Secular Government

A secular government doesn't mean its a form of government that seeks to favor atheism upon free people. That country was called the Soviet Union.  It is critical to insure our freedom that our Government recognizes that only God gives men and women rights in which Government has no authority to redeem (unalienable rights). Once that concept collapses, then the State becomes God and can write changes or limit those freedoms. The State is then the giver, and taker, and not God.
A free people cannot exist without morality, or one willing to submit to the rule of law. The more immoral the population, the more laws and enforcement are required which gradually erodes these freedoms. The inner cities are so immoral (e.g. corruption, crime, and vice), it almost calls for Martial Law (or the suspension of Constitutional rights) to right the ship. A moral population is important to remain free.

The 1st Amendment was written to insure that no man is forced on his knees or forced off his knees. In matters of religion, the Congress has no authority or power. That prohibition applies to creating laws to favor or oppose religion. In no way does that imply individuals in that government cannot openly practice faith as free citizens.

On the other hand, local laws or ordinances that force Christian bakers, florists, or photographers to participate in ceremonies they dim forbidden in their faith practice violates the 1st Amendment rights of their citizens. It favors one religious point of view over another. This is not the "secular" government the founders had in mind.

Obama is a Socialist

Thomas Peterffy grew up in Socialist Hungary, immigrated to the US and became a successful broker. He knows first hand that Socialism robs individuals of their economic liberty and initiative to work and achieve.

I Smell a Rat...Have the Anti-Federalist Founders Been Proven Right?

Were the Anti-Federalists Wrong?
Wayne D. Carlson

In the great debates that occurred in each of the 13 Independent Republics, to consider the momentous question of rejection or ratification of the newly proposed Constitution in 1787, there were no small number of great and learned men that vehemently opposed, and warned against, the adoption of that document. History remembers them as the "Antifederalists". In Virginia alone, no less than "the trumpet of the Revolution", Patrick Henry stood opposed. George Mason, who is credited with writing the Virginia Bill of Rights which became the model for the Constitution's, joined him in opposition. It was Richard Henry Lee that first presented to Congress, in June of 1776, the resolution that the thirteen "United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." He too, joined Henry and Mason in principled objection to ratification of the Constitution, as written. As editor Isaac Kramnick states in the introduction to The Federalist Papers, "In state after state, often only a handful of votes separated the pro-Constitution forces and the defeated opponents of the Constitution. In light of the growing centralization and tyranny of the Federal government today, perhaps it is high time we considered some of the arguments of those like Henry who said, "I smell a rat".

Professor Marshall L. DeRosa, in his 1991 "The Confederate Constitution of 1861:An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism", notes that the primary objection of those opposing this new Constitution, lay in its ambiguity concerning the "locus", or place, in which ultimate sovereignty resided. Sovereignty, of course, denotes supreme political authority, which the Antifederalists were anxious to preserve to their States..... read more here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The individual States must press their 10th Admendment rights, or our Republic will perish. Thank God for the brave Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer for resisting the oppressive Federal monster. Hurrah for Arizona! Now, our own Federal capital has joined forces with 13 other foriegn nations to to fight one of our own soveriegn States. This is disgraceful. If anything should make a patriot pick up a rifle and march to sound of gunfire is this outrage lead by the Progressive Marxist Obama administration.

Its time, tea party time if you will, to chop down this huge Federal bureaucracy that has forgotten that it works for us, not the other way around. By all thats in you, resist, resist, RESIST>

Memorial Days and Monuments to Come

Well America, we've finally done it….elected a President who has placed Marxist rabble rousers in his administration, who's embraced Saul Alinsky’s radical code of conduct, who's routinely ridiculed his own country on foreign soil, and who has managed to tripled the Bush deficits in less than two years. We are a great nation tumbling down, much like the twin towers on 9-11. I fear the Memorial Days and Momuments yet to come.

So, what the hell were we thinking? We are stuck in a great predicament of our own making. This is the purchase of white guilt and 50 years of political correctness. I look upon a nation that issues drivers tests in 12 different languages while tolerating political leaders that care more for the rights of invading Mexicans than American citizens they pretend to represent.

I feel like a stranger in a strange land. Certainly Judeo Christian values are still present in America, but our leaders and their minions no longer possess them. The Obama administration seems much like an occupying regime. Today I walk down the familiar streets of my childhood and observe signs written in foreign tongues and their rapid cadence also heard everywhere.

Even military leaders with whom I give much deference too, now speak the jargon of the Gay and special interest agenda. These values are as foreign to me as the languages spoken on American streets. My God, what happened to us? Our diversity has never been our strength. Diversity has always been something to overcome. Our strength has never been diversity, which is the fiction of white guilt. Strength comes from unity, and unity alone. It is achieved by overlooking diversity. Our unity is our strength….E pluribus unum,,,remember that? Out of many, one. Its found on the seal of the Presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives. Its original meaning suggests that out of many colonies or states emerged a single nation. Never mind the original meaning of that, the Constitution, or even Memorial Day.

