Church and State - Gotta Keep 'Em Separated?

Christy Jenkins

What do the phrases ‘separation of church and state’ and ‘power to the people’ have in common? Neither one is mentioned in the Constitution. The difference between the phrases is that society assumes the first phrase is a law, while the second is just a slogan.

Today, this well-known phrase is used every time a religious issue surfaces in government. It’s assumed to be a part of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence because it’s misrepresented by the media as a law of the land, similar to freedom of speech or the right to vote. Separation of church and state is NOT an amendment, a right, a law, or a statute of our country.

Brief History
There was a Baptist congregation in Danbury, Connecticut, who wrote to President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. They were concerned that a state or national religion would be established, and they would no longer be able to worship God as they wanted. Many had left England due to religious persecution, and they naturally wanted assurances from Jefferson that it wouldn’t happen again. He wrote back to the congregation, assuring them that there was a wall separating the church and the state, and they were in no danger of being persecuted by the government. The phrase was later quoted by the Supreme Court, and over the years it’s become an anthem for those looking to eradicate all mention of religion in a public setting.

[On a side note, can you imagine our President today actually taking the time to respond to concerns from a small Baptist congregation located in a state that’s got only 7 electoral votes? Unless it’s part of a carefully planned publicity stunt on the campaign trail during an election year, you’ll never see the President truly pay attention to the needs of the common man. Lobbyists, billionaires, and celebrities get face time with the powerful people in DC, and middle-class citizens are relegated to receiving scripted speeches written by others, below-par education systems, higher taxes, and increasing unemployment rates.]

The message of Jefferson‘s letter was that the authority of the church and the state should remain separated. The government wasn’t to have authority over churches, and the church wasn’t to have authority over the government - they were each autonomous institutions. In other words, The President of the US doesn’t have authority to order the Presbyterian Church to change their beliefs. Likewise, the Pope doesn’t have the power to impose a property tax on US citizens. Jefferson was reiterating that there would be freedom of religion, but secularists misuse his words now to promote freedom from religion.

Here’s a modern-day, real-life example of the principle Jefferson was referring to – Consider a married couple who is legally separated or divorced. The legal separation means that the wife and husband are now leading separate lives – the wife doesn’t have authority over her husband’s life, and vice versa (i.e., they are autonomous). Does it mean that they can never have any interaction with each other? Not at all. Any divorced couple with children can attest to the fact that their ‘separate’ lives will still overlap – the ‘separation’ means that one no longer has any say-so in the life of the other. It’s the same with the separation of church and state – it doesn’t mean that religion and government must be completely separate with absolutely no overlap. It simply means we can’t use the state to control the church, and we can’t use the church to control the state.

Critics may point out that the letter was penned by President Jefferson, and therefore was a reflection of the government’s stance on religion and the state. That would be a good argument IF the writings of our Founding Fathers (including Thomas Jefferson) didn’t frequently refer to God, a Creator, an Almighty Being, etc. Even official government documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, as well as a majority of state constitutions, openly reference a (gasp!) higher power. These men supported freedom of religion, but still found it appropriate to mention higher powers in federal documents, inaugural speeches, etc. Today, there are people who ignore the countless words of our Founding Fathers and blindly cling to one vague metaphor written by one man to one congregation in one personal letter.

Lesson for Today
Just because a phrase is familiar doesn’t mean it’s factual. If someone presents you with an argument, research it, even if it sounds like they might be right. Our society loves convenience, and being properly informed on an issue isn’t always convenient. The next time someone throws out the phrase ‘separation of church and state’, be sure to question them. Do they really understand the origin and meaning of the phrase, or are they simply repeating what they heard on TV? Watching an episode of ‘Law and Order’ doesn’t make you a lawyer, just like watching CNN doesn’t make you an informed citizen. Instead of relying on arrogant pseudo-intellectuals in the media to tell you what the Constitution says, go to your local library and look it up yourself.

People are always complaining that America has so many problems, and we’re failing as a nation – ignorance is one of the biggest reasons why. This article highlights just one very small example of how being ignorant on an issue can have far-reaching, dire consequences for years to come. We’re in danger of having the mention of God eliminated from our society simply because one well-intentioned, human being took the time to reiterate the concept of freedom of religion in a letter.

ADAM AND STEVE AND HIV

Kelly Epperson

As Americans, we owe immense gratitude to our government. Our political leaders seek to protect us from foreign threats (except terrorists, illegal immigration, and Islamic extremists), and now they seek to protect us from ourselves! The government has discovered what terrible lifestyles we lead, and it is determined to eliminate them. We eat too much salt, use too much oil, emit too much carbon, make too much money, and the list continues. There is one “lifestyle,” however, that the government has not attacked. In fact, the media openly encourages it by glamorizing it in TV programs. The “lifestyle” of homosexuality has had severe consequences for society, and yet those who would criticize it are called bigots or homophobes. Saying that homosexuality is morally wrong would send thousands of San Franciscans into a riot and make Barney Frank shake in his Dolce & Gabbana shoes. When we understand that homosexuality is a choice, and that choice has negative outcomes, we realize that homosexuality should not be encouraged, but rather exposed for the abomination that it is.

Homosexuality: nature or nurture?

Logically, if homosexuality is purely genetic, it is determined solely by DNA. For this reason, a set of identical twins should have the same sexual orientation. They should both be heterosexual or both be homosexual. Interestingly, the largest and most recent study conducted on homosexuality in twins found that only 52% of identical twins have the same sexual orientation. If homosexuality is genetic, that percent should be 100%. This fact alone disproves that homosexuality is genetic. Furthermore, species are designed to reproduce. Traits that diminish reproduction (or the desire to reproduce) are not called a minority, they’re called mutations.

