice like-minded religious principles. After all there is a certain universality on the foundations of Christian between all the Denominations of Protestants (incidentally the Original thinking of the Founding Fathers), Roman Catholics and Eastern Rite Christianity. Hence a prayer by a football team or a city council will probably have more broad agreement than hostile disagreement. If an atheist chooses not to pray – so be it. If a non-Christian in attendance wishes to pray according their own faith – so be it. Don’t force a culture in which Christians cannot pray just because taxpayer money might be paying for a Public School Football team or Field or pays for the meeting room of a City Council et al. That is breaking religious freedom more than the fallacy of allowing prayer establishes a national Church. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national Church (Original Intent) and by extension any national religion.

The case for or against abortion is argued as a woman’s free choice with their own body or against the personal life of the unborn baby in a woman’s womb. For a Biblical Christian calling an unborn baby a body extension with philosophically sanitized word of “fetus” is just smoke and mirrors to people of faith.

The increasing (and unfortunate) success of homosexual activists changing the minds of a huge chunk of American voters does not make the homosexual lifestyle any more acceptable to Biblical Christians. Yet homosexual activists have successfully used the legal system to force Biblical Christians to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, restricted Biblical Christian clubs or associations in Public Schools or Public Colleges from forming while allowing homosexual clubs and associations to prosper. This is a restriction of 1st Amendment religious freedom to accommodate a fairly recent acceptance of homosexuality. Indeed a Biblical Christian is now vilified as a bigot for demanding their religious freedom on a campus while a homosexual club or association gleefully mocks the Biblical Christians because they are restricted and the homosexuals freely practice a lifestyle Biblical Christians find abhorrent.

The one complaint you have that indicts me is my attitude toward Islam. I have a huge problem with Islam as a religion and Muslims that support Salafist (i.e. purest) Islam or even Muslims that might consider themselves moderate yet support Islamic terrorist like Hamas that are dedicated to killing Jews, Christians and Americans. I actually sway back and forth between Dajjal’s solution for Muslims who hate and the Christian principles of forgiveness and mercy. It depends on the Muslim atrocity, the Muslim self-justification or the Muslim lie of the day versus how much time I have spent in meditation in the Holy Scriptures. This inner struggle between ending Muslim hate and the patience of Jesus is constant. Perhaps you can be the conscience of the day once in a while that isn’t quite antagonistic.

Bryan I am certain I probably did not respond to all your concerns but I have run out of gas. I think you get the idea of my frustration with Leftist, Atheist and Centrist complainers of the practice of Free Market principles and Biblical Christianity. I am also certain your principles are no more tolerant of my Biblical Christian Conservative ideology than I would be with yours.

JRH 8/15/14

Please Support NCCR

The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave – or What?

John R. Houk

© April 9, 2014

… Considering the fact that this nation reelected a communist in spite of the undeniable damage that he has done, I must conclude that over fifty percent of our voting population are living in a state of total denial; bound and determined to remain that way.

The above paragraph is from Danny Jeffrey’s post “I…Conspiracy Theorist”. Until the post November election 2012 I was a dyed in the wool Republican. Being as such I supported Mitt Romney who tried to paint himself as a moderate with Conservative leanings. A cursory examination of Romney’s history as Governor of Massachusetts painted a closer picture of a RINO that was Left of center that socialized medicine in his State and showed a strain of social Liberalism in not denouncing homosexual marriage which was remarkable since Romney’s faith is as a Latter Day Saint (LDS aka Mormonism) which has shown itself as a socially conservative despite being a cult-like spin-off from the traditional Christian faith (yeah, I went there – get over it). I was under the losing paradigm of ‘anybody but Obama’.

That paradigm was and is a model for losing and Republicans LOST an election that they should have won if the Republican Establishment wanted to win more than try to push Conservative Tea Party supporters into insignificance. Romney failed to call out a debate moderator that openly lied supporting Obama’s Benghazi talking point. This made Barack Hussein Obama look like a man of truth when in fact BHO has been lying to Americans before his 2008 election and continued to do so throughout his First Term of Office (AND for that matter through to this very day).

It became obvious to me that as long as the Republican Establishment called the shots in the GOP, Conservative principles would rarely if ever see the light of day. It was at that point I also realized voters would believe any pile of trash supporting Obama’s Leftist transformation agenda to socialize America into a pseudo-Marxist nation. In case you didn’t realize it, Marxist principles of governing obliterates the Constitutional principles originally intended by the Founding Fathers which insured the American individual to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

Marxist utopianism is a stateless and classless society which will never happen because of the nature of humankind to be selfish. Ergo the Marxist path to seek the unattainable utopia is a state which defines right, wrong, acceptable, and unacceptable even if it imposes on the free conscience of an individual. In essence the Marxist state is the Founding Fathers’ greatest fear after gaining independence from Great Britain – state despotism.

