‘Separation Of Church And State’:The Theory That Government Should Grow Larger And More Powerful And Religion Should Grow Smaller And More Marginalized

Those who claim that the doctrine of the separation of church and state is in the Constitution are frauds.  It is NOT.  The concept existed in a private letter written by a man who did not write so much as a single word of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights which followed the Constitution.  Oh, and Jefferson’s intent in using the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was wildly taken out of context and applied in a manner in which Jefferson is even now rolling in his grave (and see here).

What is the clear result of this doctrine?  It is one thing: that government should have absolutely no limit on its growing power and influence while religion should be marginalized and forbidden from increasing areas of discourse.

Now the government of “God damn America” can impose abortion and the radical homosexual agenda on the church and the church is immoral for publicly decrying the impositions.

Another great authority, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said that there ought to be a wall of separation between LABOR UNIONS and the state:

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Not that that mattered.  I mean, FDR didn’t have much more to do with the Constitution than Jefferson did, but somehow you don’t see liberal Supreme Court Justices dictating that all government unions be immediately abolished citing FDR the way they so gleefully cite Jefferson to undermine and replace religion in America.

But wouldn’t it be nice if FDR phrases such as “a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government” and that government labor unions represent “the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it” the way they exploited Jefferson’s phraseology???

But lets just stick with the words of the founding fathers.  Because we can stick with them all the livelong day and make our point.  In fact, let’s just stick with the words of Thomas Jefferson for a while.  Because it’s rather easy to demonstrate that the liberal justices who decreed that Jefferson’s words were the soul of the Constitution even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution dishonestly and blatantly ignored pretty much absolutely everything else that Jefferson ever said.

It’s a shame that the liberals on the Supreme Court fixated on Jefferson’s words that could be twisted and distorted to attack religion in America rather than focus on OTHER words of Jefferson that would have shaped a better society such as:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

And:

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

And:

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

Why hasn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed America with these words by Jefferson the way her ideological liberal judicial forerunners changed America with words by Jefferson???

A nation in which there was a rigid separation of labor unions from government would be a far better and stronger one than the one that we have now which wars against and undermines the influence of religion.  And I say that conclusively based on the clear words of our founding fathers that the liberal justices of the Supreme Court chose to deliberately and studiously ignore while instead choosing a few words radically out of context to hamstring the free exercise of religion.

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

I would argue it’s a damn shame that liberal justices seized Jefferson’s “wall of separation” line while refusing to acknowledge what Thomas Jefferson said about THEM and their fascist abuse of judical-tyrant power:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I hope you see the hypocrisy by now.

Liberals are people who want to destroy the last vestige of true religion in America while imposing the union agenda in the church’s place.  And if they can literally read a phrase such as “wall of separation between church and state” while specifically omitting the rest of the context of the letter those words are found in, and then blatantly ignore the very clear intent of the founding fathers that America needed to be what Lincoln described as “one nation under God,” well, they’re liberal ideologues and that’s what liberal ideologues do.

Which is why the beast is coming.

2nd Amendment: How the Founding Fathers Provided Against Tyranny

My brother sent this to me.  It might have ran around the internet universe seven times via email.  But it was new to me, and I found it genuinely insightful.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell” (Aug. 14, 1787. ME 6:274)

Twelve years after Jefferson wrote these words, Napolean Bonaparte installed himself into power in a coup and began a totalitarian dictatorship.  For the next sixteen years, he stirred constant war across Europe.

Sixty-one years after Jefferson wrote these words Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto, which stated, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

One hundred and twenty-seven years after Jefferson wrote these words the hatred and ugliness that had long festered in Europe erupted into the most vicious and murderous world war the world had ever known up to that time.

One hundred and thirty years after Jefferson wrote these words the revolution of class struggle described by Marx violently took over Russia and began to grow into the greatest oppressor of the human spirit the world has ever known.  Over one hundred million human beings would die under the system of communism.

One hundred and thirty-five years after Jefferson wrote these words the dictator Benito Mussolini brought fascism into the world in Italy.  And one hundred and forty-six years after Jefferson wrote these words Adolf Hitler degenerated fascism into its ultimate depths of evil that led to the Holocaust and the most costly and horrible war ever waged.

While European despots and totalitarian regimes seized weapons from the hands of the people and dominated their people with tyranny, America – like heaven in comparison – continued to grow as a free nation.  Ultimately, it came to grips with the conflict that the founding fathers deliberately created, and faced its own tyranny in a costly Civil War that resulted in the freeing of the slaves.

While white Americans continued to be free to keep tyranny at bay by bearing arms, the laws prior to the Civil War kept blacks under the thrall of abject tyranny:

“No slave shall go armed with a gun, or shall keep such weapons,” declared an 1854 law of North Carolina.

There were four million black slaves in 1861.  How long would they have remained slaves had they possessed arms?

And thus without further ado we present the:

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”  ~Thomas Jefferson

2.  Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams

3.  Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5.  Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

7.  You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8.  Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9.  You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11.  64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12.  The   United States  Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13.  The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14.  What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?

15.  Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16.  When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17.  The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS ‘REFRESHER’ ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS.