When I can no longer look to the north, south, east or west , and see fellow countrymen… then I must revert back to tribal “clans” for political resolution and peace of mind. The United States is fragmenting or “balkanizing” into squabbling ethnic groups. You might as well join one for your own protection. The National Government, or what’s becoming of it, will no longer protect you or your children. As Governor Brewer of Arizona recently lamented, “a nation without borders is like a house without walls”… so they both eventually will collapse.

The last straw has finally fallen on the back of this American camel. I will not accept an Al Queda monument on near ground zero in NY. The Islamists will open it on 9-11, 2011. This is obviously an ‘in your face’ celebration of the jihad on sacred ground. If you don’t get this by now, you never will. Much must be done to resist the audacity of the Islamist movement, and President Barack Hussein Obama and his bolshevic administration do all they can to make it easier for Islamic radicals to establish a foothold on the American continent. Wake on this Memorial Day, America.

Poor Wilber will have many more thoughts on this topic in the days to come.

The Continuing War for Independence

Its just the start. We are now engaged in a war. A war that started in 1776, and one that will probably never end as long as tyrant's breath.

The United States has survived many perilous times, and incurred damage at every turn. The most significant "change" was during the Southern war for independence. Some in the South called this the second war of independence. The South did not prevail in sustaining the original intent of the American Constitution, of sovereign free States consenting to the limits of Government...as long as Government stayed within those limits.

Americans are not Europeans. We do not like regulation. We do not like restraints. We do not like, and will not tolerate the excess of Government ruling over every detail of our lives for the illusive objective of "common good". Americans know that what is good for each individual is equally good for society. That is uniquely American; a belief that Government is not the master but the servant. Our Founding Fathers deliberately made it difficult to pass laws that effect all States, as they knew of the danger and excess of centralized Government power. Balance of power between three branches is an inefficient form of Government by design. Balance of power, due to those built in inefficiencies preserves freedom by denying absolute power to any tyrant. What endangers that freedom is a Congress and Judiciary that worships the annoited one like an imperial emperior. Once the emperior consolidates power, the allure is much like heroin. Once the tyrant tastes, he's hooked, and it takes blood and revolution to set things right.

The equal branches of Government need to reassert their authority to reestablish the limits of Government. Those limits, or walls, depends on Government branches asserting that authority and maintaining their independence. Likewise States, under the 10th Amendment, must assert their powers to limit the Federal Government. Local Government must in turn limit the power of States. The most power must be centered at the local level, which is closest to to people.

Why is Congress so out of touch with the people? The formulation for country has been tampered with by Progressive Presidents and Congress over our 200 year history. Abraham Lincoln, who centralized Federal authority, thumbed his nose at the Constitution and limits of Federal authority. Since that breach, the power of the Federal Government over States has grown to unmanageable levels.

Its been said by American leaders, to their shame, that America's strength is her diversity. That is the result of years of political correct progressive thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our strength lies with the ideals of one concept....freedom. That I, as an individual, am free to succeed, free to fail, free to love, free to even hate, free to have any opinion or do anything that I please with one caveat....that my freedom doesn't trample the freedom of others. That works until the lawyers come in, and twist words around until they have no meaning at all. In a Democratic society, moral support provided by religion is critical for self Government. The retraints compelled by the All Mighty God, govern our relationships with fellow countrymen. Our first President said the same thing.

This fight for America's heritage will start with debate, but will ultimately end in blood and violence should the Democrat's continue this course. Obama is much like Lincoln, in his desire to be King...recognizing no limits to the power of the Presidency and the Congress. The third war of Indepedence always looms before us.

Traditional Cristian Communities Have Rights Too, In Heaven and On Earth.

These straw man arguments of discrediting community standards by
associating them with church doctrine is getting tiresome.

A Mr. Richard Easton expressed my sentiments on this subject:

" The real problem is the US mythology that religion and government can be
separated. Three propositions prove the point.

(1) All nations must have laws.

(2) All laws try to restrain some "evil", or reinforce some "good" (so all
law, even administrative law, is enacted morality).

(3) All morality depends on beliefs that cannot be subjected to the
scientific method and are, thus, religious beliefs - even if they are
non-theistic.

So government is the process of legislating someone's religious beliefs. The
vital question is whose religious beliefs should underpin our law and
government?"

Community standards define the parameters of that particular communities
values. They are the 'center' of that community, which define an entire host
of limits, priorities, and values. The question is exactly the one Mr.
Easton poses above,."someone's" beliefs are always going to take precedence.