American voters believed Obama lies in 2008. American voters put their trust in Obama for his First Term. AND American voters believed the reelection lies that led to an Obama victory in November 2012.

If American voters persist in believing Obama and Dem Party lies the path to state despotism will be unavoidable. So let’s reprise Danny Jeffrey’s quote above:

… Considering the fact that this nation reelected a communist in spite of the undeniable damage that he has done, I must conclude that over fifty percent of our voting population are living in a state of total denial; bound and determined to remain that way.

As long as American voters believe the Obama lies, gullible voters will lead the Conservative Americans – probable minority at this point – to a Marxist-like state. It will be too late to reverse the course of state despotism that gullible voters will impose on American Conservatives.

You have to be asking, ‘Well, what is the solution?’ or if you are living in a state of blind denial you might ask contemptuously, ‘What is your solution to maintain the American principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?’

I have to be honest. I am just a Joe American that recognizes the American experiment established by our Founding Fathers is slipping away. I am not a mover and shaker. But this one thing I do know. If you are an American that does not want to live under state despotism or you do not want your children and grandchildren to live under state despotism, YOU MUST begin to arm your minds with the concepts of American Liberty. Share those concepts boldly even in the face of ridicule of Leftist or brainwashed demagoguery that believes Obama’s transformation (aka change you can believe in) is what is making America good. Ask people to look around. Ask them what has Obama ‘change’ done that is good for the American way of life or the general welfare of what makes America good. Be armed with the answers to lies or brainwashed talking points that simply are wrong.

Boldly share that it is only in elections and voting that Liberty will be retained peacefully within our homeland. Don’t tell anyone to blindly vote for a Republican and definitely don’t vote for a Democrat. Make sure you are voting for a candidate that believes in constitutional Original Intent over the destructive paradigm of the so-called Living Constitution. Originalism is faithful to the Founding Fathers vision for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Living Constitutionalism is a warped Leftist ideology that molds the Constitution to be interpreted in the way that makes a Socialist-Marxist society acceptable leading to the termination of Liberty.

There are many sources to educate yourself and others in Founding Father Originalism. Some may cost money that Joe Americans living in Obama’s America may not readily afford in their budget. As long as the Internet remains free there are also many sources that are free. Danny Jeffrey has been constructing one of those sources. He calls it the Fix Bayonets Library. Click on that link and begin arming yourself to operate as a free American citizen before you might have to choose to live, support or operate a second American Revolution to throw the bond of despotism off your backs that you may or may not win in blood.

If you haven’t read Danny Jeffrey’s “I…Conspiracy Theorist” yet, I am cross posting it below. Danny does a more eloquent job than I in presenting his case to become an avid reader of the Fix Bayonets Library.

JRH 4/9/14

Please Support NCCR

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

I…CONSPIRACY THEORIST

By Danny Jeffrey

April 9, 2014 2:06 PM

Fix Bayonets

Recently I published an essay entitled ‘Can You Handle The Truth?‘ It was a compilation of some of the series of essays that I have written regarding current events and the agenda that guides them. Yes, to some I would indeed be regarded a conspiracy theorist, and indeed I do write of a vast conspiracy that is taking place around us. The primary difference between other conspiracy theorists and myself is that I do extensive research and have a most annoying habit of presenting links to verifiable facts, gleaned from reliable sources.

At the readers’ comment section of that article I had the dubious pleasure of being visited by one of our Internet trolls. This person boldly chose to identify himself/herself only as ‘Anonymous’ and left the following simple remark:

Anonymous March 9, 2014 at 8:10 AM

I am sorry that you are so afraid.

I never delete a critical comment unless the language passes the bounds of decency. Being a firm believer in the First Amendment I support the right of even a troll to speak his/her mind and make a fool of themselves anytime they so choose; but, needless to say, I just had to reply:

DANNY JEFFREY March 9, 2014 at 9:13 AM

Mr/Ms Anonymous, you need not concern yourself with my level of fear, as I firmly believe that fear is a natural reaction to being on a field of battle. Of course every battle does have those fearless foolhardy souls around who fear nothing; predicting their destiny becomes so easy. When the battle finally subsides I shall watch for your name on the casualty list, and when I find it I shall waste not my time feeling sorrow. Some things are just meant to be.