I think back to the country our founding fathers had emerged from.  In Britain, it was illegal for a peasant to be armed.  Revolt against the king – no matter how villainous or tyrannical he was – was absolutely impossible.

The founding fathers had an idea for a greater system of government; one which forced the government to respect the people.

I think back more recently to the many countries that America has liberated from tyrants – Iraq and Afghanistan included.  The peoples we liberated were helpless to liberate themselves; they needed the strong and mighty hand of a free people who loved and valued freedom to do their liberating for them.

And America – with its passion for freedom and its hatred of tyranny espoused in the theme of sic semper tyrannis – has a proud and noble history of liberating peoples from the most evil dictators and tyrants the world has ever seen.

The 2nd Amendment was a reaction against tyranny in the aftermath of their conflict with a nation that offered its people no recourse against the tyranny of their government.

As we stare a government that is growing larger and ever larger, and more and ever more invasive, we keep our rights as a free people only by embracing the fundamental right to defend ourselves against tyranny from the wisest and noblest political leaders who ever lived.

Obama’s “Education Birthright” Underscores Sweeping Socialist Agenda

What’s the difference between liberalism and socialism?

Whatever it is, Obama has clearly crossed the line between the two.

Socialists believe that “the people” – which has always invariably ended up meaning “the government” – should own and control the means of production. And the candidate of “change” is clearly proposing more and more of just that very thing.

During the final primary night remarks of Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 in St. Paul, Minnesota, Barack Obama said:

It’s not change when [John McCain] offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college — policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt…

And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he’d understand that we can’t afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That’s the change we need in America. That’s why I’m running for President.

If a college education is a “birthright”, then you and I and everyone else classified as an American (and a lot of Democrats are very quick to point out that “undocumented immigrants” are “Americans” too), are entitled to it. And only someone really awful, like that awful President Bush – or that awful McCain, who as we all know is exactly like Bush (just ignore McCain’s entire career and listen to any Democrat’s demagoguing instead) – would deny it to you. Come on, it’s your birthright.

Students should have the absolute right to treat their college years with the same contempt that many of them treated their K-12 years, shouldn’t they?

Now, whenever one person is entitled to a right, it by necessity follows that everyone else in society has the duty imposed upon them to provide for (read “pay for“) that right. So let’s be straight here: you OWE me the PhD I’ve always wanted; heck, you probably owe me room and board for the next several years while I study for it and write my dissertation.

What’s that, you’re happily working as a janitor who wants to go to college the way most people want root canals? That’s okay; you can just get extra busy mopping those floors so you can fork over the dough for me to get mine. It’s my birthright. You owe me; Barack Obama said so.

Barack Obama’s words that clearly call for a socializing of education so that every American can have his “birthright” of a free college education follows a number of serious similar moves over sweeping aspects of our economy and our very way of life.

According to a major energy study, it will cost $45 trillion to combat the bogeyman of “Global Warming.” It’s too big of a problem for the free market to solve; only Big Brother can do the job.

Democrats just tried to get an energy bill passed that would have actually provided no new energy but imposed an additional $5 trillion to the cost of energy providers’ bottom lines by imposing penalties on energy emissions. The fact that the bill would have resulted in higher energy cost when Americans are already paying record prices, and the fact that it would have put more of the economy under direct federal control than at any time since the 1930’s was not a relevant factor to the many Democrats who voted for it.

Recently, in a very political decision, the Interior Department used the Endangered Species Act to declare polar bears as an endangered species – in spite of the fact that their population has doubled since the 1970s – because they might be endangered within the next 45 years or so if global warming alarmism is true.

The Endangered Species Act was written in 1973, at the very time climate Cassandras were saying that the world’s climatologists were agreed that we must prepare for the next Ice Age (see Science Digest, February 1973).

As George Will recently commented:

Now that polar bears are wards of the government, nad now that it is a legal doctrine that humans are responsible for global warming, the Endangered Species Act has acquired unlimited application. Anything that can be said to increase can – must – be said to threaten bears already designated as threatened.

Want to build a power plant in Arizona? A building in Florida? Do you want to drive an SUV? Or leave your cell phone charger plugged in overnight? Some judge might construe federal policy as proscribing these activities.

Thomas Jefferson – who presumably knew something about how our government was actually supposed to work, wrote:

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Yet these are the very types of judges that Barack Obama has vowed to appoint if he is elected president.

The same activist judges who once found penumbras and emanations in the Constitution that somehow gave them license to create from scratch a right of a woman to kill her child, the same activist judges who recently overrode an overwhelming majority of California voters to radically redefine marriage, can do pretty much whatever they want.  And a swath of decisions are revealing that they want a lot.

Now that a federal judge can step in at darn any time he or she wants and put the kibosh on anything that could add to “global warming” and harm polar bears, and now that we are on the verge of socializing our health care industry – which represents more than 1/6th of the U.S. economy – it only makes sense to socialize our education system as well.

Barack Obama promises sweeping changes if he is elected president, and there is no question he fully intends to bring unparalleled changes to the United States. He intends to change our country from the classical liberalism of our history as a Democratic Republic – in which Americans have been free to choose for themselves, and been held responsible for themselves and for their choices – and embrace a form of socialism that has already bogged down the economy of Europe.