In Context: Separation of Church and State

/in /by

Separation of Church and State.  I know of very few statements that carry so much emotion and so much misconception at the same time.  Our education system stifles religious expression with this phrase.  Our court systems have failed America with their rulings misapplying this phrase.  Our churches have been negligent to their responsibilities because of this phrase. The culmination of all this wrong doing has led this nation down a road that, may I boldly say, our founders never intended.  And now, even our government has attempted to deny our wounded warriors their very fundamental principles of faith; all because we have failed to understand the history that motivated Thomas Jefferson to make this statement to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

What would we do as a nation if we owned the truth about Jefferson’s statements in this letter?  Would we have the courage to change things?  Would we have the courage to stand against the false premises and give truth the victory?  Well, let’s see, because here is the truth.

When the first settler’s came to the continent in the name of religious liberty, they established charter governments.  Each new settlement had a new charter.  These charters wanted to make sure that they would never be prevented from practicing their religion again, so the charters contained provisions that ensured that ability.  Each charter established the religion of the colony.  They also contained provisions called “test acts”.  Test acts were oaths that each person had to take before they were eligible to hold any governmental office.  These oaths required a sworn allegiance to the religion of that charter. Additionally, part of the laws of these charters established means for persons of this religion to receive a license from the charter government to build a church or preach the established religion.  So, if you were not of the faith of the charter, you were not able to obtain a license to preach or build a church.  If you were not of the faith of the charter, you were not able to hold office to change the law so you could build a church or preach from a pulpit.  Not a great advancement in religious liberty, but the charter worked for those of like faith and practice.

The problem came when a religious denomination was not represented in any of the charters of the new colonies.  This was a particular problem for the pastors and preachers of the Baptist denomination. Men like Obadiah Holmes could not take a license to preach. Even if they would, they could not profess a denomination they did not support, so they could not have an official church, and could not legally preach in any charter.  History tells us that this did not stop these men from preaching.  However, it did hold some dire consequences.  If you doubt me, go ahead and research these men.  They were arrested, fined, imprisoned, and tortured for refusing to take a license to preach.  And yes, that happened right here, in the new American Colonies.

Several states, most prominently Virginia, refused to ratify the proposed Constitution because they felt:

“Whether the new Federal Constitution, which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that, in the opinion of the General Committee, it did not.”

Virginia was led in this stand by the Virginia Baptist General Convention. A Baptist Pastor, by the name of John Leland was the head of this group.  Virginia wanted Pastor Leland to be the delegate for Virginia in the Constitutional Convention.  Pastor Leland did not want to be a delegate; he wanted to remain a pastor.  However, John Leland was a strong advocate for religious liberty.  He said,

“Every man must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in that way that he can best reconcile it to his conscience.  If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let me be free.”

John Leland met with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and struck a deal. He offered James Madison his position as delegate for the state of Virginia as long as Madison promised he would make sure there was sufficient protections for religious liberty; namely a Bill of Rights.  Madison made his promise and held to it, being not only an ardent proponent for religious liberty, but for the entire Bill of Rights.  If you are interested in a fairly good account of this agreement, you can find this story in movie titled, Magnificent Heritage.

Once the Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights adopted, several founders tried to pass a bill to establish a tax to pay for Christian Teachers. Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to mention two, were adamantly opposed to this taxation. They felt this taxation was a direct assault on the religious liberty they had fought so hard to protect.  They felt that:

“…it is believed to be repugnant to the spirit of the gospel for the legislature thus to proceed in matters of religion; that the holy author of our religion needs no such compulsive measures for the promotion of his cause; that the gospel wants not the feeble arm of man for its support; that it has made and will again through divine power make its way against all opposition; and that should the legislature assume the right of taxing the people for the support of the gospel it will be destructive to religious liberty.”

They knew that where the government taxed they had an obligation to regulate.  If Christian Teachers were to be paid, even in part by taxes collected from the people they would become employees of the government.  Where the government employs, they will also, dictate.  (Precisely why vouchers are dangerous for Christian schools) The supporters of religious liberty prevailed and the bill was defeated.

What most fail to see is that religious liberty is a Judeo-Christian view. In the Letters from a Federal Farmer, the author stated,

“It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about religion; but when we are making a constitution it is to be hoped for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as a part of the national compact.”

Our founders were fighting for a nation where, in the words of John Leland all would be “equally free – Jews, Turks, Pagans, AND Christians”.  They knew from history that an attack on anyone’s religious liberty would be destructive to everyone’s religious liberty; for, where the government, through power or sword can dictate, there is no liberty.  So, when Thomas Jefferson was elected president, the Danbury Baptists wanted to encourage their new president to continue to fight to maintain religious liberty.  In a letter to President Jefferson they congratulated him on being elected and encouraged him to stand firm on this issue.  President Jefferson responded to this letter in 1802 with the following words:

“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 and State.”

Now combine that explanation with the clarification offered by Jefferson in the second Session of Congress, regarding the adoption of the act for “establishing religious freedom”:

“…that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on their supposition of ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all liberty, it is declared, that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”

Thomas Jefferson was making a statement that the Government has no business in the affairs of the church – period.  If you take into account the very words of Jefferson and even those of Ben Franklin it is clear that they never intended for the people’s Government to attempt to eradicate every evidence or mention of God from any arena of society.  The intent of the founders was not to establish the government as a God-free zone, but to ensure that matters of religious conscience and practice was a government free-zone, except where “its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”

Thomas Jefferson said , “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”

Benjamin Franklin said this at the Constitutional Convention:  “In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Unfortunately for America the courts have not taken the time to understand this text in its historical context. I find it ironic really that we finally have the judges recognizing that to truly and correctly interpret a provision in the Constitution it is vital to refer to the intentions of the Founders.  Yet, in the one instance where they do quote a founder, they get it entirely wrong.  Is that a sign of judicial activism: the courts using whatever they can lay their hands on conveniently to propel their agenda?  Or is it simply ignorance of history and misapplication of principles?  I can’t help but think that if some attorney had taken the time to present an historically correct argument the courts would have never have been able to take Jefferson’s quote completely out of context and create a ruling that has changed the face of Liberty.