James Madison, a founding father, put it this way, "We have staked the whole
future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We
have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity
of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles
of the Ten Commandments." - James Madison.

The dangers of so-called Christian fundamentalism touted by modern day
secular humanists to American government is a contemptible lie at best, and
hysterical nonsense at worst. Over two hundred years of American Christian
majorities have created the most free and tolerant society in the world. All
law has , as its underpinning, a code of morality . The vast majority (98
percent and I can prove it) of founding fathers were Christians, and our
founding documents ciited the Bible more than any other source. Most
expressed George Washington's sentiments, when he said in an speech in 1796.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man
claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great
pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and
citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect
and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with
private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security
for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation
desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of
justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can
be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of
refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle." - George Washington, Sept. 17, 1796

Once again, to discredit any community standard based on Christian morality
is a pathetic straw man, as all standards and laws are based on "someone's"
morality. Christian morality is as valid as anyone elses. What prefers one
over the other is democracy in action.

All law is based on an underpinning of "someone's" morality. My point is that Judeo-Christian morality is as valid as atheistic, agnostic, pagans, or any other. I think Judeo Christian principles are the foundation of western civilization and far superior to any other. In any case, the Constitution does not prefer one over the other.

Community standards and ordinances that simply establish limits based on the preferences of that community that do not discriminate based on religion, race, gender are perfectly acceptable. I personally choose to accept the standards of the community as a matter of respect, as I have also choosen to live here. If I don't like the community standards, then I can leave. However, if you want the law to change, then campaign for it. Don't make fallacious arguments confusing rightful application of community standards as a 1st Amendment issue. No ones
Constitutional rights are violated for being inconvenienced due to a community standard.

Gingrich-Better Than I Have Ever Seen Him. I call this the "To Arms" speech.

This is a very inspiring speech. Although the starts a little slow, it has a powerful conclusion. No matter how you feel about the Newt, you cannot help but get a large lump in your throat from listening to what I think is the best I've ever heard out of the former Speaker.

Are You a Right Wing Extremist?

I thought I would share a few thoughts on the DHS report on right wing extremism. I've extracted portions of that report (in black text) that are of particular concern to me. My comments are in blue text.

* (U) Right wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

The above statement essentially carries the nefarious threat that if you join groups that support these issues, then you are a potential extremist. Its certainly obvious that the Government worries about the potential for these groups to radicalize and attack particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups. Somehow, maybe I’m just a little cynical, that they have little concern about Muslim organizations attacking Christians here.

— (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to right wing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that right wing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities.

Yes, America has much more to fear from returning combat veterans than Islamic terrorists pouring across the Mexican border. Doesn’t this sound like a line out of the Code Pink handbook, that those who risk life and limb to defend America are its greatest risk? God help us if we have people in ‘our’ Government who actually ‘think’ like this.

(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization
tool.

I liked the language discussing the 2nd Amendment, that the "precise contours of that right" are debatable. Unbelievable. Taking away Americans Constitutional right to bear arms will always be hotly contested. Federal infringement on the 10th Amendment (States Rights) was hotly contested in 1861, and will be in 2012. The liberal judiciary seems to believe they can simply change the Constitution’s meaning by legal opinion, rather than going to the bother of ratifying changes or new amendments. Yes, tyranny will always be hotly contested in the United States of America. The day it isn’t, then it isn’t America anymore.

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in right wing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive right wing extremist radicalization.

I think my fellow Americans, we need to start working with our own grassroots organizations to ascertain the rise of leftwing extremism in DHS, and develop strategies to mitigate these internal threats to American liberty and economic freedom.

(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov.

You might want to give DHS a few suggestions. Read the entire report here.

Homosexuality, Iowa, and the March of Altruism

Homosexuality is a psycho-sexual disorder. Some have looked into the background of homosexual males, and have found some commonality. Three things stand out: 1. Raised in a family with a passive or submissive father, 2. A dominate mother, 3. A child with a high degree of sensitivity (defined as strong reaction to outside stimuli, positive or negative). Some children are much more sensitive than others and it’s an unexplained personality trait in individual children, although I’m sure there are various theories. These three things, coupled together, set the stage or potential for homosexuality to take root. No one yet knows why males coming from these circumstances tend to display such proclivity for same sex attraction. It could be a coping mechanism to reduce anxiety, as asserting dominance in a typical male role can often create conflict and tension that sensitive males find frightening and uncomfortable. Perhaps retreating into a ‘Gay’ identity provides some refuge or relief from these anxieties, and why those so afflicted cling so desperately to this identity. I should caveat that due to social pressure, sometimes homosexual males camouflage their behavior in public to avoid scorn. Some are more comfortable, and outwardly express their identities in manner of speech, dress, and general demeanor. I don’t hold the belief that sexual preference is necessarily innate, as many kinds of experiences, circumstances, and socialization can impact ones application of ‘self’ as a sexual being. Yes, nature certainly plays a roll in sexual proclivity as well, but external stimuli all weigh-in to potentially alter nature’s call. The intelligent human being has the ability to restrain or act out sexual behavior in any way they choose. Yes, we all have proclivities. Everyone does. Compulsions can be very strong, some say irresistible, and need to be addressed with treatment…as some are very destructive. Of course, these three conditions discussed above do not account for all cases of homosexual behavior, but I am simply stating that many male homosexuals have many or most of these factors in their respective backgrounds.

