Brother Can You Spare a Dime

/in /by

As we embark on this New Year, we are continuing the struggle to regain control of our governments, and escape the fate predicted by our founders.  Maintaining the limited form of government our Constitution demands is vital to the preservation of this nation.  If we fail, the unfortunate reality will be that we will have failed to maintain the gift of the Republic that was bought for us by the sacrifice of ease, estate, pleasure, and blood of our forefathers.

The first step to correcting a problem is understanding that you have one.  We The People seem to be very aware that there is a problem.  Our government, on the other hand, seems completely clueless.  The President of the United States is issuing executive orders for government pay raises. Congress is engaging in every mode of spending that can be conceived. Both “sides” arguing over how much to tax and no one discusses the profligate spending. Our founders and even their immediate successors warned that this perspective in government would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

It will take character and resolve to make the painful and difficult decisions to preserve the Republic, so that future generations will have an opportunity to enjoy the Liberty that has been purchased for us.  As usual, the oracles of history have some lessons if we would simply listen.

Federal Government Out of Control

Apparently, things began to go awry for the federal government rather early on.  An expansion of Congressional power through the forced construction of the General Welfare clause is one of the chief culprits.  A great example of this can be found in the Congressional arguments surrounding the Cod Fishery Bill of 1792, a bill to subsidize the Cod Fishing industry.  In this, James Madison defines the proper nature of government to a House wanting to unconstitutionally expand its power and reach.

Not an Indefinite Government but a Limited Government

Madison says, “I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”

General Welfare Does Not Mean Generally Everything

Yes, we are supposed to have a limited and defined federal government.  Madison was very simply explaining that the clause “common defense and general welfare” was not meant to expand the power of the government beyond its limitations, but to describe the purpose of the power delegated within strict confinement of those boundaries.  In other words, this clause does not name a power; it simply describes the purpose for the powers named.  Then with amazing foresight, Madison explains the consequence of allowing the federal government to turn these “clauses” into defined powers:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”

Limitless Spending Changes the Very Nature of the Republic

Madison, in describing the consequences of this forced construction of the Constitution, prophesies for our day.

“…I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

Government Charity Dangerous Precedent

Yet, America did not listen. In 1831, Congress once again attempts to reconstruct its powers through the artifice of “charity.”  This time, the argument is about supplying wood for the Poor of Georgetown.  The Mayor of Georgetown sent a letter to the House of Representatives asking for relief of the poor of that city and soliciting the House to grant a donation of some wood in the vaults of the capitol for their use.  This sparked a forgotten, yet a very relevant debate for this day.

Congress Cannot Give Public Property For Charity

The first to speak up was Congressman James Polk (D-TN), the future 11th President of the United States.  In showing a moral character and commitment to the Constitution that is rarely seen today, Polk said he knew it would be viewed as being ungracious to oppose a resolution in behalf of the suffering poor of this District, or any other. However, he went on to oppose the resolution of the House to offer this support as “the precedent of appropriating the public funds for such a purpose was a bad one.  He reasoned that if they allowed this seemingly small act of charity, then “every winter, when the snow fell, or the Potomac was frozen, applications would be made to Congress, and members would be engaged in the dignified object of buying and stowing wood, to give to the poor District of Columbia.”  Polk opposed this spending on principle, as the House “had not the power to make the donation requested.” And what began with Georgetown would blossom into dependency throughout the nation. It was not the amount he objected to, but that the “representatives came to legislate on great concerns of the nation, not to give away the public property.” He made a final plea to the House, with their vote, to “put a check” on legislative power.

The next to argue was James Blair, Congressman from South Carolina.  Blair gets right to the point; that it is not in the power of Congress to give out donations from the public treasury for the purposes of charity.  He correctly reasons:

“If so, it would have power also to vote millions of the public money to feed and clothe the suffering poor.  The House had no right to give away the public money for any such purpose; and if gentlemen were disposed to be liberal, let them be liberal out of their own money.”

Polk then moved the floor for the following substitute, by way of amendment:

“That the Sergeant-at-arms be required to deduct from the compensation of the members of this House on day’s pay, and deliver said sum to the Mayor of Georgetown, to be applied to purchase fuel for the paupers of that town: Provided, nevertheless, that such deduction shall be made from the compensation of such members only as vote in favor of the resolution.”

I believe our representatives could learn several lessons from this:

  1. The money collected from the people is NOT revenue but PUBLIC PROPERTY.
  2. In spending public property Congress is limited by the proper confines of the Constitution, not ones established through forced construction.
  3. Personal moral integrity could inhibit Congress from violating points 1 and 2.