Jefferson’s words ‘separation of church and state’ were a declaration that the government has no business in the affairs of the church.  He did not invent that principle, he inherited it from his fathers.  Henry I declared in the 1100 Charter of Liberties, a promise that Kings would no longer be evil and oppressive, that the Church would be FREE from government intrusion.  This principle is the very foundation for the 1st Amendment protection of Freedom of Religion believed and incorporated by our founders into our Constitution through the Bill of Rights.

By Jefferson’s own words, this was never to imply that God had no place in government.  Now you have the truth and to whom much is given, much is required.  The responsibility remains with the people to make a difference.  WE must force the truth to be heard.  WE must continue to let this lamp of experience guide us into the future.  WE must elect people who understand the true foundation of America.  We must bring Liberty back to America, for our children.

HR 347/S1794: A Trespass on the First Amendment

/in /by

The protected right of the people peaceably to assemble is something that has fundamental and historical foundations.  Our founders established a clear “no trespassing sign” in our first amendment to keep the government away from this fundamental right.  “Congress shall make no law abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”    Legislation in the Congress seems to be treading on the grounds of this constitutionally restricted territory.

HR 347 and S 1794, the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” has nothing to do with improving landscaping around federal buildings.  This bill is being presented as a No Trespassing bill.  Reasonable people understand that restrictions and protections are needed for government officials and government functions.  However, this legislation makes it a federal crime to simply DISRUPT the ORDERLY CONDUCT of government.  The violator doesn’t have to be on the grounds where the government business is being conducted, just within the vicinity of the self-proclaimed business. The law is not limited to buildings or locations as the title suggests, but seems to be “roving” and follows persons protected by Secret Service wherever they go.1752(a)(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

1752(a)(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds;

1752(c)(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area— (B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

The right protected in the First Amendment is the right to peaceably assemble.  We do not have the right to impede the flow of traffic, either on sidewalks or roadways.  We do not have the right to impede anyone’s business practices.  But this law is not about private business, it is about government operations.

This Congress has a habit of writing in vague and overbroad terms; yet, in order for laws to be Constitutionally sound they CANNOT be vague and overbroad in ANY aspect, and they can ONLY interfere with the rights of the people in as narrow a capacity as necessary.  But this law makes it a crime to disrupt the government.  The Supreme Court has said this type of broad language gives too much power to the government, and they have been saying this since 1939.  This law actually places the desire of the government to be free from disruption over the right of the people to redress the government of their grievances.

Suppose your Congressman, who is under secret service protection, has a town hall meeting and many members of the community show up to challenge him on his voting record.  This law could be construed to allow federal charges to be brought against these citizens for disrupting his town hall meeting.  After all, it will not be hard to claim that people who are not happy with the Congressman’s voting record had the “intent” to disrupt this meeting.  This vague and overbroad language has the potential to ultimately prevent people from gathering outside any government building or politician’s function for fear of being charged with a federal offense.   In Constitutional law, we call that a “chilling effect” and the Supreme Court has always held these restrictions to be unconstitutional.  After all, as the people in this video were forced to decide, who can afford to go to jail to stand for their rights, even if they will win?

The right to orderly conduct government is NOT a Constitutionally protected right. However we DO have the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.  Our Constitution establishes the fundamental principle rights to speech and assembly are held by the people and the government must protect these rights, not limit them.  The Court in Hague v. CID, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), memorably stated;

Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been heldin trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.

The Supreme Court ruled in Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318 (1988), that protesting outside an embassy is worthy of Constitutional protection. Washington DC attempted to make this protest unlawful because it disrupted the business in the embassy.  However, the Court recognized that freedom of speech “reflects a ‘profound national commitment’ to the principle” and “‘debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’”  The Supreme Court has “consistently commented on the central importance of protecting speech on public issues.”

Additionally, as if to reaffirm the Court in Hague, the Court in United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983), stated that “`Public places’ are historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be `public forums.'”  Again in Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, (1983), the Supreme Court chimes in on this issue of the right to protest on public grounds.

In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks which “have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” emphasis added.

Attempts to silence the people, like in this video, were perpetrated by governments using the claim that orderly government and the desire to be disruption free should outweigh our Constitutionally protected rights.  Each time the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the orderly conduct of Government is NOT the standard to be protected.  People have the right to complain, the right to have their voices be heard, the right to redress their grievances in the form of protests. These actions are supposed to make the government take notice. Disruption cannot be the standard to stop speech.  To allow the government to create this new standard allows the government to tell us to sit down and shut up.  What happens to the man in this video under the new law after Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) tells him to sit down and shut up?

The chilling effect occurs not in the fact that you are denied your due process.  If you are arrested because of unlawful legislation you can fight the prosecution and even sue the government for violating your rights.  If the Supreme Court has not become completely corrupted you have fairly good odds of winning.  But, anyone who has been wronged by a government agency can tell you, a victory will often come at the expense of a ruined life and livelihood.  Under this language could Bob Etheridge have press charges against the student he assaulted for “impeding government business?”

The bottom line is that there are laws in every municipality that punish Trespass, Disorderly Conduct, Assault, and any other crime involving real threats against government and people.  Why do we need a vague and overbroad FEDERAL LAW to enforce laws that are already in effect, when that law could encroach on our protected rights?   William Penn said, “Necessity, it is said, is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves.”  The fact is, we don’t need a “Federal Trespass Bill.”  We already have one; it’s called the Bill of Rights!

When will we have enough of government intrusion on our Constitutionally protected rights? We were outraged because we are Taxed Enough Already.  When will we recognize that if we cannot trust the government with our finances, then we certainly cannot trust the government with our Liberty?

The Real Origin of the Tea Party Movement

/in /by

247 Years of Resisting Tyranny

I recently read with joy a conservative blogger’s attempt to connect the TEA party movement to its historic roots; a topic I have been meaning to write about for months now. The blogger rightly said that the “the historical precedent for the TPM wasn’t the Tea Party event in Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773.” I actually uttered an “Amen, brother!” He went on to describe the Continental Association established on October 20, 1774 by the First Continental Congress in response to the Intolerable Acts. That’s when I realized that I have waited long enough to write this article.