Negative outcomes of homosexuality

1. Decrease in reproduction
While supporters of homosexuality would argue most ardently that gay marriage is just as valid as heterosexual marriage, they leave out an important component of marriage: CHILDREN! Heterosexual couples can reproduce, whereas a gay couple have never and will never be able to reproduce naturally; thus, homosexuality is, by its very definition, against nature. Gay activists will wring their hands and say that “One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness” (1964). If everyone became left-handed, though, we would just need to change scissors and baseball gloves. If everyone became homosexual, it would wipe out the entire human race. See a difference?

2. Increase in the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases
Currently, in the United States alone, there are over 1 million diagnosed with HIV, and almost 500,000 diagnosed with AIDS, the deadly disease that is caused by the HIV virus. Of those diagnosed with AIDS, over 75% are male, and almost two-thirds became infected through male-to-male sexual contact. The gay activists do not like to be bothered with such irrelevant things as facts. They just want to have their public, exhibitionist parades in peace. Isn’t that what we all want?

The fact is, promiscuity is higher among homosexuals, and there are plenty of statistics to support this claim. One study found that 85% of married females and 75% of married males report sexual fidelity in their marriages, while only 4.5% of homosexual males report fidelity in their relationships. Furthermore, a study done by Bell and Weinberg found that 43% of male white homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners, and 28% had over 1000. What does this mean? It means that HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are much more likely to be spread in the homosexual culture of sexual activity. It also means that homosexuality is literally killing thousands of people each year. Where is our government to protect us now?

What does the Word of God say?
“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” Romans 1:26-28(NKJV). There is no room for private interpretation. God condemns homosexuality, and we must do the same.

The debate of homosexuality is critical for the future morality of our nation , and we must do our own research. Do not look to ABC or Rosie O’Donnell to decide for you. Find the truth, learn it, and speak it in love.

Want to find more statistics on homosexuality? Please visit:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227
http://www.avert.org

BASIC BELIEFS OF HUMANISM (PART 2)

BILL PRUETT

In the first article about Humanism, we surveyed the five basic beliefs identified by Jim L. Smith in his book, One Nation Under God or Man?: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Humanism. Those beliefs were Atheism, Evolution, Amorality, Autonomy, and One Socialist World-Wide Government.

The five following beliefs will help more clearly define the Humanism we face today. When we know the Humanist’s underlying belief system, we know our opponent, which is key to victory.

Statism
Statism is the belief in the power of the state versus the power of the individual. Therefore, by its very definition, statism supports the taking away of freedom from individuals and vesting such power in the state. Statists invariably believe they are taking away these freedoms “for the good of the people.” This idea is what makes them so dangerous. They actually believe they have a core-level obligation to take away our freedoms, “for our own good.”

If Socialists accept this false premise, they can justify anything! Their first premise is wrong! It is morally wrong! It violates the natural, unalienable rights of man endowed on him by his Creator! It destroys the idea that all men are created equal! Statism is diametrically opposed to Individualism, which cries out “Power to the People!” Individualism believes that the people should have the most power possible and surrender to the State only those powers which are necessary.

Every dictator devoted to Fascism, Socialism, Communism and every other totalitarian form of government has been a Statist. One would think the Twentieth Century would have taught Americans a lesson about Statism. If one were to rank the great murderers in history, undoubtedly Adolf Hitler, Vladimar Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot would all be in the top ten. They all lived in the last century and they all were Statists to the core. They all rose to power “for the good of the people.”

Statists reject the natural rights of man from God and believe man’s rights come from the State. They believe the State must be ruled by the liberal elite, for they know best what is “for the good of the people.”

Utopianism
Utopianism is the belief that every individual is good and society must bring out that good in each person. If a person behaves badly, they are not individually responsible, but rather it is society which has failed them. This leads Utopianists to believe that, because every man is inherently good, society can make a perfect society at some point. If the “best and brightest” individuals [defined as “liberal elites, social progressives, etc.”] control the state, then the State will maximize the good life for all of the good people.

Moral Relativity
While Statism removes all freedom from the individual, Utopianism removes all responsibility from the individual. The only responsibility the individual has at this point is his duty to the state. This duty to the state supersedes all other responsibilities because the State is his protector, his defender, indeed, his lord. Humanist beliefs have erased God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, man’s soul, natural rights, and morality. Humanists’ morality becomes a definition of whatever is “useful to the State” because the State is the only source of law and morals for people that reject God.

Reject Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system that is based on individual free choice and responsibility. If the individual is not free, capitalism cannot exist. The market forces of supply and demand will not work if the individual is not free to make choices. Similarly, if the individual is never rewarded for his choices, the result is not capitalism. In socialism, for instance, a person who willfully refuses to work and one who works very hard will both share in the fruits of the labor of the one.

Because capitalism requires free individuals to make up a free market, it is anathema to every Atheist, Statist, Utopian, Totalitarian, Socialist and Communist. These beliefs reject the idea of free individuals with natural rights from their Creator. Capitalism is an economic system for those who believe in Individualism because it is driven by individuals who are free to choose. As such, it is a threat to the Statist and Socialist goals of Humanists.

Reject Majority Rule
Humanists reject majority rule because it puts power in the hands of the individual citizens, instead of the state. Humanists do not believe the ignorant masses know how to govern themselves and they must rule us “for our own good.” They need to determine what is politically correct and what is not. Because they do not trust the ignorant masses, they do not believe in the voting process.

In America today, Humanists circumvent the voting process by Humanist Supreme Court Justices voting to ban school prayer, legalize abortion on demand in all 50 states, or legally discriminate in the name of Affirmative Action. The will of the people was disregarded in each of these cases and many others. Why? Because the liberal elite know better than the ignorant masses. Rather than amend the U.S. Constitution in the legal process requiring approval of both Congress and the states, Humanists have found it much easier to control 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justice positions. In that way, they do not have to submit to “will of the people.”

Excessive regulation is another way to take governance away from the electorate. Congress is elected by the people. Bureaucrats are not. We have seen bureaucrats making law by making regulations so excessive that no one can know for sure what the law is. This puts the bureaucracy in the role of deciding who is guilty of violating the law and who is not. Congress loses power in this process and thus, so do the people.