These personality traits, generally develop between the ages of 2 and 5. This is the reason it’s so difficult to treat, because these coping mechanisms have been reinforced over a lifetime. There have been some reparative therapies that have been successful for passive homosexuals. The starting point of homosexual reparative therapy is the realization of a problem. An alcoholic or addict will not stop drinking or using until they recognize there is a problem. Most doctors, taking a political position these days, are now unwilling to call homosexuality a disorder. There are few places for these people to go other than to believe this Gay identity is what their stuck with. This has hyper-politicized the issue further, and why the natural progression of this is to create (from thin air) an issue of civil rights…for what would be otherwise be a recognized sexual proclivity disorder (not a race, gender, creed, or religion issue).

There rests the dilemma…that we are told that we have no choice but to accept that homosexual behaviors are normal… regardless of the fact that our own biology screams that it is not. Homosexual sex is an unhealthy practice and lifestyle. Homosexual men especially, have a life expectancy of males in third world societies. It is a high risk sexual behavior that can have deadly consequences. Saying this is normal or good is not my definition of compassion, if thats what this bonehead judge in Iowa thought he was demonstrating.

Younger people, who are otherwise normal adolescents, unfortunately, have been encouraged to experiment by many voices in society they trust (friends, teachers, celebrities, politicians, etc). However, this sexual experimentation has lead to homosexual techniques practiced in the heterosexual community, between men and women, which are equally unhealthy. We are seeing manifestations of this experimentation causing a wider diversification of sexual practices and perversions in all communities… that are not conducive to a healthy society…either physically or mentally.

I have also read postings by homosexual apologists that the growing divorce rate is an indication that marriage is no longer a viable institution in our society (and that's a defense of homosexual marriage...I don't get it). That view has as much cynicism attached to it as pouring pollution into a river, then saying the water is no longer fit to drink. The failure of marriage is symptomatic of this growing sexual immorality that is rapidly spreading throughout the country. If we, as a nation, do not uphold marriage as the ideal institution for the preservation of the next generation, then I fear what America will look like in the next 100 years. Children, with two parents of the opposite sex, born into the security of a nurturing loving home, taught Judeo-Christian moral values to keep them healthy and viable, are the best option for a strong Nation.

Others disagree. Liberals, and even some well meaning people believe supporting the Gay agenda is compassionate, but by doing so unwittingly plant the seeds of their society’s destruction. Once the currency of their Christian heritage is lost forever, and it’s replaced with secular altruism, it’s finished....done. History is replete with the cruelty and destruction caused by man’s faith in his own goodness (Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Amin, Chavez, and Liberal Federal Judges), all worshiping in their church of altruism. The only boundaries they have are in their own judgments, and their own moral sense of right and wrong. There is no higher authority in the Church of Altruism…I’m it…its ME…I’m the King. So much for the American experiment.

We Americans need to think more about Unalienable Rights, and what that means. Our Creator endowed to us (as Stated in the Declaration of Independence), Unalienable Rights, that no Dictator, King, State, or Principality can abridge or remove. I wish someone would tell this to the altruistic judges of the Federal Court, who believes both the Ten Commandments and the Constitution, are subject to any modification using any strain of tortured logic to interpret and create new rights without a legislative process. Why not do away with legislature and executive branch, the Constitution...lets just do away with elections and representative government entirely...and let the judge decide...everything. That won't send us to hell, but we'll get there faster.

Time for Another Revolution

by Frank Chodorov

[From One is a Crowd, by Frank Chodorov, 1952.]


The Basic Social Struggle

The Founding Fathers forged well. Putting aside what it might have been, the Constitution did pay homage to the doctrine of natural rights. It did so by the simple expedient of putting restraints and limitations on the powers of government. We learn from their published statements that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to prevent the despised "democrats," should they come into power, from using it for spoliation. They were quite forthright about it, and not a little could be said in favor of their thesis. In recent years the "mob" they feared has indeed come into power and the result seems to support the contention of Madison, Adams, and Hamilton.

read entire article here.

Its difficult to believe this was written in 1952, it sounds more contemporary.