The fact is the Continental Association of 1774 (10 months after the Boston Tea Party) is about 10 years too late. The first organized opposition to a tyrannical government in the colonies came in 1764 in the form of the Committees of Correspondence.

In April 1764 Parliament passed the Sugar and Molasses Act. These laws were originally passed in 1733 at the insistence of the large plantation owners in the British West Indies (can you say lobbyists?) The six-pence tax was never successfully collected, and so the Sugar Act actually cut the tax in half but stepped up enforcement. At the same time, the Sugar Act taxed the sugar, coffee, wine, and spices the colonists used, and also regulated the export of lumber and iron. This “excessive taxation and regulation” immediately impaired the colonial economy. In conjunction with the Sugar Act, parliament passed the Currency Act, which essentially assumed control of the colonial monetary system. The Currency Act also established “superior” Vice-admiralty courts to ensure rulings favorable to British interests.

In 1764 the colonies were in the midst of a depressed economy due to the protracted Seven Years’ War, so these indirect taxes and restrictive laws were particularly grievous. In addition to the economic impact, the psychological impact was particularly offensive. The Sugar Act not only restricted the exports by the colonists, but gave an economic “leg up” to the British West Indies. This reinforced the second class status often attributed to the colonists by the British “mainlanders”. The ports of New England were hit especially hard due to the taxes, regulation and government interference. Many of the merchants were in danger of being driven out of the market into bankruptcy.

So in 1764 the first “grass roots” opposition to tyranny in the colonies took shape in the form of a Committee of Correspondence in Boston. The colonists did not have email, smart phones, Facebook or blogs, so the Committees of Correspondence served as a means of communication on issues that needed collective attention. The committee in Boston wrote to other colonies to rally united opposition to the Sugar Act and the Currency Act sparking anti-government protests among the colonists.

On the heels of these protests the Parliament, deciding to clamp down on the rebellious colonists, passed the first Stamp Act and Quartering Act of 1765, and New York formed its Committee of Correspondence to rally resistance to the new taxes and tyranny. Massachusetts Bay committee then sent out letters urging other colonies to send representatives to a Stamp Act Congress in the fall.

As a decade of hostility between the royal government and the colonists rolled on, Boston set up the first Committee with the approval of a town meeting 1772. By spring 1773, patriots decided to follow the Massachusetts system and began to set up their own Committees in each colony. By February 1774, 11 colonies had set up Committees of Correspondence. The Committees would eventually be the basis for the Continental Congress and the Continental Association of 1774. As the revolutionary period unfolded the Committees of Correspondence would become the basis for the future legislative bodies in America. Yet it all began in 1764 as a citizen movement in response to an oppressive government that would not respond to or respect the wishes of the people.

Two of the men behind the movement were Samuel Adams and James Otis Jr.

Mr. Otis was an attorney who had gained notoriety for his pro bono representation of colonial merchants challenging the authority of the writs of assistance in 1761. These writs enabled British authorities to enter any colonist’s home with no advance notice, no probable cause and no reason given. (Today these writs are called national security letters and are authorized under the Patriot Act.) John Adams said of Otis’ five-hour oration in the Boston State House that

“the child independence was then and there born, [for] every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.”

Also speaking of Otis, John Adams said,

“I have been young and now I am old, and I solemnly say I have never known a man whose love of country was more ardent or sincere, never one who suffered so much, never one whose service for any 10 years of his life were so important and essential to the cause of his country as those of Mr. Otis from 1760 to 1770.”

Better known was Samuel Adams, a representative of the local Boston assembly and member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Samuel Adams had this to say in May 1764:

“For if our Trade may be taxed, why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & everything we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain. If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?”

Samuel Adams would later organize the Sons of Liberty which coordinated the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773.

But let’s not forget the ladies of the TEA party movement. Penelope Barker of Edenton, North Carolina organized the Edenton Tea Party in 1774. In the home of her friend Elizabeth King, she and 50 other women signed a declaration and sent it to be published in a London newspaper. In part the declaration said:

“Maybe it has only been men who have protested the king up to now. That only means we women have taken too long to let our voices be heard. We are signing our names to a document, not hiding ourselves behind costumes like the men in Boston did at their tea party. The British will know who we are…We, the aforesaid Ladys will not promote ye wear of any manufacturer from England until such time that all acts which tend to enslave our Native country shall be repealed.”

Much like the liberal media of today these principled women were attacked and portrayed by the British as bad mothers and loose women. However, the colonists praised these ladies and the women of the colonies followed their lead and began boycotting British goods.

In light of historical fact, it is clear to any rational and reasonable mind that the modern TEA party movement is not a modern movement at all. The TEA party represents the heart of the American ideal of liberty and self-government. These brave men and women did not sit idly by in the face of oppression and tyranny because they understood their history and knew their rights. They understood that their rights came from God and had been guaranteed to them beginning at the 1100 Charter of Liberties, through the Magna Carter of 1215, and the English Bill of Rights of 1688. Their liberty was not a modern development and neither is ours. That is why, in spite of Rachel Maddow’s pronouncement that the TEA party is over because of small rallies, the TEA party is not going away. It has been here for 247 years and will continue as long as the founding principles of America still burn in the hearts of patriots.

Forewarned & Disarmed

/in /by

James Madison said;

“A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty”

George Washington warned against foreign entanglements but have we listened? No we haven’t listened. We have not cared to listen and now you’ll hear people say  how it is so much of a different world, possibly leading you to believe that a standing military force is a result of advanced intellectual thinking. We’re just smarter now and we know better. Really?

In 1641 they identified the same mechanisms tyrants have used for centuries.

Here is the malignant and pernicious design, a pattern of behavior used by tyrants to completely destroy liberty as identified by people in 1641.

  • Corrupt the court system.
  • Infiltration of foreign law.
  • Diminishing property rights of the people.
  • Government taking control of the church to enforce laws and collect taxes.
  • Manipulation of the monetary system.
  • Government disarming the people while the government remained armed.