When you consider the beliefs of Humanism, you see the slippery slope that descends from the first false step of Atheism. When Christians realize the other beliefs of Humanism are necessarily resting upon Satan’s foundation of Atheism, only then will we realize the logical connection of these beliefs. We must oppose them, one and all!

For This We Are Truly Thankful

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.


Thanksgiving Day 2010
November 23, 2010
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
A beloved American tradition, Thanksgiving Day offers us the opportunity to focus our thoughts on the grace that has been extended to our people and our country. This spirit brought together the newly arrived Pilgrims and the Wampanoag tribe -- who had been living and thriving around Plymouth, Massachusetts for thousands of years -- in an autumn harvest feast centuries ago. This Thanksgiving Day, we reflect on the compassion and contributions of Native Americans, whose skill in agriculture helped the early colonists survive, and whose rich culture continues to add to our Nation's heritage. We also pause our normal pursuits on this day and join in a spirit of fellowship and gratitude for the year's bounties and blessings.
Thanksgiving Day is a time each year, dating back to our founding, when we lay aside the troubles and disagreements of the day and bow our heads in humble recognition of the providence bestowed upon our Nation. Amidst the uncertainty of a fledgling experiment in democracy, President George Washington declared the first Thanksgiving in America, recounting the blessings of tranquility, union, and plenty that shined upon our young country. In the dark days of the Civil War when the fate of our Union was in doubt, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a Thanksgiving Day, calling for "the Almighty hand" to heal and restore our Nation.
In confronting the challenges of our day, we must draw strength from the resolve of previous generations who faced their own struggles and take comfort in knowing a brighter day has always dawned on our great land. As we stand at the close of one year and look to the promise of the next, we lift up our hearts in gratitude to God for our many blessings, for one another, and for our Nation. This Thanksgiving Day, we remember that the freedoms and security we enjoy as Americans are protected by the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces. These patriots are willing to lay down their lives in our defense, and they and their families deserve our profound gratitude for their service and sacrifice.
This harvest season, we are also reminded of those experiencing the pangs of hunger or the hardship of economic insecurity. Let us return the kindness and generosity we have seen throughout the year by helping our fellow citizens weather the storms of our day.
As Americans gather for the time-honored Thanksgiving Day meal, let us rejoice in the abundance that graces our tables, in the simple gifts that mark our days, in the loved ones who enrich our lives, and in the gifts of a gracious God. Let us recall that our forebears met their challenges with hope and an unfailing spirit, and let us resolve to do the same.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 25, 2010, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all the people of the United States to come together -- whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place of fellowship for friends and neighbors -- to give thanks for all we have received in the past year, to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own, and to share our bounty with others.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.
BARACK OBAMA

Mr Obama, you state we should lift our hearts in gratitude to God for our many blessings. If you know this, then you must also know we cannot continue to dismiss how He expects us to behave as individuals and as a nation and expect His blessings to remain. He expects us to honor, glorify and OBEY Him continually. YES WE CAN!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone, and God Bless the United States of America!

FREEDOM...BACK IN THE DAY II

In 1962, WAY back in the day, I began my formal education at McCloud Elementary School in Jackson, Mississippi. My teacher was Mrs. Grace Mauldin. She reminded me of my maternal grandmother. As we countrified people say, she was a big boned woman. She wore plain dresses and shoes. Remember those plain, black, lace up that older women of that day wore? Most of you younger folks have only seen these in pictures. She could be nurturing and, in the blink of an eye, all over you like white on rice if you failed to meet her expectations. She was exactly the type of teacher I needed.

One of the requirements of the class was to memorize, and be able to recite in class, two passages contained in the best selling book ever printed…The Bible. We were required to learn the 23rd and 100th Psalms. There was no instruction as to what these words meant or how much importance we should place on them. It was simply an assignment to get us to exercise our minds. What might surprise you is that NO ONE complained! Would that be the case today?

I doubt it. The ACLU, Freedom From Religion and every Federal Judge in the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would be screaming about their favorite sacred cow, separation of church and state. Of course, their diatribe would include how every individual that practices any religion other than Christianity, including atheism, is made to feel inferior, even outcast, when subjected to the injustice of memorizing words from the Bible. Mind you, no instruction whether to accept or reject the concepts of it is provided or required…just to memorize the words to exercise the mind. Think this sounds far fetched?

In 1928, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed a law which stated, “At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day. Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of his parent or guardian.” On February 27, 1963, some 35 YEARS after passing, the US Supreme Court was asked to rule in the case of the School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, who contested the constitutionality of the law.

Edward Lewis Schempp, his wife, Sidney, and their children, Roger and Donna, were Unitarians. They attended the Unitarian Church of Germantown, Philadelphia, PA. The children attended Abington High School. Each day, between 8:15 and 8:30am, students under the supervision of a teacher, would select 10 Bible verses and read them over the intercom system. This was followed by recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and flag salute. There were no questions asked, no comments or explanations made and no interpretations given. Participation was voluntary, a fact known by the parents as well as the students. Mr. Schempp and his children testified as to “specific religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible which were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held, and to their familial teaching."

The children testified to doctrines which were read to them at various times as a part of the exercises. Mr. Schempp also testified he considered having the children excused from these exercises but decided against it, fearing their relationships with classmates and teachers would be adversely affected.

Dr. Lewis A. Weigle, an expert witness for the defense, stated the Bible was non-sectarian. He also stated the Bible was of great moral, historical and literary value, a point “conceded by all the parties, and is also the view of the court.” (I guess this is a good reason to not to read it…?)

The great majority of the remainder of the court’s ruling pertains to previous rulings regarding religious issues. We will look at more of these in the days to come. It appears that each time, the Bible and Christian based values took it on the chin. Oh, by the way, the court ruled in favor of the Schempp’s… and this law, which had been on the books for 35 years, was struck down as unconstitutional.

