Internet Articles (2015)
he Bill of Rights can best be described as the foundation building blocks upon which liberty was constructed by America's founding fathers in 1787 after a fledgling nation vanquished the most powerful army in the world in a 12-year civil war for independence that began on April 18, 1775. The "cornerstone" of the foundation of liberty of that nation is the First Amendment. It is notas many Americans might believethe Second Amendment, which guarantees the American citizen the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend not only their homes, families, and property, but their nationfrom enemies, both foreign and domesticas well.
Under our Constitution, the people possess an inherent right to speak out against the government when it acts inappropriately outside the scope of its constitutional authority. They have a natural right to demand that government listen and respond to the legal grievances of the people without fear of reprisal. Without these rights, which are based on natural law, liberty quickly becomes a fancy illusion that is easily distorted and twisted by lawyers and judges with no fidelity to the Constitution, to suit the evolving needs of a global society that is rapidly deteriorating into a universal utopian stew of democratic socialism in which all rights are derived from government.
Many people educators and lawmakers alikehave had a problem understanding why Thomas Jefferson and James Madison linked Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion into one Amendment rather than giving each "liberty" a separate amendment of their own. Deliberately tied to freedom of speech was the freedom of thought (or, if you prefer, the freedom of conscience)the right to believe in a Supreme Beingand an inherent right to worship God, or not worship, as the case may be. Whether Catholic, Christian or Deist, the Founding Fathers universally ascribed to the views of John Locke, who attacked the Old World Order theory of the "divine right" of kings in his Two Treatises of Civil Government in 1690. Locke argued that "sovereignty" was not a rite of passage of government, but that sovereignty was a possession of the people who derived their authority from God. It was Locke's principles of limited government, incorporated into the Constitution, that gave us a tri-chambered government: legislative, executive and judicial. In Locke's version of democracy a true Republic existed only when power was shared equally by the people and the government. It was the general mistrust of lords and leadersparticularly the European flavorthat led Locke, and eventually the Founding Fathers, to the same conclusion. That is why, in colonial days in America, there was no such thing as a professional politician. Those who sat in the State and federal legislatures were patriots who viewed government service as an obligation owed to their nation, not as an opportunity to get rich from the taxes paid by their neighbors, nor from the patronage of aristocrats who would profit from certain pieces of legislation.
Bribing legislators with money that could be used by the Congressman or Senator to either seek re-election (or as a nest egg for their own retirement from "public service") started during the Age of the TitansJohn D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Cyrus McCormick, John Jacob Astor, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jay Gould, Andrew Mellonwhen the money barons bought politicians and judges like penny candy in order to get the laws they wanted and the easements they needed to multiply their fortunes. The families of the money barons of the 1880s and 1890s collectively became known as the Money Mafia during the turbulent 1920s and 1930s as New World wealthearned through oil, steel, coal, railroads, fur trading, land speculation and industry as the yawning giant known as America stretched its arms, flexing its industrial muscle as it overwhelmed the Old World Order. A New World Order had been born.
The biggest threat to the emerging New World Order today is a simple piece of decaying parchment known as the Constitution of the United States. Today it is now about the only thing standing between the transnationalist money barons and world government for one reason and one reason onlyand it isn't the Second Amendment. It's the Firstalthough the Second Amendment was inserted to put real teeth in the First. The Founding Fathers knew that freedom of speech and its closet companion, the right of religious expression without interference or restrictions to that liberty were the two most important aspects of democracy.
That's why, collectively, those specific rights are listed first. When free men lose the right to speak out on issues that trouble them, or on political issues that affect them, or they cannot freely express their theological beliefs, then they are no longer free men because their minds and spirits have been shackled by those who make, and can enforce, the laws largely created by, or engineered by, a cadre of wealthy elite American transnationalists who are no longer patriotically loyal to the United States, and who now are now steering the American "ship of state" towards the shoals of Utopia. Because they felt it as they struggled against impossible odds to gain freedom from the most powerful nation in the world, its possible that many of the Founding Fathers linked their Christian upbringing and their personal belief in God with their sense of patriotic pride. It is clear that the overlords of the New World Order made the connection in 1946, and have since made a concerted effort to weaken both the sense of patriotism in America and the personal "need" for God. Generational brainwashing to rid Americans of their patriotic isolationism was introduced in the public school system of the United States by UNESCO on April 6, 1946 President Harry S. Truman proposed a UN public school curriculum called "Towards World Understanding" that was designed to prepare America's youth for world citizenship.