Are we smarter now then they were in 1641. Well if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Guess what? It’s a duck! They knew in 1641 this was the popular mechanism of tyrants. Are we smarter now?

Regulatory Power v. State Rights

/in /by

If the book Demise of the American Republic were ever written, the history of the Supreme Court would likely occupy a bulk of its pages. Two opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) serve to illustrate this point. These opinions may appear rather innocuous on the surface; however, they are anything but harmless.

The great task of SCOTUS, according to James Madison, was for it to be an “IMPENETRABLE BULWARK” in protecting State rights. Let me be blunt – It Has Failed. In two SCOTUS decisions, Pliva v. Mensing and American Electric Power v. Connecticut the Supreme Court has chosen to place Federal Regulatory Law above State rights.

Some may ask; “doesn’t the Supremacy Clause establish that to be the proper order of things?”  No, it actually does not.  Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is true that the drafters of the Constitution knew that if the Laws of the United States were not held to be supreme over the laws of the States, they, according to Alexander Hamilton, “would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY.” (Fed.#33). Without a degree of supremacy, compliance to the law would be completely voluntary and wholly unenforceable. However, there is a distinct limit to the authority of federal laws.  Alexander Hamilton goes on to say,

“But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution;…” (Fed.#33).

What Hamilton was saying is that the Supremacy Clause only makes Federal Law supreme when that Federal law is consistent with and established pursuant to the Constitution. When it is not thusly established, it is an “act of usurpation”.

You see, federal law is not the “supreme law of the land,” that position belongs to the Constitution.  Anything (e.g. law-regulation-executive order-supreme Court opinion) that is not made “in pursuance to the Constitution” is null and void.  Hamilton makes this abundantly clear in Fed. #78:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.
No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

And Hamilton was not alone.  James Wilson, delegate for the State of Pennsylvania, argued that all congressional power was limited and defined by the Constitution and any transgression of that Supreme Law rendered the acts of Congress void and of no force.

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.
Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.”

By the consent of 3/4 of the States, this principle became law in Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, ursupation of rights, abuse of authority, and violation of the Supreme Law of the land is exactly what has happened at the hands of the SCOTUS. It has, through its opinions, supported the unconstitutional authority of a body, other than Congress, to establish law outside the authority of the Constitution and then given that body supremacy over State reserved powers.

There is no Constitutional basis for the federal EPA or FDA to impose authority over the States. First, the power exercised by these agencies are powers not expressly delegated to the federal government, they are powers reserved to the States.  Secondly, these are Executive branch agencies (see EO 13575 sec. 3); law making is reserved through the Constitution to the Legislative branch.

When the SCOTUS chooses to assert that regulations, which are established by an unconstitutional agency, are supreme over the States via the Supremacy Clause, as they did in Pliva v. Mensing and American Electric Power v. Connecticut, they are usurping the States’ reserved power.

Furthermore, James Madison stated in the Federalist Papers 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (emphasis added)

History and facts dictate that we must consider the intent of the Founders when properly interpreting the Constitution.  That is why Hamilton specifically said, “…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.”  The term “tenor of the commission” is a direct reference to the intent of the drafters.

Madison establishing that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to establish a law that deals with the ordinary course of affairs, concerning the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. That is a duty reserved to the State.  Hamilton is saying, since Madison is explaining that is our intent, the federal government is therefore bound by it.

However, the executive branch through these Federal Agencies, have imposed regulation after regulation that create restrictions and levy fines on the people of the States that have nothing to do with war, peace, negotiations, and foreign commerce.

Our founders established separation of powers because they had seen a history of over 700 years of tyranny usurping the rights of the people. They knew what it looked like, and they knew what it would take to prevent it and defeat it. They established the Legislative branch to be separate from the Executive branch, so that one man could not impose laws upon a people based upon his will; and they established a Judicial branch to check them both.

These unconstitutional regulations along with the subsequent SCOTUS opinions are acts of tyranny with which our founders were intimately acquainted.

Our founders knew that without the proper checks and balances, the executive branch would have the power to destroy liberty. They also anticipated the attempt to circumvent these checks. James Madison stated in his Speech to Congress – June 8, 1789:

In other instances [the Constitutions lays] down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the government; declaring, that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct: Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is to provide such checks, as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other…independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. (explanation and emphasis added)

This is why judicial appointments are so important.  It is not enough for our Senators to appiont “conservative” justices, we must demand appointment of justices dedicated to the principles and proper application of the Constitution.

But what do we do when the “independent tribunals of justice” have failed in their duties as guardians of the rights of people? The fantastic thing about our founders was they understood human nature. Alexander Hamilton stated that “experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal; they ought to be conclusive and sacred.” Our founders learned from their own history that people would become inattentive to their rights; that tyranny would attempt to reassert itself as it had time and time again. Knowing this, James Madison continued with his speech in 1789  explaining there is a more powerful check of federal power than the courts:

Beside this security there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty. (emphasis added)

According to James Madison, the primary job of our State Legislatures was to be guardians of the people’s liberty against federal encroachment.

This is now our greatest hope to save the sovereignty of our States. Our Legislators must understand that this is the time when they must stand against these unconstitutional agencies and their unauthorized intrusion on the rights of States, which is to say the rights of the people. We must again establish ourselves as the engaged citizen government that was demanded by our founders in order to keep this Constitutional Republic. We must reassert ourselves as the leaders of our nation and remind the legislators that they are representatives of the people, working for the people, not celebrities vying for camera time and re-election.

Florida Judge Ruled Correctly That Islamic Law Must Be Used

/in /by

Just this past week there was a media frenzy sparking fear across the nation with headlines like, “Florida Judge Orders Use of Sharia Law!”  The case in question involves former trustees of a local Tampa mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, who are suing because they claim they were unfairly removed as trustees.  The Judge stated in his order, “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law…pursuant to the Qur’an…”

The enemies of Liberty know the power of fear, otherwise the warning attributed to Benjamin Franklin, “Those who trade Liberty for security deserve neither Liberty nor security” would have very little meaning.  But I fear, that is exactly what we are about to do as a nation, ignore the warnings of our Founding Fathers and trade Liberty for security based upon fear.