In all honesty I do think of America as a battle field, and many would pinpoint 911 as the beginning of that battle. I place the starting date as much earlier; during the Johnson and Carter years when Progressivism, i.e. The Left, was given such a big boost, and now, after these many years some of us begin to understand the machinations of the Progressives.

The true beginning naturally dates back to the Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson time frame but their goals were largely rejected by the American public. Later FDR hastened the rush to hell with his New Deal and the only thing that saved us from communism then was World War II. Truman, JFK, Nixon and Reagan all opposed the leftward tilt that was slowly overtaking this nation, but in realms beyond their control Progressivism advanced, one slow step at a time, and now for all intents and purposes they have won.

The death knell for America was finally sounded when elected members of the GOP became afraid to tell the truth to the public, and they too began leaning left in order to remain in office.

It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I believe this to be factual. If you are unwilling to know it all then you are better off knowing nothing. Essentially we have three choices: Live with the fear born of knowing the truth no matter how horrid that truth is; live with the confusion of knowing just a little and be too frightened to delve further into the unknown; or go merrily along your way, totally oblivious to the reality that is about to descend on this nation.

The vast majority of the American public exist, to varying degrees, in the final two categories. Considering the fact that this nation reelected a communist in spite of the undeniable damage that he has done, I must conclude that over fifty percent of our voting population are living in a state of total denial; bound and determined to remain that way.

Then there is the group that is trying to ‘Wake Up America’. They are the ones with but a little knowledge and therefore they are dangerous. What they have in abundance is fear, and sadly, ignorance, and that ignorance is accompanied by a heaping helping of gullibility. They know full well that something is dreadfully amiss in our country and they go about trying to warn others, whilst not even beginning to comprehend the true danger themselves.

So very many still spread their posts across the Internet trying to rally others by announcing that Obama is incompetent. Anyone foolish enough to believe that probably is not going to be reading anything that I write so I need not concern myself about hurt feelings. These people are abject fools!

Even an incompetent politician is not going to release 68,000 convicted criminal aliens in one year. This act is not indicative of incompetence but points to a man with a plan.

From Frontpage Mag…
Obama Released 68,000 Convicted Criminal Aliens in 2013

I read an interesting thought many years ago: You only have to be right fifty one percent of the time to make progress. If you are right ninety eight percent of the time then you are phenomenal but at fifty one you can muddle along still slowly making headway. I am inclined to believe that 51 percenter is incompetent, but take a look at Obama’s record: Everything that he has done is counter productive. This is not incompetence. Yes, Obama is a 98 percenter in a downhill race, as destruction of America is his goal. And I might add that he is succeeding, with the compliance of the GOP.

Another interesting article from Frontpage Mag…
Obama Cancel Tomahawk Missile, Spends $400K on Camel Sculpture in Pakistan

Now I must ask you; is that behavior incompetence or is he intentionally wasting money that America does not have while crippling our military?

I do not like living in constant danger, but have no choice in the matter. Nor do I like living in ignorance, but there I do indeed have a choice. I have spent the last five years researching what is taking place around me and now I understand it, and that puts me into the category of a conspiracy theorist, and that label applies equally well to most of those who keep reading these essays. Any who deny that there is a conspiracy in place is either a total fool or is a liar, complicit in the ruin of this nation.

This past month has not seen much writing from me as I have been building an Internet library such as I do not believe you will find anywhere else. Since Obama has been in office I have sought answers to his agenda that seems so strange to many. It is Not strange. It is diabolical, and with data collected over these years I try to put the whole plan before you.

Glenn Beck, Trevor Louden, Daniel Greenfield, David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, a host of others and I have long begged Americans to do their own research. Whether from being disinterested, lazy, or too fearful, few do. Well, I have made it easy for everyone who really want to know. I have done that research, stored my data across eight different websites, and have now compiled it into my Fix Bayonets Library. The list of topics is very long, but they are all interrelated and I have connected the dots.

All that I ask of you is to access that library, read what I have learned from so much research, and pass it on to your Internet friends. You want to wake up America? You will not succeed by passing along the ravings of the people who grow rich by duping the gullible of this nation. You will wake no one by spreading hoaxes and sensationalism.

The truth is out there. I have found it and put it into a presentation that anyone can comprehend if they but take the time to read the truth instead of the latest hoax that comes down the pike. The library is essentially finished, and yet will never be finished as it is a work in progress. I shall continually update it with current events and breaking news.