When reading the following statement made by the court, I wonder how they could come to such a conclusion.

In Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952), we gave specific recognition to the proposition that "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself. This background is evidenced today in our public life through the continuance in our oaths of office from the Presidency to the Alderman of the final supplication, "So help me God." Likewise, each House of the Congress provides through its Chaplain an opening prayer, and the sessions of this Court are declared open by the crier in a short ceremony, the final phrase of which invokes the grace of God. Again, there are such manifestations in our military forces, where those of our citizens who are under the restrictions of military service wish to engage in voluntary worship. Indeed, only last year, an official survey of the country indicated that 64% of our people have church membership, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States (83d ed.1962), 48, while less than 30% profess no religion whatever. Id. at p. 46. It can be truly said, therefore, that today, as in the beginning, our national life reflects a religious people who, in the words of Madison, are
earnestly praying, as . . . in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe . . . guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing. . . ].

That was Freedom...back in the day!

"I Don't Know But It Seems To Me . . ."

I don't know but it seems to me . . .
     - The election on November 2 was a landslide.  On TV, the U.S. map in red and blue told the story.  Except for small pockets, Democratic wins were in the Northeast and the West Coast.  I wonder if that is because those two regions are already Socialistic?

     - When the Republicans lost 20-30 House seats in 2006 and 2008, they couldn't help but admit they had failed to lead as the American people wanted.  The American people did not embrace the Republicans as Florida's Senator-elect Marco Rubio pointed out in his acceptance speech.  The American people rejected the Democrats and Obama's Socialist agenda, spearheaded by Obamacare.  The Republicans have a second chance.

     - The Democrats are refusing to admit they failed to lead as the American citizenry wanted.  Rather, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are steadfastly maintaining they achieved great things in the last two years.  The President attributes the historic Democratic losses to his preoccupation with achieving great things and his failure to communicate those achievements to the American people.  Huh?  The losses are a repudiation of his pursuit of Socialist policies, while ignoring the number one task of job creation.  

     - If Nancy Pelosi is elected as House Minority Leader by the Democrats, it will be proof the Democrats "don't get it."  Pelosi and Harry Reid became the faces for this election defeat on the part of those who were afraid of being called racists if they criticized Obama.  Through it all, Nancy's smile never left her face.  In fact, I have never seen it move, period!

     - The Republicans will control spending this time around or there won't be another chance.  If they don't succeed this time, the Tea Party will replace them as the conservative party in this country.  People want change and they don't care what the party label is to get it.

     - It seems to me a little hypocritical for the ultra-liberal AARP leadership to work tirelessly for the passage of Obamacare and now, within 48 hours of the election, raise health insurance premiums up to 13% on its employees because of health care reform.  The Association told everyone that Obamacare would not raise costs.  The millions of members of AARP would have liked to have known the truth before the election!  Luckily, apparently many of them just knew from good ol' common sense.  There are alternatives available to AARP and "mature"conservatives like me, should join them.

     - The worst news of the week?  The Federal Reserve is up to its old tricks.  It is devaluing every dollar in your pocket, your bank account and your retirement funds, by buying $600 billion of Treasury Bonds and rolling over another $275 billion maturing from the last round of $862 billion of "runaway non-stimulus."  This money is being "printed up" as you read this.  There is no value supporting this increase in the money supply so it cheapens every dollar around the world.  The Fed is buying the Treasury Bonds because, after the last two years, no one else sees the value in supporting Uncle Sam's spending addiction.

     - Keep an eye on whether Ron Paul, Republican Congressman from Texas, is given Chairmanship of the Subcommittee overseeing the Federal Reserve.  If he is named to that post, then House Republicans are serious about financial reform of the Fed.  If not, you know we are being played yet again.

I don't know, but that is how it seems to me!
 

 

BASIC BELIEFS OF HUMANISM

BILL PRUETT

Witnessing the moral decline of America in your lifetime, the question that inevitably comes to mind is, “How has this happened?”  The answers are many and varied because it is difficult to summarize them in one answer.  The topic of this article is that one answer – Humanism.  Humanism is a philosophy and a religion that has America in a moral stranglehold.  Bible believers have begun to fight back against Humanists and the outcome of that culture war will determine the future of our children and grandchildren.

What is Humanism?  If it has done so much damage, every American must be able to recognize it.  To do so, we have to look beneath the surface and see the beliefs of Humanism that are underlying the verbal misdirection we receive each day from politicians, media, etc.

Jim Smith, in his book, One Nation Under God or Man?, identified five basic beliefs of Humanism:

-       Atheism – the belief there is no God.

-       Evolution – the belief the world came from nothing and there is no Creator.

-       Amorality – the belief that there are no absolute morals.  Morals are man-made, relative, and subjective.

-       Autonomy – the belief that “man rules the world” with no God to guide him, or interfere with him.

-       One World Wide, Socialist Government – the belief and goal that a global ruling class could solve the world’s problems through man’s great intelligence, science and reason.  There would be no nations and no national boundaries but one world wide government with sovereignty and rule over the United States and every country in the world.

Atheism is the one foundational belief of Humanism.  The Humanist is an Atheist or he is not truly a Humanist because the philosophy is rooted and grounded in a rejection of Almighty God.  The other four beliefs above get their major premise from Atheism. Man must reject God first and then he will adopt Humanism.  If God is, and He is, then Humanism is a “house of cards in a hurricane.” 