In order to properly understand what happened in that Florida courtroom this week, we must make a distinction.  There is a difference between First Amendment religious liberty and criminal acts unconstitutionally sanctioned under the guise of religious liberty.  Our Founders, moved home and family, sacrificed honor and fortune, bled and died for religious liberty.  It was so important to our Founders that when proposing the ratification of the Constitution, several states, including Virginia, refused to ratify if there were not greater protections for religious liberty.  The Virginia Baptist General Convention made the statement:

 “Whether the new Federal Constitution, which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that, in the opinion of the General Committee, it did not.”

They understood that every man has to give an account for himself to God one day, therefore every man should be free to serve God according to the dictates of his own conscience; that it is repugnant to the spirit of the gospel for the government to proceed in matters of religion.  They believed that God needed no such compulsive measures from the government and for government to engage in the regulation of church activity would be the destruction of religious liberty.  In a Letter from a Federal Farmer  IV the author, looking forward to a day when our nation would grow into a great country said:

“It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about religion; but when we are making a constitution, it is to be hoped, for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as a part of the national compact.”

As if there were any question as to the Founders’ intent regarding true religious liberty, John Leland, arguably the founder of our First Amendment, stated that “all should be equally free [in religious matters], Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.”

Our Founders believed that government regulating the affairs of the churches would be the death of religious liberty for all and they were willing to forgo the entire Constitutional experiment without proper protection from it.  Our courts have adopted that principle in the legal doctrine of “judicial abstinence”.

According to the well-founded legal doctrine of judicial abstention, “matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers and the conduct of other routine church business is purely ecclesiastical, that the jurisdiction of the church as to such matters is final and that the civil courts have consistently declined to assume jurisdiction of them.” Epperson v. Myers, 58 So.2d 150, 151 (Fla. 1952).

Our courts are obliged by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to defer to internal church decisions in matters of church government.  The Supreme Court of the United States recognizes that “[e]xcessive entanglement with religion occurs when the courts begin to review and interpret a church’s constitution, laws, and regulations.”  Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971).

We should commend Judge Richard Nielsen for his courage to stand up for this TRUE AND PROPER application of separation of church and state in a time when he had to know it would bring great fear and controversy.  He was acting as a true constitutional conservative and patriot, supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.

Judge Nielson had to understand that for the court to become involved in the ecclesiastical affairs church government would open a precedent that has thus far never existed.  It would eliminate EVERY church’s ability to govern itself according to the dictates of its religious beliefs.  What would that mean for Christians?  It would mean that churches could no longer discriminate on the basis of doctrinal beliefs; the acceptance of homosexuality even if against religious beliefs, the requirement of non discrimination for pastoral positions even if against religious beliefs, the compulsion of teaching even if against religious beliefs…the list is endless.

A very important decision was written in 1871 by the Supreme Court of the United States in Watson v. Jones, 80 US (13 Wall), 679, 727 (1871):

“The law knows no heresy, and committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.  The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned.  All who united themselves to such a body do so with the implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it.  But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed.”

So before we react in fear that will ultimately end the religious liberty that we ALL enjoy, we must become steeped in history and fact.  History teaches that “all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians” and when government engages in the ecclesiastical affairs of an assembly, religious liberty for all is dead.  The fact is this legal dispute was over a decision by the mosque leaders regarding issues of church governance, a purely ecclesiastical matter.

Judge Neilson’s court ruling is NOT a permission in the law to stone your children, beat your wife, or murder your daughter because she is marrying outside the faith.  These are afforded no more affording constitutional protection than someone bombing an abortion clinic in the name of Christ.  These are CRIMINAL acts and NOT ecclesiastical governance.  If this distinction is not made, then a disingenuous lawyer or an activist judge could unconstitutionally use this ruling to allow a criminal act, as the court did in New Jersey in applying Sharia Law to allow a man to rape his wife.  Fortunately, the New Jersey ruling was overturned, and our Constitution ruled the day.  We need to be watchful so that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  We must be steeped in history and in fact so that we don’t undo the very document by which we are protected.

I am not willing to trade liberty for any fear.  I am not willing to trade the ability for my church to govern according to the dictates of my conscience due to a fear of foreign Islamic invasion.  If we allow fear to dictate, the enemies of Liberty have succeeded and tyranny is already established.

Obama’s Attack on the Church – The Mark of a Tyrant

/in /by

An understanding of history is the only thing that can illuminate our understanding of religious liberty. Our ignorance of history (not to mention a dangerous level of apathy) is allowing a tyrant to erode the liberty that people of faith have enjoyed for over two centuries. We believe that we have moved beyond the days of kings and serfs, yet here we are, repeating the very history our forefathers attempted to prevent us from repeating. It is exactly the same show that was played out again and again throughout the English history that gave us our founding documents, just different characters. The current tyrannical King of America is forcing the church to succumb to the rule of the sovereign in opposition to the dictates of conscience. Repeating what occurred in 1066, in 1213, in 1628, in 1641, and in 1689. Journey with me, as we roll back the clock and watch the parallels unfold.

In 1066 England, William I takes the throne and begins forcing his rule over the people of England. A people, who because of the agreement of 1041 had become accustomed to participation in their government and had established a common law they felt was fair and just for their time. William I, however had different ideas. He and his sons continued to fundamentally transform England, up until Henry I took the throne. Henry is the signer of the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which he promised to end the tyranny of his father and brother. He made a charter with the people to end all evil and oppressive practices as carried out by the crown. Interestingly enough, what the people of 1100 England felt was evil and oppressive, we might find alarmingly familiar.