We are running out of time and many fear that we may soon lose the Internet. I cannot foresee that happening as our entire way of life is now linked to the Internet, even the harshest governments in the world use it, with censorship of course. Our economy, from Wall Street, to industry, to our banks, and our welfare recipients are all dependent upon the Internet. It will not go away, but what will is the freedom of speech. Horowitz, Gaffney, Glenn Beck and I must be silenced. Therefore if you believe that one day you might want to know what is happening, you had better learn it now, while you still have the right.

When I began this essay it was my plan to close with a link to the library that I have built. This is the link to Fix Bayonets Library, but I shall go one better: I shall print the directory of that library below and each of those links lead to still more links that in turn leads to my indisputable sources. CW, by the way is my collected writing on that topic. Try clicking a half dozen of those links and you will get an idea of the wealth of information put before you, and you don’t even have to put up with all of the advertising you find on those sensationalist sites. They are just in it for the money.

Learn three percent of what I know and you will be better equipped to deal with tomorrow.

Fix Bayonets Library

INTRO TO LIBRARY (First time users please click)

HOW TO USE THE SEARCH FEATURE (First time users please click)

NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED TOPICAL

911 PHOTOS ESSAY (PHOTO ESSAY)

911 VIDEO ESSAY (VIDEO ESSAY)

AGENDA 21 TOPICAL

AMERICAN PROTESTS CW

AMERICANS CONVERTING TO ISLAM TOPICAL

ANTI ISRAEL-ANTI AMERICA TOPICAL

ATTACKING OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM TOPICAL

BENGHAZI CW

BLOGGERS AND THINK TANKS TOPICAL

BREAKING NEWS (NEWSREELS)

CIVIL WAR-RIOTS-ANARCHY CW

CLOWARD AND PIVEN CW

CLOWARD AND PIVEN TOPICAL

COMMON CORE TOPICAL

COMMUNISM CW

COMMUNIST PARTY U.S.A. TOPICAL

CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS AND BLOGGERS TOPICAL

DEMOCRATIC PARTY TOPICAL

DEMOCRATIC ELITE TOPICAL

ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE (TOPICAL)

FEDERAL RESERVE TOPICAL

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION

TOPICAL

FIRST AMENDMENT CW

FOUNDING DOCUMENTS TOPICAL

FREEDOM OF SPEECH CW

GEORGE SOROS CW

GEORGE SOROS TOPICAL

GLOBALISTS AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER CW

HOAX, SENSATIONALIST, AND SATIRE SITES, DISINFORMATION TOPICAL

HOW TO RESEARCH AN INTERNET TOPIC TOPICAL

HUMAN RIGHTS CW

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CW

IMMIGRATION AND OUR BORDERS TOPICAL

ISLAM CW

ISLAM AND STEALTH JIHAD TOPICAL

ISLAM AND THE U.S. TIMELINE TOPICAL

ISLAMIC GROUPS TOPICAL

ISRAEL CW

LABOR UNIONS (TOPICAL)

LATEST NEWS (NEWSREELS)

LIBERALS CW

MIDDLE EAST CW

MUST WATCH VIDEOS TOPICAL

NEW WORLD ORDER TOPICAL

NEWS SOURCES TOPICAL

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND AGENDA CW

OBAMA’S ISLAMIC ROLE TOPICAL

OUR MILITARY…BREAKING NEWS TOPICAL

OUR MILITARY CW

OUR MILITARY-MEMORIAL DAY TOPICAL

OUR MILITARY-THE HISTORY OF ‘TAPS’ VIDEO

PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION TOPICAL

PROGRESSIVE GROUPS AND FOUNDATIONS TOPICAL

RACISM CW

RELIABLE INTERNET SOURCES TOPICAL

RINOS AND TRAITORS CW

SAUL ALINSKY CW

SAUL ALINSKY TOPICAL

SECOND AMENDMENT CW

SERIAL ESSAYS CW

SHARIA-THREAT TO AMERICA (VIDEO)

SOCIALISM TOPICAL

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE TOPICAL

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZING TOPICAL

TERRORISM CW

TERRORISM TOPICAL

THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT TOPICAL

THE HORRORS OF ISLAM (PHOTO ESSAY)

THE LEFT’S ISLAMIC AGENDA TOPICAL

THE RELIGIOUS LEFT CW

THE RELIGIOUS LEFT TOPICAL

THE SHADOW PARTY TOPICAL

THE UK’S TODAY IS AMERICA’S TOMORROW TOPICAL

UK, EUROPE, EUROPEAN UNION CW

U.S.-MIDDLE EAST INVOLVEMENT TOPICAL

UNITED NATIONS CW

VIDEO BLOGGERS (VIDEO)

VIDEOS OF ISLAM (VIDEO)

VIDEOS OF PROGRESSIVISM (VIDEO

)

VOTING CW

_____________________________

The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave – or What?