It was the following year that UNESCO's Director General Julian Huxley issued his scholastic directive entitled "Classrooms with Children Under 12-years of Age" which blamed the parents of American school children for harming their children by instilling in them a sense of faith and patriotic pride. Huxley said that "...[b]efore the child enters school his mind has already been profoundly marked, and often injuriously, by earlier influences...first gained...in the home." Later in his textbook, which was used in hundreds of classrooms throughout the country, Huxley observed that "...it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes." Among those things that "infect" the family, Huxley continued, were religion and patriotism. Huxley's directive launched a generational attack on Christianity in the United States. At the UN's Millennium Summit on August 28-31, 2000, Christianity and Judaism were labeled as the world's only two racist religions. Knowing the reason makes it easier to understand why Christianity is under such a virulent attack from all quarters. However, the Constitution of the United States mandates that the government protect every Christian's right to worship God wheneverand whereverhe or she desires because the Constitution prevents the government from installing barriers to worship.. Yet, rather than safeguarding the right of Christians to worship under the standards established by the First Amendment, both State and federal courts have chosen to offer, instead, the limited protection provided by the UN Covenant on Human Rights since it was the UN and the invisible transnational overlords of business and industry who decreed that Christianity has outlived its usefulness to the world because it had become a stumbling block to the merchants of the worldthe Bill of Rights notwithstanding,
Locke taught that it was the obligation of government to protect the property rights, economic rights, and religious rights of the common people The Founding Fathers agreed. Locke's views are amply expressed in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Locke argued that government is bound by the restrictions of both common law and what he called "natural law." Embodied within natural law are the Judeo-Christiannot Islamictenets of right and wrong that are found in the Ten Commandments. When you enter the Congress rotundra, look up and you will see a statute of Moses, holding the Ten Commandments. Before the transnational utopians decided that Christianity was bad for global business, even the Congress reflected the Christian roots of the nation. Each session of Congress still opens with a prayer.
As you approach the US Supreme Court building and look up, you will see Moses holding the stone tablets on the facade. You will see similar carving inside the US Supreme Court. In fact, to enter that venerable courtroom, you must pass through heavy oak doors inscribed with an image of those stone tablets. The Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of American jurisprudence just as Christian faith is the cornerstone of this great nation. And, because it has been, the United States of America has become the greatest nation in the history of the world.
If we allow politically-correct judges to evict Jesus Christ from America, the next war this nation fights will likely be its lastbecause America, as the world's greatest economic and military power, will be destroyed. God has shown that He will always turn His back on those who turn their back on Him. Had America been an empire builder like the nations of Europe, all of Europe and Asia (which we won the battlefields of two world wars), most of Africa and pretty much all of Central and South America would live under the Stars and Stripes.
God's laws are the basis of Natural Law. While freedom can be conditionally granted by government, liberty comes only from natural law which guarantees all people "natural" rights that cannot be abrogated. Liberty will cease to exist in this country if the government is allowed to continue nibbling at the edges of the Constitution by legislatively chipping away at the foundation of liberty that supports the pillars of America's very unique freedom that is shared by no other nation on Earth.
While the US Supreme Court began tampering with religious freedom since 1878 in the case of Reynolds v United States, the attack on Christianity became deadly serious in 1947 with Everson v Board of Education (330 USC 1, 18) and McCollum v Board of Education (333 USC 203) in 1948. State and federal court decisions that singularly target Christians and exempt all other forms of religion, especially Islamthe religion of the radical extremists who are determined to destroy the United States. While the courts will go to any length to ban Christian activity, it sees no evil in protecting the religious rights of New Agers and Wiccans from court decisions that ban religious activity, The calculated selectiveness by which the courts ban one religion while protecting others speaks volumes for those who are listening to the motives for the decisions.
In the United States today, you can practice your religion openly in any public place, including schools, professional offices, factories, and government facilitiesproviding you practice Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, atheism, Wicca, New Age or any number of the new theological paradise promisers. You just can't practice Christianity without being hauled into court for violating the separation of Church and State.
No one has yet successfully sued the Muslims who operate the largest theological educational brainwashing mill out of the Carden Hall Elementary School in Fountain Valley, Californiawith the blessings of the State of California and the obvious indifference of the American Civil Liberties Union. And, no one has threatened to sue the California school system for violating the Constitution by openly promoting a religion. Nor has anyone threatened to sue the school board in Fountain Valley for allowing the Council on Islamic Education or it's founder, Shabbir Mansuri from using rented office space in the school to send Islamic propaganda to every taxpayer-funded public school system in the United States. What's wrong with this picture?
What's wrong with this picture is simply this: Our government's fidelity to the Bill of Rights has pretty much been dissolved or, at least, it has been severely diluted over the past fifty years as Congress did everything it could to legislatively abolish what it could not legally or constitutionally manipulatethe natural rights of the American citizen. The battle currently being waged between the "natural rights" conservatives and the liberal practitioners of social justice is over the source of human rights. The "natural rights" conservative which our current President is notbelieve that all rights, including liberty, stem from natureand thus, from God. The liberal practitioners of social justice believe that all freedom comes from government, and that governmentwhich always knows besthas the right, if not the parental obligation, to "adjust" human rights as needed to benefit society as a whole.