Besides promising to end the evil inheritance taxes, and ensuring that lawmakers were subject to the laws they made, Henry promised to abandon the practice of requiring the ecclesiastical leaders of the Church of England to do the government’s bidding. Henry made a promise to the people, that first and foremost, he would declare the church free of government interference:

“Know that by the mercy of God and the common counsel of the barons of the whole kingdom of England I have been crowned king of said kingdom; and because the kingdom had been oppressed by unjust exactions, I, through fear of God and the love which I have toward you all, in the first place make the holy church of God free, … And I take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of England was unjustly oppressed;”

But that would not end the reign of tyranny forever, because tyrants hates Liberty and “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.” T. Jefferson

In 1213, John is the King of England and his hatred for the church quickly becomes apparent. Tyrants do not like to share power, and throughout history they came to recognize the great force within the church, after all, if God be for us, who can be against us? John is called the most evil King England has ever known. The English have said that “hell was fouled by the presence of John”. It was John’s ruthless behavior toward the English people who would not submit to his tyrannical rule that gained John’s infamy. But, it was John’s refusal to grant the people the right to choose an Arch Bishop that threw the people into rebellion. John wanted power over the church as well the treasury; after all it was his Divine Right. The Barons, Lords and the chosen Arch Bishop, Stephen Langton, in an attempt to avoid bloodshed drew up a charter to force the King to keep the promise issued by the crown in the 1100 Charter of Liberties. This edict gave specific directions to John on what tyrannical acts were to be halted and is called the Magna Carta.

“In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate;… Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid.”

The King promised once again, through the Magna Carta, to honor the sovereignty of the Church and the right of the people to maintain their religious Liberty. But under tyrants who have no regard for the Rule of Law and see themselves as the ultimate authority, religious liberty cannot survive without a fight.

This time it was Charles I who had to be put in his place. Charles was accused of devising “a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the Rights and Liberties of the People”. To do this he had “traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament and the people therein represented.” What was among Charles’ atrocities? You guessed it, offenses against religious liberty, 11 counts to be exact and all were listed in the Grand Remonstrance of 1641. His tyranny was summarized as follows:

“For depriving the Bishops of their votes in Parliament, and abridging their immoderate power usurped over the Clergy, and other your good subjects, which they have perniciously abused to the hazard of religion, and great prejudice and oppression to the laws of the kingdom, and just liberty of your people-”

The people rebelled against Charles’ unjust laws and against his oppression of the church. Charles was found guilty of tyranny and oppression, and he was sentenced to death. Liberty once again succeeded with new protections obtained by the resolve of the people.

Just 60 years later the people found themselves once again in the hands of a tyrant, this time his name was James II and he was also attempting to control the church. James was attempting to tax the people through the church and he was attempting to control the method and mode of worship instead of allowing the people to worship according to their beliefs. In order to enforce these laws, he was placing agents of the crown in the church and establishing arbitrary regulations and courts to bring government action against the leaders of the church. The people of England charged James with attempting to completely destroy Liberty.

“Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to [overturn] and [completely destroy] the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By committing and prosecuting [various] worthy [ministers] for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power; By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

The people stood against James, causing him to flee the throne. They lost a tyrant and retained their Liberty in this new document, The Bill of Rights of 1689.

In our own nation many preachers, particularly of the Baptist faith, were prosecuted, tarred and feathered, whipped, jailed, and executed because they would not submit to a license under the state religion. The blood shed on our own shores in the name of religion is the very thing that brought us the first amendment and led to the eventual dissolution of all test acts and state churches. This is the history of our founding fathers and mothers. This is the wisdom they brought to the table when drafting our government. These tyrants of the past are the reason our founders gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to “secure the blessings of Liberty for our posterity”. They knew that a tyrant would come along sooner or later. They knew that this tyrant would hate liberty as much as those in the past. But they also knew that tyranny has a limited bag of tricks, so they did their best to give us the protections gained from over 700 years of battle for Liberty. This is precisely why we have a 1st Amendment, to secure the right of the people to worship according to the dictates of their conscience and to keep the government out of the business of the church. After all, THIS is the REAL meaning of separation of church and state.

It is no surprise that tyranny would rematerialize in the very same way it has for centuries. Once again, the government attempts to govern the church, to impose its rule over the conscience of the people. Healthcare mandates against the church have nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with tyranny over the people. Kings do not concern themselves with the good of the people as much as they do with the will of the King. If this tyranny is allowed to stand, a door will be opened that will allow the Kings troops to march even greater oppression against the church; history guarantees it. These troops, undoubtedly in the form of regulation and law, will once again “deny the church their voice in government”causing a great “hazard to religious liberty” bring forward the “prosecution of various ministers” in arbitrary “courts of ecclesiastical causes” which will surely bring about the “complete destruction of liberty”. What we must learn from history, what we must understand today is that if religious liberty is allowed to fall, all other liberties will quickly follow. The battle for all liberty is rooted in the battle for religious liberty and the ability to speak, print, assemble, and air our grievances according to the dictates of our conscience. It is no coincidence that it is the FIRST Amendment. The question is what are we going to do about the tyranny that is fundamentally transforming America into an utter wasteland of ruined liberties?

Can We Legislate Morality?

/in /by

“Can we legislate morality?”  This is a very relevant question that deserves a serious answer.  But what is really meant by this question?  The idea of “legislating morality” often gives people the impression that we can create a moral society through the creation of laws.  Fact is – we cannot.  As a prosecutor I became acutely aware of the apparently widely held view that the criminal justice system will “reform” people.  We could save ourselves a lot of heartache and a lot of money if we just accepted the reality that the criminal justice system, our jails, our prisons, are not designed to reform people, they are designed to punish people for doing bad things.  The punishment is what is supposed to make people change their mind about committing future crimes.  More laws and more prisons will not magically create a moral society.

We cannot deny, however, that all laws are based upon shared moral values.  When a society loses that morality, we find ourselves in a situation where we are tempted to compensate by creating more laws.  This is what causes people to put the cart before the horse and believe morality can be, or should be legislated.  We have become a society that treats symptoms instead of diseases.  This situation is no different.  The symptom is an ever increasing lawless society; the disease is an ever decreasing moral society.  If we want the government to stop “legislating morality”, we must become, once again a society of individuals that upholds our shared moral values.  We may not be able to legislate morality, but as our founders warned, we cannot afford to lose it.

John Adams stated in an address to Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts in 1798: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Adams believed that America’s unique moral character provided security for the future:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.