John R. Houk

____________________________

I…CONSPIRACY THEORIST

Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright. – Danny Jeffrey

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 4

1st Adam/2nd Adam – Jesus Christ

John R. Houk

If you choose to read the preceding parts simply click the links:

o Part One

o Part Two

o Part Three

… In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. (Dougindeap from: The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories; SlantRight 2.0; 3/13/14)

Dougindeap is absolutely correct that the Founding Fathers separated the three branches of government as described in the U.S. Constitution: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. AND in separating those branches the Founders separated the powers thereof with checks and balances hoping to create a government in which the tyranny of despotism or the tyranny of democracy or judicial fiat could be avoided. The intention for the checks and balances was to give voting citizens the power to be a check and balance to the authority of the government vis-á-vis the Liberty of Civil and Individual Rights.

BUT Dougindeap presumes the enumeration of powers, checks and balances is also extended to the form of Church/State separate created by Judicial Fiat beginning with the Hugo Black majority opinion in 1947 Everson v. Board of Education:

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (See Part 3)

I went over the reasons that this judicial fiat was and is bogus in Part Three. Let’s suffice it to say here that Dougindeap’s assertion that Hugo Black’s 1947 majority opinion was not in the mind of the Founders as a rule of law prescribed as part of powers of government in a Church/State separated with checks and balances way back in 1789. Dougindeap lists five points he believes the Founding Fathers established within the Constitution separating Church and State with checks and balances in the same way the three branches of government were enumerated.

1. Establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity).

I guess we need to examine briefly the Constitution’s Preamble from Part One:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Bold emphasis mine)

In Part One I explained the reason I bold printed a portion of the Preamble:

The Free Dictionary listing for “general welfare” goes from the broad meaning found in the Preamble to a specific context carried on from Article 1 Section 8. …

THUS the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers understanding of the general welfare included morality. Since the Founding Fathers’ milieu was the 1760s through and a bit beyond the 1790s their concept of morality was not based on a Secular Humanism devoid of God and God the Creator’s morality established in the Bible. (Excerpted from “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1”)

The Original Intent ergo, the Founding Fathers were empowering “We the people” in a secular order BUT under the moral guidance of the Christian God. That is strike one for Dougindeap’s point one.

The Signers of the U.S. Constitution that was then sent to the Thirteen Independent States under the Articles of Confederation establishes the importance the Founding Fathers tipped their hat to the Judeo-Christian God of the Holy Bible:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

… (Followed by the signatures of the representative of the thirteen original states formally loosely aligned under the Articles of Confederation – Bold emphasis mine) [Excerpted from the last paragraphs of “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1”]

That is strike two for Dougindeap.

Hugo Black the writer of the majority of the opinion in Everson v. Board of Education stepped beyond the veil by using Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association offering reassurance to their concerns of being a minority Protestant Denomination in Connecticut in which Congregationalism was the Established Church of the State:

The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating that, “Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals — that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions.”⁽⁶⁾ The Danbury Baptists believed that religion was an unalienable right and they hoped that Jefferson would raise the consciousness of the people to recognize religious freedom as unalienable. However, the Danbury Baptists acknowledged that the President of the United States was not a “national Legislator” and they also understood that the “national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State.”⁽⁷⁾ In other words, they recognized Jefferson’s limited influence as the federal executive on the individual states. (The Myth Behind “Separation of Church and State”; By Mathew D. Staver; Liberty Counsel; © 2000)

Here is President Thomas Jefferson’s reassurance letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802 (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282. On Wall Builders – “Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson”)

Hugo Black warped the intent of the Jefferson Letter pertaining to the Federal Government v. States’ Rights even though the Tenth Amendment specifically forbade the Federal Government to interfere in State legislation that did not usurp the prerogative of the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (Tenth Amendment)

Hugo Black excluded the Tenth Amendment and ignored the Founding Document the Declaration of Independence that was penned by Thomas Jefferson under the Continental Congress Committee drafting said declaration:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

… (Bold Emphasis Mine – The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription; The Charters of Freedom; Archives.gov)