When our Founding Fathers penned the Constitution, they wrote into it what was intended to be a guarantee that governmentour governmentcould not create a political system that was linked to State-mandated religion. Nor could that government prevent its citizensthat's usfrom worshipping (or not worshipping) God anywhere, at anytime. If I didn't like your version of God, I couldn't prevent you from worshippingnor could you stop me. Today, that's not the case. If you are a Christian and I worship termites, I can sue youand I will very likely prevail if your simple prayer before lunch at McDonald's or Burger King offends me. In fact, the odds are pretty good that I could also get a large chunk of change in the form of a settlement from McDonald's or Burger King corporate because they didn't post a sign warning people not to pray before they eat. Yet, if a Muslim patron dropped to his knees and bowed to Mecca, loudly chanting his noontime prayers at the precise moment I was about to bite into a big, juicy burger at McDonald's or Burger King, my lawsuitas a Christianwould be thrown out of court as frivolous. I would be chided by the judge. My lawyer would be chided by the judge, and I would be forced to pay the defendant's legal bills.
That is the sad reality of our State and federal governments and their judicial systems. Yet, our elected and appointed officials regularly break the laws they are sworn to uphold. They break the laws by selectively enforcing them (claiming the need to balance the rule of law with social justice), or by manipulating the intent of the laws in order to punitively apply them against people the government fears, mistrusts, or simply doesn't like. Justice is "blind" not out of impartiality, but out of shame. Look at the rest of the world and you will catch a glimpse of what those who penned the Bill of Rights in the most Christian nation of the world wanted to avoid. It was not the free expression of religion, or Christians standing on solid Biblical precepts that denounce homosexuality and lesbianism as an abomination. Nor was it calling abortionists or those who submit to the killing of their unborn babies, murderers. When Thomas Jefferson argued that the separation of Church and State be penned into the Constitution, he meant that government had no right to meddle in religionand no authority to mandate a State "church."
All of the restrictions found in the First Amendment's admonitions on religion reflect Jefferson's sentiments"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." There is no ambiguity here for lawyers to trip over. All of the prohibitions are placed on the government. None are placed on the individual. Not only can the government not be allowed to establish or endorse a religion (as they clearly did in Fountain Valley, California and on the US State Department website that openly endorsed Islam), but they cannot pass any laws (US Supreme Court decisions have the force of law, and are, in fact, codified as law once they are published since they amend the laws enacted by Congress.) For that reason, federal courts legally lack the constitutional discretion to hear any religious freedom case except, perhaps, to overrule lower courts that places any restrictions on the natural rights of people to worship God whenever and wherever they please.
The courts are grabbing at straws when they rule that cities which allow American citizens to put up manger scenes in city parks or in front of the local courthouseespecially when Hanukah and Kwanzaa displays are included in what are, in reality, seasonal collages and not endorsements of any specific religious perspective. They are grabbing at straws not because some jurist found something in the Constitution that suggested the First Amendment restriction against the establishment of a religion was to be directed against the citizens and not the courts, but because the utopian society of the 21st century that must evolve beyond religiosity to be included as a full economic partner in the cauldron of globalism, demands it.
Human rights were redefined by the globalists in the League of Nations. Natural rights were redefined as conditional rights that could be granted or requited based on the compelling need of government. Even the inherent right to worship God became conditional, and will be conditional in the world governed by the elite hierarchy of the New World Order.
As you examine the differences between the liberty found in the Constitution of the United States and the "freedom" granted by the UN Covenant on Human Rights you will immediately understand the difference between natural rights and conditional rights. Under the Constitution, we see that "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." First, the Founding Fathers placed all of the restrictions on the government. Somewhere along the road to the toll bridge to Utopiathanks to a ton of liberal lawyersthe meaning of the First Amendment has become somewhat fuzzy, because now all of the restrictions are placed on the citizen who no longer possesses an inherent right to practice the free exercise of religion. In fact, the Supreme Court now interprets the exercising of religious freedom more in the manner of the privileges described in Article 13 of the Covenant on Human Rights: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed by law..." For this reason alone any sitting federal judge or Supreme Court Justice who interprets the First Amendment in this manner should be impeached and removed from the bench. The Justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the UN. Two observations should be noted. First, some of the biggest offenders of the law today are sitting on the federal court benches. But, as US Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted the day it was learned that Chief Justice William Rehnquist had thyroid cancer, international law will play a significant role in the high court's legal decisions in the future. The move to globalize decisions of the Supreme Court by introducing international legal precedents and European case law into U.S. legal decisions began during the Clinton years. While hotly resisted by "States rights" judges, internationalizing the legal opinions of America's high court is seen as the first step in forcing the American judicial systemand the people of the United Statesto become subservient to the World Court in the Hague. Second, since the transnational titans at the pinnacle of political and economic power have decreed it, the globalization of the American judicial system has begun and will not be reversed since the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch of the federal government seem to be of one accordand very few lawmakers are not indebted to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Pew Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Trust or the Seven Sisters for the financial contributions that helped fill their war chests.
What happened during the Christmas seasonnow being blamed on overzealous conservative political advocacy fearmongersdoes not bode well for the Bill of Rights. It does not bode well for the United States. And most of all, it does not bode well for Christians in the United States and around the worldnor does it bode well for Christianity as a whole, which will shortly begin to feel the type of persecution suffered by the first century Christians as the world prepares itself for the time of Jacob's troubles.