He then issued this warning:

But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.

Adams was attempting to impress upon these military men that the power wielded by an immoral society could not be restrained by the best Constitution and could be lethal to Liberty itself.

Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.

Some of the shared moral values, such as respect for life and charity toward the helpless, are contained in the great faith systems of the world.  For our founders it was the Judeo-Christian foundation that guided their value system, and it is interwoven into their writings and our founding documents. A shared morality is not the same thing as government-enforced religion, but historically a shared morality has been rooted in a shared sense of higher purpose and an acknowledgement of a higher power, or at least some awareness of a spiritual aspect to our daily lives.  But according to Many Say ‘So what?’ to Religion, Atheism published in USA Today, a growing number of people simply do not care about matters of faith and morality.  I believe this is not just a problem for the religious community, but this has grave implications for the future of our nation.  If we eliminate or disregard the basis for our common values, we begin to slide further and further into lawlessness.

The article in USA Today implies that America is becoming a nation free of religion; people simply don’t think of God and don’t find religion necessary to maintain their “happiness”.   Barry Komsin, director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society for Trinity College states in this article:  But a lot of these people are concerned more with the tangible, the real stuff like mortgages or their favorite football team or the everyday world,” Kosmin says.  The bottom line for these folks is “as long as I have my stuff, I am happy and do not need a religion or God.”

I believe this focus, solely on material things, is what is having a devastating effect on Liberty.  The reality is that a vast majority of our citizens would have an easier time naming all the judges on American Idol than those on the Supreme Court of the United States.  Meanwhile our Liberties are being eroded, degraded, and destroyed right under our noses and most don’t care because they got a flat screen TV for Christmas and more channels than they could possibly watch in a lifetime. While we should be trying to stop this whale of an administration from tearing the nets of Liberty in America, we are tweeting the latest escapades of the Kardashians or informing our Facebook friends of our location and menu choices.  We are completely ignorant of our obligations as Americans to require our government to protect Liberty and of our responsibility to maintain that Liberty. Few have a sense of anything greater than “right here, right now.”   Two testimonials from this article reflect this mentality:

When Ben Helton signed up for an online dating service, under “religion” he called himself “spiritually apathetic.”  Sunday mornings, when Bill Dohm turns his eyes toward heaven, he’s just checking the weather so he can fly his 1946 Aeronca Champ two-seater plane. Helton, 28, and Dohm, 54, aren’t atheists, either. They simply shrug off God, religion, heaven or the ever-trendy search-for-meaning and/or purpose.

Founders like Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, didn’t think shrugging off God was a good idea for our nation:  Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?

Jefferson contemplated the consequences to this nation if we ever forgot that valuable lesson: Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not (sic) sleep forever

Ben Franklin reminded his fellow countrymen when Liberty was in peril: In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor…and have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?

Franklin knew that without God, Liberty would be short lived.

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

The USA Today article continues with Rev. Ema Drouillard, who specializes in San Francisco-area non-denominational ceremonies.  Ms. Drouillard “said in 2001 about 30 percent of her clients refused any reference to religion at their weddings.  A decade later, 80 percent of her clients choose her carefully God-free ceremony. The only faith they pledge is in each other.”  Maybe that is why we can look to a man for “hope and change” and find that our country crumbles when we place our faith in man.  But the Ms. Drouillard continues, “A lot of people just aren’t on any spiritual path. They say, ‘We are just focusing on the party.’

That focus is the very thing that drives this disease.  As this article seems to point out, we have become a nation void of any responsibility to God.  Our founders would ask, “How then do we think that we can maintain the gift of Liberty that He has given?”  “How can we give no consideration to the consequences for ignoring that gift?”  I believe they would say that “we have been come self-sufficient, self-made men building an empire of stuff and never once giving thought to the principles of Liberty that makes these things possible. We have forgotten, to whom much is given, much is required.  We have become pacified by our prosperity, lazy in our luxury and have forgotten the dear price that has been paid for this Liberty and the price required to maintain it.”

Our Constitution is dedicated to the promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If we want to maintain this Republic and its promises of Liberty, as Daniel Webster said, we must “hold onto to the Constitution”.  In holding on to the Constitution, we must understand that Liberty is its end and morality is a vital bond that secures its survival.  Our Liberty stands in peril because we have abandoned our moral foundation.  Freedom AND morality are BOTH necessary to maintain Liberty.  The sole pursuit of stuff and satisfaction of self creates a moral vacuum – we must reconnect with a higher purpose.  We must be dedicated to fighting for ALL of the principles of Liberty that make this nation so great!  Because some things remain true:  sparrows still fall, whales break nets, and Liberty cannot last without morality.

Show Arrest Rosa

We the People Must Inform Ourselves

/in /by

(The speech that got me fired.)

I would like to speak to you today on the subject of INFORMING OURSELVES.

Thomas Jefferson warned;

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

We have enjoyed the benefits left to us by previous generations. America has had the greatest medical system, the greatest technologies, the strongest military, the greatest economy. However, as our nation has prospered we have become distracted by our luxuries, busied by our labors and lazy toward our liberties. We have allowed the enemies of freedom to worm their way into positions of power and influence.

The Heritage Foundation says it like this,

“There is widespread ignorance of American history… We face an education system that upholds mediocrity in the name of relativism; an ever-expanding and centralized government, unmoored from constitutional limits; judges openly making laws and shaping society based on pop-philosophy rather than serious jurisprudence…At the root of all these problems is a pervasive ignorance about the core principles that define America and ought to inform our politics and policy.”

Unfortunately, I would agree with them. That’s why the tea-party movement is so important and so encouraging. I am actually encouraged that the Tea-Party is not a party at all; it is We the People. We the People founded this nation and I believe – We the People will take it back!

But We the People must Inform Ourselves if we wish to take back our nation for ourselves and our children. Notice I did not say that we need to be informed, rather we need to inform OURSELVES. Truth is Power and it is up to us to search out and secure the Truth. The Bible says, “…ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” If we arm ourselves with truth and act on that truth we can be free from the bondage that ideological tyrants would desire to enslave us with.