The Declaration drafters of which Thomas Jefferson was an integral part of, indeed espoused the ideology that the enfranchised people experiencing unjust tyranny from a despot or despotic government have the right to change that government. BUT who does the Committee empowered to draft a Declaration of Independence claim gives the enfranchised people the right to throw off the bonds of tyranny? The empowerment comes from God Almighty:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them …”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Strike three Dougindeap. Just as specified by the First Amendment that proclaims government under the law-making power of Congress cannot get involved in religion (i.e. Christianity) but mankind under the moral guidance of the Creator must influence government to keep government from devolving into a tyranny that permits society to use the guidance of human individuals to establish that which moral and good. Why? Because humanity is inherently a fallen nature that gravitates towards ungodly principles when the guiding principles of God are excluded.

¹²Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— ¹³(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ¹⁴Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. ¹⁵But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. ¹⁶And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. ¹⁷For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

¹⁸Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.¹⁹For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

²⁰Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, ²¹so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5: 12 – 21 NKJV)

End of Part Four

JRH 3/25/14

Please Support NCCR

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1

John R. Houk

On May 13 I posted some thoughts entitled “The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories”. The thoughts were inspired by one of those misguided people that sincerely believe the U.S. Constitution separates Church and State to the extent that not only is the State prohibited to interfere in religion (religion = Christianity in 1780s), but also that We the People (i.e. the voters) are prohibited from both injecting Christian morality into a limited government AND that government is prohibited from allowing any public institution, policy or building supported by taxpayer money to be used for religious purposes.

At the end of my thoughts I posted an edited version of the comments giving it the title “Comment to: Returning to a Christian Moral Stand will Perpetuate the USA”. The (unedited version) comment was posted on my NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR) blog. The commenter attributed to himself an obvious pseudonym – dougindeap.

So this is what I am going to do. I am going to make the effort to refute dougindeap’s assertions a bit at a time. This undoubtedly will result in several parts to come close to refuting dougindeap.

The first paragraph has many of those assertions which are skewed by half-truths and downright inaccuracies.

“Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.”

This above assertion is absolutely FALSE. Separation of powers as well as government Branch checks and balances are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. There is ABSOLUTELY no enumeration of the so-called separation of Church-State in the Constitution EXCEPT the enumeration that Congress can make NO law to establish a State religion (meaning Christian Church in the 1780s) and prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold emphasis mine)

For simple understanding’s sake let me rehash what is often referred to as the Establishment Clause. Congress specifically, cannot enact legislation that makes a Christian Church a tax supported State institution. The separation is specifically one-way! Congress is to stay out of the religion-church business. There is no specified prohibition for Christian Churches to be a moral influence on government. In fact the Constitution’s Preamble should be used as a guiding principle in constitutional interpretation (Hello SCOTUS):

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Bold emphasis mine)

Here is a definition of the meaning of the thought “general welfare” from The Free Dictionary:

The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution. (Bold emphasis mine)

The Free Dictionary listing for “general welfare” goes from the broad meaning found in the Preamble to a specific context carried on from Article 1 Section 8. The essay’s context from Article one is the dispute about States’ Rights versus the power of the Federal government pertaining to taxation. That is beyond the scope of what we are looking at here, but it is interesting to note that The Free Dictionary cites a SCOTUS decision tipping the scale to the Federal government 150 years after the Constitution was enacted. In the matter of taxing and spending the SCOTUS chose the Hamilton argument over the Madison argument meaning the Federal government won. It is my opinion that an interpretation of the Constitution that took a 150 years to find solidification is something that needs a bit more stare decisis to make the Hamilton argument such as the Federal government trumping State’ Rights to be cast in stone.

This is where Left Wingers would dispute my assertion that Christian morality was the norm with the popular humanist theology of the Founding Fathers’ day called deism. What Left Wingers fail to include in their arguments screaming that most of the Founding Fathers were deists is that America had one form of deism and Europe (specifically the French of their Revolution) had a deism more akin to Anti-Christian morality.

American deists were Christians in practice but not big believers in Biblical miracles that the science of their day may explain as impossible. I found an article that is actually balanced in its outlook on the faith of the Founding Fathers providing a good explanation of the Founders’ Deism and the absolute Deism that flowed from the French.

… [T]here are those who argue that because our Founding Fathers were devoted Christians who held to an orthodox Christian faith, the state and the church in America are already linked together, and that if America as a nation loses its uniquely Christian flavor, the church will fail in its task as well. They see America as a unique country that holds a special place in God’s plan for reaching the world. Additionally, they argue that we enjoy God’s special protection and blessings because of this Christian founding, blessings which will be lost if Christians lose control of the nation.