Let ours be the generation that listens from the framers and their experience.  Let ours be the generation that avoids what others called the inevitable demise of a Republican government.  Let ours be the generation that can claim the victory of Liberty for our future generations.

“Let history be consulted; let the man of experience reflect; nay, let the artificers of monarchy be asked what further materials they can need for building up their favorite system.”  Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1799

victor 207x300

Article II Section 4: The Impeachment of Eric Holder

/in /by

Through Article II section 4 of the Constitution, the people have delegated a great power to Congress to remove certain members of government from office.  A careful reading of this section shows that Congress has the power to remove not only the President and the Vice President but ALL civil officers.  One standard for removal is conviction of a high crime or misdemeanor.   The language of this clause is very clear even using legally demanding language.   This clause in the Supreme Law of our land demands Congress to act as they did when Former President Clinton was impeached for contempt.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors~ Article II Section 4 US Constitution

We know Presidents and Vice Presidents are impeachable, but have we forgotten the third category of people in this clause: all civil officers?  Eric Holder is a civil officer.  Eric Holder is a civil officer that has been found in contempt.  The Constitution therefore DEMANDS that Congress remove Eric Holder from office.  So what are they doing?  Last report in the mainstream media is that they are going to “sue” him in civil court.  Sue him?  The Constitution does not offer that option, however it does demand he be removed from office.  I think at this time it is relevant to point out that Article II section 4 does not have a stipulation that removal from office is only necessary in non-election years. All employees are required to fulfill their job description regardless of what time of the year it is, and Congress should be no exception.  Have they forgotten that they took an oath to support and defend the CONSTITUTION?

Honestly, how can Congress possibly live up to their oath when they apparently have no understanding of what the Constitution means and their job requirement within it?  Then again, we give them no training.  If we were running a business and the members of congress were employees of that business, We The People would be in danger of a lawsuit for negligent supervision of our employees.  Negligent supervision occurs when an employer fails to properly train its employees and the employees commit an act of negligence as a result of their lack of proper training.   We are not training our congressional employees and they are committing negligent acts that are resulting in the destruction of our Constitution.

Many of us received and email from Congress demanding that the people remove Eric Holder from office. The email reveals that Congress is either shirking its duty and passing the buck to the people or is unaware of their obligation under Article II section 4.

It’s time for Attorney General Holder to step aside. He’s misled Congress, and entirely botched the investigation of the Operation Fast and Furious debacle — yet he still leads our nation’s Justice Department. It’s just another example of the Obama Administration’s transparent hypocrisy that despite the tragic and very human toll of this scandal, Attorney General Holder refuses to resign — and President Obama refuses to remove him.

WE the People MUST restore justice to the Justice Department.

So, is Congress inadequately trained or do they simply feel too burdened by their responsibilities?  Are they truly overwhelmed by their duty to support and defend the Constitution?  Are they really looking to their employers, We The People, for relief as the email assert: “it’s up to the American people?”

If our employees are unable to do their job, perhaps we need to put out some help wanted ads.  Perhaps, this time we need to list plainly and clearly what the job requirements are and demand those who are hired have the proper training and exhibit a proven proficiency in the very object of their oath: the Constitution of the United States.  If we do not, then We The People, the employers, are guilty of negligent supervision and our children will suffer the consequences of our negligence.

American Call to Action

/in , /by

As given at the Day of Prayer and Unity Rally at the Texas State Capitol, Austin, Texas June 22, 2013

WATCH the video on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/Qfy25stQtLc

Benjamin Franklin reminded his people as they engaged in the debates over the foundation of this nation:

“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?”

Because we have forgotten that powerful Friend- we do not find ourselves in an economic crisis, we are not in a political crisis, and may I just lift the veil of illusion, we are not in a national security crisis.  Because we have forgotten that powerful Friend we find ourselves in a MORAL crisis.  This moral crisis has led to a loss of honor in this nation- a loss of honor in our government.

What is honor?  Honor is integrity plus character working together in the mechanisms of morality.  Integrity is not doing the wrong thing.  Character is doing what is right just because it is right, even if it is not politically advantageous or popular.  Lack of Honor in this nation has the immoral leading the Justice Department, the immoral leading the IRS, the immoral leading our Congress and the immoral leading the White House.  And now this immorality has infected the Supreme Court.  Where the highest court of the land is no longer bound to the highest law of the land and can declare, without any conviction whatsoever, that I have no rights unless I declare them.  Because we have forgotten that powerful Friend, we have forgotten that our rights do not come from government, our rights do not come from the Supreme Court- Our rights come from God and I don’t have to declare them, our framers already did!