Patrick Henry said in his famous speech from St. Johns Church in 1775.

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.“

Patrick Henry’s experience with a heavy handed government illuminated his understanding of the future… And if American Liberty is to continue, we must inform ourselves and arm ourselves with the collective experience of those that have come before. I want to mention four things as briefly as I can on the subject of Informing Ourselves.

First, We the People must inform ourselves on our Core Principles. A principle can be defined as a standard based upon truth and experience, and which serves as a foundation upon which thought and action are built. A primary principle upon which this nation rests is Constitutionalism – which is an understanding that the operation of our government and the security of our liberty are to be guided by our founding documents, interpreted according to the framer’s intent.

The Declaration and the Constitution have been relentlessly attacked in modern times. Our own President has implied that our Constitution’s ideas are flawed. The professors in our law schools deride its relevance. Progressives would have it be as malleable as silly putty. But We the People recognize that the Declaration and Constitution have served as the bedrock of our freedom for hundreds of years. The genius with which our founding fathers laid down the principles in these precious documents, I believe, can only be attributed to the providence of God. And we have a solemn duty to ourselves and our posterity to become informed in the Core principles contained in our founding documents.

Get a copy of the Declaration and Constitution; study them. Research the history of how they came to be. Acquaint yourselves with men like John Leland and the Baptist Union of Virginia, without whom there would be no Bill of Rights. Read the wisdom of George Washington in his farewell address and be grounded by the experience of one our nation greatest heroes.

–We the People must Know our core principles- Become not only grounded in them, but become their champions. For, freedom of speech has no voice of its own, but it waits in silence for you to plead its case. The right to assemble will sit alone until you, its champions, gather in the face of despotism. Our forefathers cry out through the pages of history, but unheard until you give the written word – voice and life. When our history is lost either through revision or apathy, then our liberty is lost as well.

–We the People must Know our Core principles and stand for them without wavering…for they are our liberty.

The words of Patrick Henry still ring true 235 years later, “Why stand we here idle?,” he said, “What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Secondly, We the People must not only inform ourselves on our Core Principles, must inform ourselves about Contrary Principles. If our core principles serve to secure and maintain the liberty we wish to enjoy, then it stands to reason that there are contrary principles that threaten that same liberty, and we must be able to identify these enemies of our liberty.

Sun Tzu says in his Art of War, “Know thine enemy as thyself.” We must always remember that our enemies are not people or parties, but the freedom-destroying principles that they espouse. We must inform ourselves on the principles of progressivism, socialism, communism; and the mechanisms these philosophies use such as redistribution of wealth, centralization of power, progressive taxation, and restrictions on free speech. Once we are informed on these principles we will then recognize them. And we must oppose them regardless of the party or personality attempting to employ them.

I say again, We must not give a free pass because of personality or party affiliation. It is ironic that Teddy Roosevelt is heralded as a great hero of the Republican Party, when in fact history testifies that he was the leader of the anti-constitutional progressives in 1912. It was also under the Republican Party that the refundable tax credit was enacted, allowing progressives to engage in redistribution of wealth and enslave citizens with the tax refund.

Am I anti-Republican? No; but these enemies of our liberty entered in because we put party over principle. The president recently suggested that his program of socialized medicine was okay because Republican Mitt Romney proposed the same program. It is not wrong because of who proposed it; it’s wrong because it is based on principles that are contrary to Liberty.

You would not allow anyone to feed your child rat poison whether the giver was Satan or Santa Claus. Progressivism, however, does not come in a bottle with skull and crossbones. It shows up as something or someone who wants to “help” and it will have a cute little name like acorn. It will talk about fairness and recovery; aide and stimulus; always sounding positive, but underneath – a deadly poison. Again we must be grounded in our Core principles, but we must also be guarded against these Contrary principles which poison our freedom and destroy our future.

We the People must not only inform ourselves about Contrary Principles, but we must also inform ourselves about Candidates. We should now realize that a charismatic personality, eloquent speechmaking, and catchy slogans do not a leader make. We must identify candidates who hold true to the right principles and who will not sacrifice those principles for politics or power. Some would say you must compromise if you hope to accomplish anything. Surely, cooperation and negotiation are essential in government, but a principle by its very definition is a foundational and guiding rule, and so compromising a principle damages the very foundation.

If sound principles cause me to be opposed to a proposal, then an offer of money or jobs for my state should not change my position. Let’s inform ourselves about candidates and issues and make an informed vote.

Lastly, and I close, We the People must inform ourselves about Current Events. It’s encouraging to see the awakening going on around the country, but the cynic in me says this – “only someone who was sleeping needs an awakening.”

Thomas Jefferson said,

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

We cannot take time off. We cannot stick our head in the sand. We cannot slumber even for a moment.

The Tea-Party movement can’t simply be an awakening. Once we have reclaimed our nation from the forces that would steer us away from our Core principles, we must establish a lifestyle of vigilance. We must stay informed and stay involved.

First step – the 2010 elections; Next step – the 2012 elections; THEN we reach The Beginning…The beginning of a revitalized and reconnected CITIZEN government.

Our cry must be this

“We the People have awakened. We the People have informed ourselves; and We the People will never sleep again!!!”

Thank you and God bless you.

Criminals vs Contitutionalists

/in /by

In Lakeland, Florida an officer of the law, pulls over a young woman for a broken taillight. In the process discovers her license had been suspended (which is not a criminal offense in Florida).  The officer has her empty her pockets and twice tells her to pull of her shirts, pull her undergarments away from her body and has her shake her body to see if she is in possession of drugs. Then at the end of the ordeal tells the young lady, “I’m done scaring you and now you can go home!” What happened to his officer  you ask? Unbelieveably he was suspended for 4 days and now he’s  back on the job. Now compare this with Sheriff Finch who refused to charge someone for carrying a concealed a firearm without a permit because he believed it was not constitutional. He stood up for the Constitution in the exercise of his duty and he was arrested by Governor Rick Scott. Now compare that to the Lakeland, Florida the officer who for all intent and purposes sexually assaulted a woman who gets suspended for four days without pay. Are you kidding me?