Evolution has been heralded as the truth in science since the days of Charles Darwin and his Origin of Species in 1859.  Rather, evolution is simply Atheism in science and the classroom.  The tale of this world creating itself is constantly changing because evolutionists and Atheists cannot explain our origins without a Creator.  They don’t know if we came from a single-celled organism (or how it was created!), primordial slime (or how it was created!), or an ape (or how it was created!), or a big bang (or how it was created!), or black holes ( or how they were created?!).  The only thing, the only thing, the Atheist knows about Creation is that God did not do it!  They are clueless how it happened but they know God did not do it!  They reject Absolute Truth, but they ABSOLUTELY know that God did not create the universe!  I think they surmised that from a “big bang” caused by an “ape” throwing a “fossil” around in “a black hole.”

Amorality is the belief that absolute morals do not exist.  Amorality is not morality or immorality.  It is a belief that there are no fixed morals.  Men are left to choose their own morals, which are thus relative, not absolute.  Killing six million Jews in gas chambers was moral to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.  Yet, if God does not exist, there is no fixed, absolute moral transgression of their acts.  Amorality is the only consistent position of the Atheist when it comes to ethics and morals because you can’t evolve morals out of a "black hole"!  When Atheists assume God away, why not put themselves in charge?

Autonomy is yet another extension of Atheism.  It states that “man rules the world” and he does not look to the fictional God of Christians for guidance.  Bible believers have a moral code by which we live.  The autonomy of man is simply Atheism teaching that man has no spiritual constraints on him.  Autonomy is a logical result of Atheism because the desire for autonomy is why man rejects God, without a clue how else the world was created.

One World Wide, Socialist Government is a goal of Humanism that Americans should realize has a full head of steam.  The United Nations has become more of an experiment in global governance than global diplomacy.   The Humanist liberal elites in America, nice and "comfy" in the Democratic Party, have claimed environmentalism, climate control, energy, cap and trade, population control, family planning, gun control, etc. as issues that require the blessing of the international court of opinion, rather than the U.S. Congress.  We have Supreme Court Justices looking to international law for authority when they swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution.  Humanists are Statists and chose Socialism as their preferred form of government in the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 because of its potential for unlimited power.  If they cannot achieve their agenda in America at the polls, the citizens will be coerced by an ever-growing federal government and judiciary.  When the people are under subjection, then a transfer to a global government will be completed.

A subsequent article, “Secondary Beliefs of Humanism”, will look at some beliefs built on Atheism that endanger the founding principles of America and the future of our children.

THE VOICE OF MY CHILDREN’S BLOOD

Kelly Epperson

November 4, 2010

Since 1973, the United States has seen approximately 50 million of its children killed in the most inhumane ways. They have had their bodies mutilated by metal instruments, burned and suffocated by saline solutions, and had their brains sucked out by vacuums. In fact, these brutal methods of murder are legal, in the form of abortion.

“REASONS” FOR ALLOWING ABORTION
1. It’s the woman’s body, so it’s her choice. Really? Then the government should also legalize prostitution, marijuana, cocaine, meth, and other “recreational drugs.” Pro-choice activists are not having rallies to protest a woman’s right to mutilate and sell her body. No, they just want a woman to be able to mutilate the growing child inside of her body. Logically, if abortion is solely the woman’s choice, then two other propositions must also be true: 1) The father has no say in the abortion because it is not his body, meaning that a married woman could abort a child without her husband’s knowledge or consent. 2) A woman can make the choice to abort for whatever reason. A woman could murder her child simply because of its gender (as they have done to 400 million children in China since 1979), because of physical disabilities, or because she “doesn’t feel like getting fat.” The fact is, a woman does have a choice, and she makes that choice when she has sex. Abortion does not destroy her body; it destroys the body inside of her.

2. What about a young girl who is the victim of incest, or a woman who was raped? Pro-death, I mean, pro-choice people love to challenge the opposition with this question. They conveniently leave out the fact that less than 1% of the abortions performed each year in the U.S. are because of rape/incest. Furthermore, an abortion does not undo the incest or the rape; it merely murders the unborn child. Ironically, the victim would go to jail if she decided to kill the guilty rapist, but she would walk free if she killed the innocent child, who committed no crime. How is that for justice?

Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent of pregnant rape victims chose against abortion. The top two reasons given for having an abortion are: 1) having a baby would interfere with school, work, etc., and 2) they cannot afford a child. 99% of abortions occur not because of tragic, external circumstances, but because the woman does not want to deal with the inconvenient consequences of her choice to have sex.

3. You cannot legislate morality. This is by far the most pathetic excuse, typically given by someone who is too cowardly to stand up to militant abortion supporters. The fact is, if you cannot legislate morality, you cannot legislate at all. Morality is the idea of right and wrong, of how we as humans should conduct ourselves. The very purpose of law is to legislate morality! That is why it is illegal in this country to steal, to commit prostitution, or to murder (except in the case of the unborn child).

THE UNTOLD STORY
What the liberals and Planned Parenthood are not telling you is that 80% of abortions are conducted on unmarried women. Over half the women who have abortions report that they used contraception during the month they conceived. Don’t you wish there was a 100% effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancies for unmarried women? Hmm, let me think….

What does our Creator say? “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” (Jeremiah 1:5 NKJV). God is the Creator of life, and He designed that life to begin at conception. As a nation, we have caused our sons and daughters to “pass through the fire to Molech,” and we have sacrificed our children to serve the god of self. These children are innocent, and the voice of their blood is crying out to God, and to this nation. We must listen before it is too late.

The face of the innocent victim: http://anti-abortion.info/ (Warning: Graphic)
1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69. 2
2 http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html
3http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

FREEDOM...BACK IN THE DAY

Eric Willis

That's how we describe something or a situation or environment that once existed but is no longer around...case in point, "Back in the day, Johnny U was the MAN! I mean, the Colts had Ray Berry, John Mackey and Lennie Moore, and they were good, but Johnny U was the MAN, back in the day!" Well, now Peyton is the MAN for the Colts, the INDIANAPOLIS Colts (for those of you who don't know, they used to be in Baltimore. I sometimes forget they moved). I'm down with Dallas Clark, Reggie Wayne and Joe Addai but PEYTON is the MAN! The more things change, right?

Or is it?

Back in the day, no one thought that starting a day at school with a prayer to God could be seen as anything but a good thing. Acknowledging that all good things come from Him and that we depend on Him to get us through the day seemed to be the right thing to do. Freedom to pray at school was a good thing...but then we learned just how ignorant we'd been.

In the Union Free School District No. 9 in Hyde Park, New York, each class used to begin EACH day by praying, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country" I can see how some could be terrified of the consequences by allowing this practice to continue. They must have thought, " Who knows where this could lead? Next thing you know, they'll ACTUALLY suggest reading the BIBLE might be a GOOD THING! Our children must be protected from the unenlightened. This is a violation of the sacred separation of Church and state and we must stop it...but, HOW?"

LOOK! It's a bird, it's a plane it's...the United States Supreme Court! Back in the day, 1962 to be exact, the USSC ruled that the school district had violated the First Amendment by causing the prayer to be recited in the presence of a TEACHER. By doing this, said the court, this constituted an unconstitutional (I know, I know...give me a break, I'm not a pro) state establishment of religion and was, therefore, illegal. Just think about what kind of freedom we'd have if these men hadn't stepped in...huh?

Fast forward, back in the day, to the year 2000. Remember getting ready for Y2K? Life as we knew it would be no more. No one knew how computers would react going from 1999 to 2000. Since everything was, and is, controlled by computers, we filled up our bath tubs and bought grosses of bottled water 'cause the treatment systems might quit. We took all our money out of the bank just in case all those ATM's stopped working. But we could take comfort in the fact that the US government would be up and running, continuing to look out for our freedom?

How's that workin' out for us?

Fact is, the Supreme Court was Y2KO'd. In the Santa Fe Independent School District vs Doe case, prayer in public schools was again addressed. This time, the issue was prayer before football games. It seems that a student, selected by student body members, would address the players and spectators before a game. These addresses, which usually contained a prayer, were conducted over the school's loud speakers. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school, arguing the prayer violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The school argued that since the prayer was student initiated and led, it did not violate the amendment. The Court disagreed, stating it WAS a violation because the loudspeakers used by the students for their prayers were owned by the school!

But, wait...if the loudspeakers are owned by the school, and the school is a part of the government, and We the People CHOSE individuals to REPRESENT us in the spirit of government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE, and we think it's good that our children pray at school, THEN WHY CAN"T THEY DO IT?! Our government would never go against the will of We the People. Would it? Do we not live in a country where the government we elected ALWAYS reflects the will of the people and looks out for our freedom?

Or,...was that back in the day, too?

Don't go 'way for long, folks, I'm just gettin' started. More to come about Freedom...Back in the Day.

IT'S ALL RELATIVE... OR IS IT?

Kelly Epperson

During World War II, the Nazis murdered approximately 6 million Jews and anywhere from 5 to 11 million others, including people with mental and physical disabilities, Polish civilians, Romanians, and political and religious opponents.  Their methods included slave labor at concentration camps, starvation, mass shootings, and gas chambers, where the victims were locked into a “shower” before being doused in toxic gas.  Rudolf Höß, a commandant at one of the extermination camps, said that “the foul and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area...”(Nuremburg Trials, 1946)  What we know as the Holocaust is one of the largest genocides recorded in history. 

But I can’t say it was morally wrong.

While a large number of people would be shocked at that statement, that group does not include those who believe in moral relativism, which is the belief that there is no absolute and universal moral standard by which to judge others.  According to one professor in upstate New York, “10 to 20 percent of his students could not bring themselves to criticize the Nazi extermination of Europe’s Jews” because “no culture can be judged from the outside and no individual can challenge the moral worldview of another.”(Leo, 2002)  At this point, you’re probably asking yourself, “How did we get here?”  The answer is simple. 

We left God.

We “exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25 NKJV).  You see, if God created us in His image, and with that gave us a sense of morality and right and wrong, we are not free to do what we please.  We have an obligation to live within the moral boundaries established by our Supreme Creator, and He will hold us accountable for how we live our lives.  Alternately, if there is no God, then we do not possess a soul, and nothing is eternal.  The only thing that separates us from plants and animals is time.  Our existence here is by chance, and there is no purpose for it.  If we have no purpose in life, there is no absolute moral code.  Thus, “good” and “evil” are concepts that humans have fabricated, either individually or as a society.  They have no authority over our lives, and they are constantly changing.  Consequently, we get statements from people like Peter Singer, Princeton University Bioethics professor, who said, “If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants”(Singer, 1993) and, “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval”(Singer, 1995).  When human life no longer is sacred, can we really say that murder and genocide are morally wrong? 

The reality is, you would be hard-pressed to find a person who does not have some conviction of right and wrong.  Even Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s most vitriolic atheists, is a law-abiding citizen that believes in morality.  If there is no God, however, then my morals are just as valid as yours.  One can believe that lying is okay in some cases (like Peter Singer), that bestiality is acceptable (again, like Peter Singer), and that the murdering of infants should be a matter of parental choice (You guessed it- just like Peter Singer). 

In the end, though, we cannot have it both ways.  God exists, or He does not.  Morality exists, or it does not.  If not, every person is free to do “what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).   If we are made in the image of God, then we must love and serve Him as our creator.  If it’s all relative, then I fervently pray I am not a victim of choice.

Don’t believe that could happen in the U.S.?  It already has…. over 50 million times.  Read about it in the sequel to this article:  “The Voice of My Children’s Blood”

References

Leo, J. (2002). Professors Who See No Evil. US News & World Report.

Nuremburg Trials, International Tribunal (1946).

Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Singer, P. (1995). Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong. Spectator, 20-22.

Humanism and Atheism

Bill Pruett

Humanism is both a religion and philosophy that rejects the existence of God.  It is atheistic and, as such, seeks to elevate man by eliminating God.  Humanists reason that a supernatural God and Creator are not possible and man alone must solve his own problems.  “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psa. 14:1).  Humanists are thus both atheists and fools by virtue of disbelieving God.

