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.