But losers point fingers and winners fix problems.  It’s time to stop pointing fingers and start working to recover our Constitution, recover our Liberty, and recover our faith. But we will ONLY succeed if we remember that powerful Friend.  We must remember we are not a reflection of our government; our government is a reflection of its people and those with honor, those with character, those with integrity are not reflecting very brightly.

If a sparrow cannot fall to the earth without God knowing, is it possible for a nation to prosper without His aid?  We must fix this problem; our future depends upon it, our children are depending upon us!  Sam Adams said:

“If we tamely suffer a lawless attack on liberty, we encourage it.  Doing nothing is NOT doing nothing.  He is explaining to us, that sitting around complaining is not doing nothing it is actually being a cheerleader for tyranny!  He says, if we tamely suffer a lawless attack on tyranny, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.  It is a serious consideration, as ages and millions yet unborn will be the miserable sharers of our experience.  The liberty we lose today is not ours.  We are living in the luxury of liberty bought with the sacrifices of generations that have come before us.  The liberty that we squander today is the liberty of ages and millions yet unborn.

I always find it ironic, that our framers said over and over again that they were pledging Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor for ages and millions yet unborn, they gave everything they had to give because they knew the unborn had a right to liberty. But how do we treat the unborn today?  We don’t even give them the right to life!  If we want to put honor back in government, we MUST put God back in our homes and back in our education.  Patriots, it is time to start reflecting God!  So we have a government that reflects morality.

If America is to perish from the earth it will not be because of bullets and bombs- it will be because we have forgotten that powerful Friend.  And it won’t be because of me, it will be in spite of me.  I am going to fight, I will labor, I will toil until my last breath to ensure that we have a Constitution that will ensure that ages an millions yet unborn will enjoy the liberty that men and women have died for so that WE could enjoy Liberty.   Daniel Webster addressed his people, on July 4, 1806 and asked, “Is our Constitution worth preserving?”  I ask you that question today?  Is our Constitution worth preserving?  He said,

“then, guard it as you would the very seat of your life.  Guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against those seeds of change.  Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again.  Such a government once destroyed would leave a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with riot, tumult, despotism, and revolution.”

Is our Constitution worth preserving? You see we have all the motivation we need right here in this room.  Will all those under the age of 25 please stand?  I travel all over this country.  I am sometimes away from my family for 3 weeks or more at a time.  The only motivation I need , I want to show you, because it is the only motivation I need, is in the eyes of these young people.  We have a responsibility, our Constitution demands it.  We don’t have a Constitution to create a government, we have a Constitution, as it proclaims, “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”  Our Liberty has been secured for us now it’s time for us to pick up that mantle and secure it for them.  So as you walk through your life from this day forward and lock eyes with these young people, no matter where you go, the only question that can come to your mind is this, “what have I done to secure their liberty today?”  It is a daily question, it is a daily challenge, a daily responsibility.  And if you cannot answer in the affirmative, then you have answered already with Daniel Webster’s call, “a government once destroyed will have a void to be filled.”  And if you have done nothing to secure their liberty today, what you are doing is condemning them to “perhaps with centuries of riot, tumult, despotisms and revolution.”  Which one of generations do you want to condemn to the pits of slavery?

It is our turn to pick up that mantle, so that these young people will not have to buy back a gift that we were supposed to purchase for them.  They will not have the luxury of doing it from the ballot box or through petition, they will be forced to do it with their blood.  Winston Churchill said,

“still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when the victory is sure and not too costly, you may have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.  Yet, there may even be a worse case.  You may have to fight, when there is no hope of victory, for it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

So America, we have a mantle to pick up, we have a charge to take.  It is time for you to get on your knees and beg the God who is the author of mercy for the mercy he has to give to us, for the grace he has to give to us, for the strength that it is going to take to stand against this framework of the antichrist that is flourishing in front of our faces. Get on your knees and pray to that powerful Friend.

And when you are done praying, STAND.   Stand for God.  Stand for good.  Stand for all that is right and true.  Stand for the Constitution.  Stand for Liberty.  Stand against the fiery darts of tyranny.

And having done all, Patriots, remember that powerful Friend and STAND!

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?