At the other end of the religious and political spectrum is the group who portray America and its founding as a thoroughly secular project. They argue that by the time the Revolution had occurred in the colonies, Enlightenment rationalism had won the day in the minds and hearts of the young nation’s leaders. They often add that the drive towards religious tolerance was the result of a decline in belief in God and an attempt to remove religious influence from America’s future.

For all those involved in this debate, the specific beliefs of our Founders are very important. Those who argue that America was founded by godless men who established a godless Constitution are, for the most part, wrong. Belief in God was practically universal among our Founding Founders. On the other hand, those who argue that our Founders were mostly devoted Christians who sought to establish a Christian nation devoted to the gospel of Jesus Christ are not giving us the full picture either. Because both sides in this debate tend to define America by the religious faith of our Founders, both sides tend to over-simplify the religious beliefs of those early patriots.

It’s important, therefore, to consider the specific beliefs of some of our Founding Fathers so that we might get a clearer picture of religion in that era and avoid either of the two extremes usually presented. As we look into the actions and words of specific Revolutionary era leaders we will find that their beliefs represent a mixture of … READ THE REST (Deism and America’s Founders; By Don Closson; Probe Ministries; © 2008)

Then there is a French deism which is Anti-Christian in its tenants and leans toward atheism. Most of the articles I read seem to credit Voltaire bringing a form of English Deism to France.

Deism entered France, but only its materialistic and revolutionary phases were seized upon, to the exclusion of religious values which had never been lost in England or America. French Deism stood outside of theology and laid the groundwork for atheism, secular humanism, and cultural relativism. American Deists were mainly influenced by English Deism and perhaps French Deist Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Michel de Montaigne is the father of moral and cultural relativism. It argues (falsely in my opinion) that all cultures be it cannibals in mud huts or Paris are equal because they rest on cultural habit rather than absolute truth. Who are Europeans to insist that Brazilian cannibals who merely consume dead human flesh instead of wasting it are morally inferior to Europeans who persecute and oppress those of whom they disapprove? This would also apply to morals as well: If we cannot be certain that our values are God-given, then we have no right to impose them by force on others. Thus homosexually, abortion, sex with animals, sex with children, etc. are a private matter that society has no right to regulate or interfere with.

French Deism was anti-Catholic and anti-religious in general, shading into skepticism, atheism, and materialism. When people speak of Deism today they often think of French Deism, which has little in common with English/American Deism which was known often as Unitarianism. While Deism began in England and influenced Voltaire, he would strip away all of the religious aspects. (Voltaire’s Deism; From Sullivan-county.com; Web site Copyright Lewis Loflin, All rights reserved.)

French Deist Rousseau in contrast to Voltaire was not quite anti-religion; however Rousseau thought society exists best with a State religion that is not Christian but adheres to what he felt was a natural morality inherent in humankind. Hello State control of people and an absence of personal Liberty.

J. J. Rousseau (1712 – 1778) gave quite a different tendency to Deism. Accepting in the main the sensualism of Locke and the metaphysics of Clarke and Newton, he maintains after the manner of Shaftesbury and Diderot a belief in inborn moral instincts which he distinguishes as “sentiments” from mere acquired ideas; he is true to the position of Deism in connecting this moral “sentiment” with a belief in God, and he protests against the separation between the two which the skepticism of Diderot had brought about. He was influenced by Richardson, as well as by Locke.

“Sentiment” becomes the basis of a metaphysical system built up out of the data of experience under the influence of the Deistic philosophy, but redeemed from formalism by constant reference to sentimentality and emotion as the principal sources of religion. The nature of religion is not dogmatic but moralistic, practical, and emotional. Rousseau, therefore, finds the essence of religion, not (like Voltaire) in the cultivated intellect, but in the naive and disinterested understanding of the uncultured. Conscious, rational progress in civilization, no less than supernaturalism in Church and State, is an outcome of the fall, when the will chose intellectual progress in preference to simple felicity.

With Rousseau natural religion takes on a new meaning; “nature” is no longer universality or rationality in the cosmic order, in contrast to special supernatural and positive phenomena, but primitive simplicity and sincerity, in contrast to artificiality and studied reflection.

In his scheme of the rise of religions he gets out from the common standpoint of the discrepancies and contradictions prevailing among historic creeds. Yet positive religion to him is not so much the product of ignorance and fear as the corruption of the original instinct through the selfishness of man, who has erected rigid creeds that he might arrogate to himself unwarranted privilege or escape the obligations of natural morality.