As Humanism is atheistic and Atheism is humanistic, it begs the question, “What is the difference between the two?”  Humanism is simply Atheism applied to a host of disciplines.  It is Atheism applied to the arts, sciences, medicine, law, social responsibilities, government, and even religion.  Humanism is the crop that comes from sowing the seed of Atheism.  Atheism is the primary and foundational belief of Humanism. 

Atheism, applied to science and the classroom, is the humanistic teaching of evolution.   The absence of evidence in Darwin’s fossil record of a single transitional fossil, or “missing link”, had evolutionists turning to a “big bang theory”.  Still lacking evidence and honesty, they are now scrambling into “black holes” for their theories.

Atheism, applied to ethics and morality, yields the humanistic teaching of amorality.  Amorality is the belief that there are no morals and hence, no absolute moral code. Humanists have no moral anchor and drift in a sea of moral relativism.

Atheism, applied to sovereignty or rule, is the humanistic teaching of the autonomy of man.  Humanists teach that there is no God, so man must be autonomous and rule himself.  They ultimately believe, however, that only the most intelligent of society must rule the masses.  Coincidentally, Humanists believe that they, the liberal elite, are the most intelligent of society; a true Humanist never believes that he is part of the masses!

Atheism, applied to governance, is the humanistic teaching and goal of one, world wide Socialist government.  All nations, including the United States, would be dissolved and would submit themselves to the world order led by the liberal elite.  This goal, unknown to most Americans, explains continual actions by Humanists to undermine America, and reject the feelings of nationalism and patriotism of America’s citizens. Loyalty to a Creator, a country, or even a family is viewed as a threat to Humanism’s goal, and Humanists seek to weaken these relationships.

Some Humanists view themselves are “religious Humanists.”  This avoids being an oxymoron only because Humanism is a religion.  All Humanists are  religious when it comes to Humanism which, we must remember, is merely “Atheism with lipstick”.  There is no middle ground between Atheism and God.

For the liberal elite to tell the ignorant masses what to do and have it enforced, Humanists know there must be a powerful State.  The State enacts laws and excessive regulations that govern the most trivial areas of citizens’ lives, including toilet flushes, light bulbs, etc.  Humanists reject the power of the individual, and his freedom, as they build the power of the State.  This belief in an unlimited government is called Statism.  When increasing powers are given to the State, they have been stolen from the Individual.  Not surprisingly, Humanism is the philosophy of all totalitarian governments.

One Conservative Christian’s Beliefs

Eric Willis

I believe:

• This nation was founded on Christian-based principles.

• Our very existence, as individuals and as a nation, is a result of God’s grace.

• Our existence will continue to flourish only as long we acknowledge, as individuals and as a nation, God’s Divine Providence.

• The laws of our nation should never conflict with God’s word.

• God’s Word is not complicated. Our method of governing ourselves is complicated because we’ve made it so. We need to simplify it.

• The welfare of our citizens should be our first priority.

• We should be able to be proud of our nation and always be a model of what a people should be to the rest of the world. We should never have to apologize for anything.

• Our nation should provide the opportunity to all to make a living…not provide a living for all.

• We should always help fellow citizens who are unable to help themselves. Those who are able should work to support themselves and their families. All programs established by our government that encourage any environment other than this should be abolished.

• No one should harm or attempt to harm someone that is defenseless. It is wrong to kill unborn children and we should not sponsor this practice fiscally or through silence.

• This nation began as a nation of immigrants. We have laws that specify how non-citizens are to enter and become citizens. These laws should be enforced. We should welcome those who enter legally and deport those who don’t.

• We should have a strong military for the purpose of defending our land, which includes our borders, from any enemy or criminal action.

• The vast majority of decisions that are made by a government should be made in an individual’s state capital, not the nation’s capital. Home state officials are familiar with issues the state faces. Officials in a state 3,000 miles away are not.

• Our practice of passing legislation containing vast numbers of unrelated issues should cease. A bill addressing a specific issue should be presented, debated on its’ merits and voted on.

• No one should serve more than 2 consecutive terms in any office, including the judiciary.

• Judges are responsible for ensuring the law is observed and followed, not for interpreting it. All our laws related to criminal behavior should be simplified. Mandatory sentences for crimes should be put in place and served when trial convictions occur.

• A fair, flat tax rate should be enacted for all.

• Government should be as small and unobtrusive as possible.

• Marriage was instituted by God to be between one man and one woman. Recognition of any man made alteration to this is an abomination to Him.

• We should enjoy freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Our government encourages the free practice of every religion known to man except Christianity. Christians are told to be tolerant of others, no matter how abhorrent their behavior. Christians are told not to pray at school. Christians are told it’s unacceptable to have any references to God in any government buildings. We should enjoy freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

• The freedom we enjoy in our country, the freedom that attracts immigrants from all over the world, was founded on Christians-based values over 230 years ago…and our government is doing everything it can to remove all evidence of God in our lives.

• Conservative Christians are less visible politically than other groups because their priorities are generally consist of working for a living, maintaining a household, raising children, paying bills, going to school functions, being involved in church activities, enjoying time with family and friends, etc.

• If this country continues on its’ current course, our children and grandchildren will not grow up in the nation that we did…the nation and the principles for which our forefathers worked so hard to establish and that many of our ancestors fought, bled and died for to preserve.

• It’s time for Conservative Christians to become more involved in our nation’s government and more vocal about what we want. We have to make our views known to current elected officials and candidates through e-mail, phone calls, US mail, voting, attendance at political meetings, etc.

• Those who don’t believe in these principles will do everything in their power to see their destruction.

• The Truth will only be heard if WE speak it. It is our responsibility. No one is going to speak for us.

Americans Want Our Borders Defended But Weak Excuses Aren't Getting It Done

Bill Pruett

Both political parties have each been in control in this country over the last few years and there has been minimal effort to protect our borders.  Polls show Americans overwhelmingly want our borders defended but both parties seem to have their own agenda, instead.

The Democrats see potential Democratic voters.

-       The Democrats look at the illegal immigrants as future Democratic voters because they are primarily Latinos.  A Pew Hispanic Center poll released recently finds that two thirds of Latino registered voters plan to support the candidates from the Democratic Party.  There are an estimated 11-12 million illegal immigrants in our country today and another half million pouring across our southern border every year. In 2008, Latino voters supported Barack Obama over John McCain by 67% to 31%.  The Democrats can see a day when those numbers will give their party a majority stranglehold in our national elections.
 

The Republicans see cheap labor.

-       The Republicans look at the illegal immigrants and see cheap labor for business, always a fuel for our economic engine. Many unemployed American citizens would rather milk the welfare system than subject themselves to manual labor, so Republicans view illegal immigrants as the answer to the worker shortage problem.  If business is good, the Republicans feel the elections will take care of themselves. The Pew poll cited above also indicates that two thirds of Latino eligible voters reside in four key electoral states:  California, Texas, Florida and New York .

EXCUSES FOR LEAVING OUR BORDER OPEN

Both parties fear the outcome if Mexico has to put on its “big boy pants” and take care of its own citizens.

-       Both parties decry the poverty the illegal aliens face at home.  Neither party wants to face the diplomatic problems with Mexico if we began to enforce our laws.  Mexico is coaching illegal immigrants how to cross our border including routes to take and legal advice if they are detained to prevent them being returned to Mexico.  In 2004, Mexico began distributing comic books with these instructions to their own people.  As always, the foreign government is giving us their criminals, their single mothers carrying “anchor babies”, unskilled workers and those dependent upon government assistance. 

Both parties worry about the cost of defending our border.  Really?

-       Both parties wring their hands about the high cost of enforcing our immigration laws.  There is no shortage of money for the things Congress wants to do but they fake budget concerns if they don’t want to do something.  They are, however, OK with the great cost of the immigration bureaucracy we pay to NOT enforce our laws.  It’s kind of heart warming, isn’t it?

-       Attorney General Eric Holder testified in court that the federal government could not afford to enforce its immigration laws.  I guess the federal government needs more stimulus money! I  wonder if General Motors or AIG is available to bail them out?

Many maintain we can’t build a fence and defend it over such a great distance.

-       Oh, if we only had the Chinese of centuries ago who not only built a fence, but a Great Wall, and defended it over its great length.  In fact, their “super fence” can be seen from outer space today.  They did centuries ago what we say we can’t do today.  But as the old saying goes, “Can’t never did nothing!” 

Some hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act, saying it forbids the U.S. military from being involved in defending our borders.

-       “Posse Comitatus” (which is fun to say, by the way) simply means ‘power of the county.”  The legal meaning is that the county should take care of its own law enforcement and the U.S. military should be not be used for domestic law enforcement.

-       Not one single individual has ever been successfully prosecuted under the 1878 Act.  The Act ended the Reconstruction Period practice of federal troops patrolling Southern cities and towns, enforcing the law.

-       It is a statutory act and not a constitutional prohibition.  As such, it has not been used to override constitutional concerns, but rather the constitutional issues are considered first and foremost.

-       The last fifty years have seen numerous exceptions and waivers to Posse Comitatus.  The Civil Rights movement, the war on drugs, the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Katrina, and domestic terrorism are a few examples where various legal and constitutional reasons justified the use of federal military personnel without concerns about Posse Comitatus.  It does not limit our response to any other national security situations, and it cannot be used as a flimsy excuse to gut our border-control  policies.  

-       Using soldiers to defend a nation’s borders is simply common sense and it is unquestionably legal.  Isn’t it the first purpose of a nation’s army?

The most popular refrain of liberals is, “We will grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants now and we will vigorously enforce the border from now on.” 

-       This was the song Ted Kennedy and the liberal Congress was singing in the mid-1960 when amnesty was granted.  There was no increase in border security.

-       This was also the song Ted Kennedy and the liberal Congress was singing in the mid-1980s when amnesty was granted.  Congress, again, went back on their word and there was no effort to increase border security.  This was surprising, too, because they said they really meant it thsi time!

-       On cue, here we are two decades later and the liberals want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and THEN increase border security.  They really mean it this time!  I see a pattern developing!

-       Note – The root word of “amnesty” is “amnesia!”

Some will say that America was founded by immigrants and we are all 'immigrants.'  The implication 

 is that we should allow as many as want to enter this country, legally or otherwise.

- First, our ancestors did not immigrate here illegally.  They did not begin their lives in America as criminals, flouting our laws.

- Secondly, they did not come here to take advantage of our government programs such as 71 welfare programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and a literal host of other nanny-state programs.  They often have more benefits available to them than our own citizens.  Benefits that law-abiding citizens pay for.  Illegal immigrants are not law-abiding and they are not citizens of the U.S.

AN ALTERNATE THEORY – The liberal elites, or humanists, have a goal of one global government without nations.  Humanist Manifesto I (1933) called for a “free and universal society” and it stated, “Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.”  Forty years later, Humanist Manifesto II stated, “We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds.  We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate.”  The government would be some flavor of Socialism.  The United States would not exist as a nation and there would be no borders.  Open borders today are a way of moving us down the road toward one worldwide government.  Think not?  Environmentalism, energy, gun control, and Supreme Court precedents have all been made global issues, bypassing our U.S. Constitution.  Each of these moves undermines the sovereignty of the United States, just as open borders do.  They export our sovereignty to foreign capitals, piecemeal.  Maybe the elites are controlling both parties???? 

Reasons for defending our borders will be covered in a subsequent article.

Welcome

Welcome to a blog that challenges Bible believers to stand up publicly against the forces of Humanism.