…

Note that freedom as Rousseau defines it has nothing to do with individual liberty. Rousseau’s views on society are very influential on the political left/liberalism since the 1960s. To quote another source:

Man is by nature good; society is the cause of corruption and vice.

In a state of nature, the individual is characterized by healthy self-love; self-love is accompanied by a natural compassion.

In society, natural self-love becomes corrupted into a venal pride, which seeks only the good opinion of others and, in so doing, causes the individual to lose touch with his or her true nature; the loss of one’s true nature ends in a loss of freedom.

While society corrupts human nature, it also represents the possibility of its perfection in morality.

Human interaction requires the transformation of natural freedom into moral freedom; this transformation is based on reason and provides the foundation for a theory of political right.

A just society replaces the individual’s natural freedom of will with the general will; such a society is based on a social contract by which each individual alienates all of his or her natural rights to create a new corporate person, the sovereign, the repository of the general will.

The individual … READ ENTIRETY (The French Deists: J. J. Rousseau; Compiled by Lewis Loflin; Sullivan-county.com)

The culmination of the radicalism of French Deism is in Robespierre.

The Cult of the Supreme Being (French: Culte de l’Être suprême) was a form of deism established in France by Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution.^[1] It was intended to become the state religion of the new French.^[2]a

Origins

The French Revolution had given birth to (sic) many radical changes in France. One of the most fundamental for the hitherto Roman Catholic nation was the official rejection of religion. The first major organized school of thought emerged under the umbrella name of the Cult of Reason. Advocated by extreme radicals like Jacques Hébert and Antoine, the Cult of Reason distilled a mixture of largely atheistic views into a humanocentric philosophy. No gods at all were worshipped in the Cult – the guiding principle was devotion to the abstract conception of Reason.^[3] This bold rejection of all divinity appalled the rectitudinous Robespierre. Its offense was compounded by the “scandalous scenes” and “wild masquerades” attributed to its practice.^[4] In late 1793, Robespierre delivered a fiery denunciation of the Cult and its proponents ^[5] and proceeded to give his own vision of proper Revolutionary religion. Devised almost entirely by his own hand, Le culte de l’Être suprême was formally announced before the French National Convention on 7 May 1794.^[6]

Religious tenets

Robespierre believed that reason is only a means to an end, and the singular end is Virtue. He sought to move beyond simple deism (often described as Voltairean by its adherents) to a new and, in his view, more rational devotion to the godhead. The primary principles of the Cult of the Supreme Being were a belief in the existence of a god and the immortality of the human soul.^[7] Though not inconsistent with Christian doctrine, these beliefs were put to the service of Robespierre’s fuller meaning, which was of a type of civic-minded, public virtue he attributed to the Greeks and Romans:^[8] this type of Virtue could only be attained through active fidelity to liberty and democracy.^[9]Belief in a living god and a higher moral code, he said, were “constant reminders of justice” and thus essential to a republican society.^[10]

Revolutionary impact

Robespierre used the religious issue to publicly denounce the motives of many radicals not in his camp, and it led, directly or indirectly, to the executions of Revolutionary de-Christianizers like Hébert, Momoro, and Anacharsis Cloots.^[11] The establishment of the Cult of the Supreme Being represented the beginning of the reversal of the wholesale de-Christianization process that had been looked upon previously with official favor.^[12] Simultaneously it … READ ENTIRETY (Cult of the Supreme Being; By Jeff Franklin; CultBusters Galactica Origin Page [Yeah I know crazy looking website, but the article is good writing])

I am driving home the point there was a difference between American deism and the atheistic naturalism of French deism is this: A huge majority of Founding Father deists considered themselves Christians. So even though these Christian Deists in varying degrees were not agreeable to the Word of God demonstrating the power of God, the Founding Fathers believed that Christian Morality must be the foundation for what can be good in the rule of law. Check out the Signers Page of the U.S. Constitution:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

… (Followed by the signatures of the representative of the thirteen original states formally loosely aligned under the Articles of Confederation – Bold emphasis mine)

Does anyone wonder why the Founding Fathers use the words “year of our Lord” if they intended Christianity to have no effect in the rule of law as administered by the three Branches of the U.S. government? It doesn’t sound like an ambitious plan to separate Christianity from influencing the Federal government, right?

END OF PART ONE

JRH 3/18/14

Please Support NCCR

Share this:

Like this:

Electoral College 11-14-16 1:00 PM

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: