Recent Blog Posts

 

Listen and learn with us

Listen to our Podcast.

This Website is being updated...

please be sure to visit great

History Resources on the right.

Click on picture 

 

Link to--Churches Can Make A Huge Difference In An Election

 

 

Click to podcast link (2nd on list is most recent show-archive to 2015)

 

Click here for link to our podcasts

Search Bar Below To Look Up Articles

SEARCH BAR

Listen to internet radio with City On A Hill Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Why is America At War

Cross in the ashes of the WTC

Click on pic to 9/11

 

The Powerful Story on the Twins
Lifting Each Other in Prayer with Ms. Margaret
Remembering 9/11 in'09
Fresh Hope, the ministry of Susan Sieweke, D.Min.
Laminin

For in him we live (zao {dzah'-o}, and move, and have our being; Acts 17:28

Our Children Our Future
What If A Nation Prayed

See Prayer List

 

 


Let us do our part to keep this the Land of the Free and Honor the Brave

  

Get to speed--basic info you must know as there is not enough news still for K-12th hidden agenda and about the ROE--so please share!

Homosexual Indoctrination for K-12th hidden in Anti-Bullying Law: The Bill   The Agenda  Federalizing

Revised Rules of Engagement--Empowering The Enemy:  Joshua's Death  The Father's Letter & Interviews

Czars and Their Unconstitutional Powers

Health Care Bill Or The Derailing Of America

Cap and Trade--Skyrocketing Utilities For Almost Bankrupt America/ For Whose Benefit? EPA Report

Know How They Voted

Truths To Share As Freedom Isn't Free

Click on pic to see samples of what's on site

Join with us in prayer (National Prayer List)

EPHRAIM'S ARROW--JEWISH STUDIES


Weather By The Hour

Don't forget as you check on the weather to check in with the One who calms the storms!

 

Fields White To Harvest

 

 

Lord, I thought I knew you,

   but know the winds have changed.

Tossed away, will you find me?

   Can still , my heart be sustained?

Just me and you when things were new,

then the season's storms blew by.

   Did I forget to worship you?

 

Will you come, Lord Jesus to gather us- your sheep.

   For the days grow long and still,

If we watch and wait, will you hear us yet-

   Can we stand strong to do you will?

 

 The wheat has been blowing in that field,

   While the laborers are so few.

What then, now are we waiting for?

   Can hardened hearts become like new?

 

 Safely can we stay behind you,

   as we march with your trumpet sound?

Or- have we stayed and hid so long now,

   That our roots dry underground?

 

 I pray Lord that you will find me.

   I pray not to be ashamed.

I seek you when it's early Lord.

   I pray not to fall away.

 

So come Lord Jesus come quickly-

   The terrible day is at hand.

I pray we'll all be steadfast.

   So you may strengthen our spirits ,

as we stand.

 

Loree Brownfield

Sunday
Sep062009

What's Wrong With The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS and NBC--Misinformation 

 

As late as Friday, as the Jones matter began to boil over, it had not been reported at all in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC. Although the Post and CBS went on to report the Jones story on Saturday, the Times did not inform its readers about the Jones matter until after Jones resigned

The public outcry on Van Jones resulted in White House announcement early Sunday 9-6-09 of his resignation.

How could this happen when the all powerful media of New York Times, Washington Post, evening news of ABC, NBC and CBS failed to inform their audience of the controversy.  In all fairness the Post and CBS did report it finally Saturday 9-5.

Yet so much controversy and outcry was out there from the public.  The public knew and it made a difference so much so Van Jones is gone. I wonder if this is a sign people no longer have to have them for their news--after all this is a definite sign of their untrustworthiness when they can not even report the news about the adviser to the President so I guess people are deciding they are no longer news outlets but rather mis-information outlets--what a waste.   Read more

 

Saturday
Sep052009

Czars-Information and Videos on Who They Are

 George Bush did have four czars but 32 so far of unaccountable positions overseeing enormous legislations and policies from cap and trade, global warming, health care etc. is beyond words and is dangerous for freedom loving America.
 

Read about HR3226 and ask your Rep to sign on to reign the czars--this madness must stop and it needs you.   Hear interview 9-10-09 with Rep. Jack Kingston of Ga --sponsor of HR3226

 
 
Kevin Jennings-- Safe Schools Czar (founded Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network or Glsen)!

He is Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools at the Department of Education.
He has said he looks forward to the day when “promoting homosexuality” in schools will be seen in a positive light, while others at a recent conference sponsored by his organization wants to expose kindergartners to lessons on pro-homosexuality.
GLSEN leaders sees the way to change next generation’s attitude toward homosexuality requires must start in kindergarten.  Jaki Williams, a GLSEN activist and teacher at the Packer Collegiate School (in New York), children at that age are “developing their superego,” and “that’s when the saturation process needs to begin.”
 
Some administrators said the best way to handle problems with parental opposition was simply to avoid them and not send letters to parents but for ed teachers to act independently and  just go ahead and incorporate the pro-homosexual materials.
 
“A child has…been screwed by the educational system if they are not actively…helped to see the glory of diversity as part of the classroom experience,” said Terry Boggis, cofounder and director of Center Kids, a lobbying group for “LGB” (lesbian, gay, bisexual) families.

 

You must read the complete article--Read  also this then act and get your Rep to sign on to HR3226

 
Mark Lloyd -- Freedom of Speech Specialist

Videos  1   2
 

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least blind references to freedom of speech or press serves as a distraction from the critical examination of other communication policies. The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules [by the government], fines, and regulations, that would promote democratic governance."
Please listen to our podcast dated 9-5-09 on the czars.

 

 

Cass Sunstein- Regulatory Czar

 

In Sunstein's 2007 speech at Harvard University, he was for "eliminating current practices such as … meat eating" Also "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law It's time now."  Read more and more

 

Todd Stern-- Special Envoy for Climate Change

 

He was  Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary in the White House from 1993 to 1998. He is focusing on climate change and environmental issues. He also acted as the senior White House negotiator at the Kyoto Protocol and Buenos Aires negotiations.  

Read more and more on Todd Stern

 

 

In this day and time the expense of global warming policies would cripple poor nations and what will it do to ours?  Australia's common sense may pave the way for us also.

An authoritative scientific look by geologist Ian Plimer in his new book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science at the claim of human-cause global warming may be the key to the shift in Australia's global warming debate.

Kyoto Treaty is Failing The World's Poor

"Global temperatures have declined extending the current trend to 11 years." Read the EPA report

 

Ezekiel Emanuel--Health Care Adviser


Video  1
Ezekiel Emmanuel came on board on Feb '09 to form a national healthcare strategy. He is a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. He is by the way the brother of White House chief-of-staff  Rahm Emmanuel.  The fuss is because just a month before coming on board in January '09,  Dr. Emanuel co-wrote an article entitled Re-allocation of Scarce Medical Resources on the British Journal The Lancet.  Here are excerpts from that article he co-authored.  Here in particular are two excerpts about the complete lives system --to achieve just allocation of scarce  medical interventions-click here for the full article
Van Jones-- Green Czar

Videos  1    2   3
 
He is an avowed Communist.  He will be in charge of the huge cap and trade legislation!
Jones says he became politically radicalized in the aftermath of the deadly April 1992 Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King incident. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th," says Jones, "and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."  Read more
For complete list of who they are go to this link  and also view this link
Thursday
Sep032009

Rev. John Peter Muhlenberg and Rev. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg--Lessons From The Past on First Amendment 101

Bill of Rights

Tyranny moves men into action--a great example is of the story of  two Reverends.  One was the signer to the Bill of Rights.

First we must start with the story of his brother John Peter Muhlenberg.  Rev. John Peter Muhlenberg (there is a statue in honor of him at the Capitol)  told his Woodstock, Virginia congregation on Sunday January 21, 1776, "a time to preach and a time to pray. But there is also a time to fight and that time has now come." He faced a crowded church that Sunday morning. In his long black clerical gown, he read the first eight verses of the third chapter of Ecclesiastes, then preached the sermon that has come down through the years as a tradition and a challenge. 

After the benediction, he then cast aside his clerical robe to stand before the congregation in the uniform of a Colonel in the Eighth Virginia Regiment. He marched down that aisle as he said "we came here to practice our religious and civil liberties and if we don't get involved we are going to lose those liberties.  Who's going with me to defend those liberties?"  Drums beat in the churchyard and 300 men and boys followed him and enlisted in the Continental Army with their pastor as their leader which became the 8th Virginia Brigade.

He became a Major General and was one of George Washington's most trusted men.  His brother the Reverend Frederick Muhlenberg disagreed with him at the onset and had sent him a letter telling him he would have acted for the best if he'd kept out of this business from the beginning and that John Peter was wrong.

John Peter wrote back in his letter "you accused me of getting involved-that I shouldn't because I am a clergyman. I am a clergyman it is true. I am a member of society as we ll as the poorest of laymen. My liberty is as dear to me as it is to any man shall I then sit still?  Heaven forbid it.  I am convinced it is my duty so to do and duty I owe to God and my country" [quotes is from David Barton of Wallbuilders on his CD America's Birthday]

In 1777 British invaded NY City and they desecrated and seized his church.  Rev. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg then changed his mind. He too got involved-- so much so that he became the First Speaker of the House. His is one of the two signatures on the Bill of Rights (other is John Adams).

Do you think he would want the First Amendment misinterpreted as the Courts do now?  Most certainly not.  He and his brother are great examples to the truth behind the first amendment.  Courts need to do their job which is to interpret it according to the Founding Fathers intent.  Now you know.

These pastors were great leaders of the American Revolution.   Another example--the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord. Their leader was the Rev. Jonas Clark. They fought so that we can have the freedoms we enjoy today and one of them is to fight for change in our government peaceably--with discourse and informed votes. Hope many pastors will take up their stand and become involved.

 Read more on the Muhlenbergs

 

Wednesday
Sep022009

Czar Legislation HR 3226 To Make Them Accountable

There is legislation introduced to make our czars accountable. Known as HR 3226 this is the first step towards sanity.  Everyone needs to read this and get behind it.  We hope to air an interview next Sat from one of those behind the bill.  Here are links:  HR 3226         Thomas

 Hear interview 9-10-09 with Rep. Jack Kingston of Ga --sponsor of HR3226

Mark Lloyd -- Freedom of Speech Specialist


"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least blind references to freedom of speech or press serves as a distraction from the critical examination of other communication policies. The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules [by the government], fines, and regulations, that would promote democratic governance."
Please listen to our podcast dated 9-5-09 on the czars.
Wednesday
Sep022009

Ezekiel Emmanuel-Health Care Adviser--What's The Fuss

Obama's health care adviser is his chief of staff's brother--Ezekiel Emmanuel.   

Ezekiel Emmanuel came on board on Feb '09 to form a national healthcare strategy. He is a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. He is by the way the brother of White House chief-of-staff  Rahm Emmanuel.  The fuss is because just a month before coming on board in January '09,  Dr. Emanuel co-wrote an article entitled Re-allocation of Scarce Medical Resources on the British Journal The Lancet.  Here are excerpts from that article he co-authored.  Here in particular are two excerpts about the complete lives system --to achieve just allocation of scarce  medical interventions-click here for the full article.  Read for yourself.

 

"Consideration of the importance of complete lives also

supports modifying the youngest-fi rst principle by

prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants

(fi gure). Adolescents have received substantial education

and parental care, investments that will be wasted without

a complete life."

 

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces

a priority curve on which individuals aged between

roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance,

whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that

are attenuated (fi gure)"

 For information on other so called advisers to the pres --rather czars--here is link to great insight on them--makes you wonder why are they taking over Congress job?

Friday
Aug282009

Ten Commandments and Judge Roy Moore

Sometimes all it takes is a handshake and a look into a person’s eyes to see into his or her soul.  That’s how it was with Judge Roy Moore when I met him. It was May of 2003 at the height of the controversy over the Ten Commandments Monument in the State Judiciary in Montgomery. My family was returning home from my oldest son’s graduation from Auburn University. We decided to stop at the Olive Garden in Montgomery for dinner. As we entered the restaurant I recognized Judge Moore with his wife.  I pointed them out to my wife.
 “Why don’t you go talk to him?” she asked.
 I was reluctant to bother him as I was sure he was constantly being pestered by folks, both pro and con – not to mention the press. I figured all he wanted was to be left alone. I entertained a small struggle in myself, the man, his fight intrigued me.  I thought it would be nice to get to speak to him to try and figure him out.
 As a Government and Economics teacher in a public school I had been following the controversy around Judge Moore since his tenure as a judge in Etowah County. I agreed with him that displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom was not unconstitutional. If that was the case then the Ten Commandments carved into the walls of the US Supreme Court are unconstitutional. Having read the Federalist Papers myself and being aware of the opinions of the founders on the role of religion and faith in the republic they were trying to establish – not to mention the history behind the First Amendment – I do not believe in the complete separation of church and state as is held by the current conventional wisdom.
 The words are found nowhere in either the Constitution itself, nor in the amendments. The First Amendment merely provides for freedom of conscience by forbidding CONGRESS from establishing a state church on the order of the Church of England (remember in England folks were forced to go to the Church of England or be punished by imprisonment or loss of property and life), or (here’s the forgotten part) FORBIDDING anyone from practicing their religion.
 This prohibition applies only – ONLY to Congress. The original intent was to limit the National government’s power – it said nothing about the States. As a matter of fact several of the original States not only endorsed certain denominations, but supported those denominations with tax money. Here is where the infamous phrase, written by Jefferson (not Madison in the Constitution) originates. Jefferson was assuring Baptists in his home State of Virginia, who were worried about being persecuted as a religious minority (most folks in Virginia attended the old Church of England, now known as the Episcopal Church in the new nation), by telling them there was being built in the new nation a “wall of separation between church and state” protecting minority religions. This statement was taken out of context by a latter day Supreme Court to shove religion in a corner.
 Even apart from the religious significance of the Ten Commandments, one cannot ignore the Ten Commandments as a basic foundation of Western Law. One can point to the Laws of Hammurabi as the earliest written law code (arguable with recent archeology); one can point to Ancient Greece (Athens) a the birthplace of the democratic idea; and the impact of Roman Jurisprudence in the Justinian Code gives us the idea of the law applying equally to all citizens. There is no doubt the influence of these and other sources on our ideas of law and government. But WHOSE law?
 There was no greater single influence on European (Western) Civilization that produced the folks who ventured across the Atlantic Ocean in those tiny ships than the Christian Bible. Their civilization and law codes were based on the foundation of the Law of Moses – the Ten Commandments.
 Though there is much debate over the levels of faith of those who were at the Constitutional Convention and deism was a popular fad of the day, there is little doubt that everyone who signed our Constitution were frequent Bible readers and held its moral precepts as sacred – even Jefferson who is popularly considered from his earlier writings to be the least religious of our founders (though he wasn’t in Philadelphia in 1787). One should read his letters to John Adams later in life and be surprised to find him moving closer to the faith of his fathers as his death grew near.
 If our founders were Deists, they were Christian Deists, whose image of God was shaped by the Bible. If any were agnostic, they were “Christian” agnostics. Just as any atheists (such as Thomas Paine, who stands pretty much alone in that category) were “Christian” atheists whose image of the God they were rejecting was the God of the Bible.
 It is a little known fact that Thomas Jefferson as President attended church services held in the Capitol building where Congress debated while the capitol city was being completed.  One wonders what his opinion of the Supreme Court’s application of his words would be.
 The Ten Commandments is the foundation of the moral code and law of three of the world’s greatest religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. So, if I were to post one set of laws on my wall in a US Court, I don’t think I’d be posting the Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism, with all due respect to Hindus.
 So Judge Moore’s posting of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall was a logical statement of the foundation of all our laws; his placement of the monument a similar statement. So why the fuss?
 Perhaps it was in the WAY he did it?
 Even US District Court Judge Myron Thompson’s decision ordering the removal of the monument stated that the monument would have been no problem had Moore not openly stated upon its installation that the purpose was to call the people back to a recognition of the source and foundation of all law – God.
 “If all Chief Justice Moore had done were to emphasize the Ten Commandments’ historical and educational importance… or their importance as a model code for good citizenship… this court would have a much different case before it. But the Chief Justice did not limit himself to this; he went far, far beyond. He installed a two-and-a-half ton monument in the most prominent place in a government building, managed with dollars from all state taxpayers, with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the ’sovereignty of God,’ the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country, regardless of each taxpaying citizen’s individual personal beliefs or lack thereof. To this, the Establishment Clause says no.” (Glassroth v. Moore)
 Today’s conventional wisdom would nod sagely and say that Moore should have left religion out of it; after all there is a separation of church and state in the United States and Moore clearly violated. If Moore had stated that his purpose was historical rather than religious, if Moore’s purpose had been sociological rather than religious, if it had been aesthetical rather than religious he might have gotten away with it.
 So what are we to say, that our motives and thoughts are to be judged at the discretion of the Federal courts now?  That any and all thought and motivation are approved in the public square except religion? Is this in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment?
 Did Judge Thompson have authority over a State court?  Did Judge Thompson have jurisdiction over the highest court in the State of Alabama?
 This is a thorny question that has caused conflict since the beginning of our nation and caused our bloodiest war.
 Our Constitution was written and adopted to strengthen the weak national government created by the Articles of Confederation. There was controversy from the start over the document because it was a legitimate fear of many of our greatest minds of the time that a strong national government with too much centralized power would lead to tyranny.  As the 19th Century English statesman Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Our founders believed the best way to check power (and its abuse) was to divide power as much as possible.
 It was with this idea in mind our system of government was established. It was a presidential system of government. Unlike the British parliamentary system, the executive branch, or president, was totally independent of the legislative branch of government. Therefore the two branches could act as a check on each other and a series of checks and balances were installed to ensure that neither branch could gain too much political power over the other.  The legislature, or Congress could pass bills, but any bill Congress passed had to pass through the President before it could become law. The President could approve or veto a bill and therefore had final authority, but even this power was checked by the threat of a Congressional override of the President’s veto if enough members of Congress felt the matter was important enough to warrant that extreme measure.
 The third branch of government, the judicial was dependent on the other two not only for their positions, but was totally under the authority and jurisdiction of Congress. It is a little known or accepted fact that Article III of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate which types of cases the Federal courts may hear and that Congress can step in and keep the courts away from certain types of cases. Barring that measure, Congress has the power of the purse and can always cut funding for the courts should they choose – or do away with courts if it is at their pleasure. This is all in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution.  There was concern over lifetime appointments to the court but Hamilton pooh-poohed such concerns away in The Federalist 78 because in his mind the Judiciary was at the total mercy of Congress as stated above.
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive…   (The Federalist 78 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm )
 Of course, this was written before the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) where Chief Justice John O. Marshall created for his Court the power of Judicial Review.
 Jefferson, on the other hand, being an anti-Federalist, had severe reservations about the growing power of the courts. Even though he won the case of Marbury v. Madison he was less than sanguine about the idea of the Federal Courts being considered the final authority on what is and is not Constitutional, the idea of “Judicial Review.”  In 1820 he wrote (in a letter to Thomas Jarvis):
 “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. (http://books.google.com/books?id=vvVVhCadyK4C&pg=PA178&dq=%22which+would+place+us+under+the+despotism+of+an+oligarchy%22#v=onepage&q=%22which%20would%20place%20us%20under%20the%20despotism%20of%20an%20oligarchy%22&f=false )
 If the system of checks and balances wasn’t enough to check the unbridled lust for power of people on the bench, there was another wall for the Courts to overcome, the principle of Separation of Powers.  There are two clauses in the Constitution (other than the First Amendment) which apply to Judge Moore’s case. They are the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution, which were put in the “Bill of Rights” just to prevent such an abuse of power as we’ve seen by the Federal government in recent years.
 One of the objections many Federalists had to including a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution was the fact that many (particularly Washington), knowing human nature as they did realized that if one started listing rights folks had someone would come along and deny a right the founders forgot to include. We see this today over the wording when lawyers haggle over whether the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (as every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is, not to mention the term individual is in the amendment) or only applies to a person’s right to join the State militia or National Guard. Washington believed a general recognition of the rights of people to be free was a given and to name certain rights was to limit freedom. And of course he was right. However, anti-Federalists had a point when they stated that unless someone wrote down individual guarantees of freedom someone was likely to come along and try to deny those rights. It seemed the move to ratify the Constitution was at an impasse, so Madison agreed to put together a Bill of Rights to remove this obstacle to our new government. At the end of this list of basic individual freedoms he added the final two:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 In these two amendments the powers of the central or national government were severely limited to only those powers specifically given it by the US Constitution. As our own civics and US Government textbooks teach the powers of the national government are “delegated powers” read Amendment X, while the powers of the States and individuals are reserved powers. This should also apply to the Federal Courts as well.  What does this mean? It means (or should mean) the Federal government can only do those things the Constitution says it can do and stay out of the business the US Constitution remains silent on – that belongs to the State or individuals.
 So how come the Federal government is involved in every aspect of our life? Because we allow it. And we particularly are vulnerable to the lie that the Federal courts and the US Supreme Court are the final authority on what is Constitutional in the United States. Remember the power of Judicial Review is not found anywhere in the US Constitution, it is a power the Supreme Court established for itself in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
 How did we get to this point when the Constitution and the words of our Founders speak so plainly? It didn’t happen overnight.
 “Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people will believe you.” Adolf Hitler
 “The bigger the lie you tell, the more likely people are to believe it.” Joseph Goebbels.
 We, the American people have been fed the lie of “separation of church and state” and “judicial review” and the 14th Amendment has been used for so long to get the Federal government into places our Founders never dreamed the government would be involved in the people have just accepted it as fact.
 Congress, which has the responsibility of reigning in the courts when they get out of hand has abdicated that responsibility. After all, the courts have done congressmen a great favor by taking several controversial issues out of their hands. Face it, for a politician, issues such as abortion, school prayer, even integration and affirmative action are lose-lose propositions. No matter how a congressman or senator votes on these issues he or she is going to upset someone so they let the courts do the dirty work, shrug their shoulders and say, “What can I do?”
 And we, the people have let them get away with it because by and large, most of us don’t know any better.
 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6)
 Republican Congressman Terry Everett from our 2nd District Alabama tried to correct this through the legislative process by proposing the “Constitutional Restoration Act” which would have re-asserted the Congressional authority over the courts outlined in Article III of the US Constitution. He was roundly criticized from all quarters, including our local newspaper for trying to usurp the Constitution. I wrote a defense of Everett’s bill to their editorial but found my letter so destroyed by their editing as to lose its entire meaning.  Everett retired the next election cycle and I cannot help but wonder if this was the final straw for him.
 So what was I to make of Judge Roy Moore who had stood against the established conventional wisdom and stuck his thumb in the eye of an overriding Federal authority?  Was he the opportunistic populist politician trying to make a name for himself? Was he one in a long series of charlatans spouting God, the Bible and country for his own gain? Was he just a fool tilting at windmills? Or was he that rare commodity, the “real deal?”  A man of ideas, and principles he held above personal gain or well-being.
 I find such beings rare these days, perhaps they always have been. I know when I used to tell stories of heroism in my history classes and try to explain why the men of Pickett’s division walked across that hot field in the face of federal guns, why Richard Garnett refused to excuse himself from duty that day, even though he was too sick to walk; why the Union Irish Brigade marched up to the slaughterhouse that was Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg, or why those folks at the Alamo didn’t high-tail it when they had the chance; I know I had a hard time explaining to those students raised in our cynical age that there were folks for whom honor, and courage were more important than life itself. (Just an aside here, the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan give me hope that such qualities aren’t as rare as I once feared).
 Could Judge Moore be one of that increasingly rare breed in public service these days?
 I determined if I got the chance I would go up and speak to him and try to find out for myself.  As things turned out I got my chance.
 I had gone to the wash room and was returning when I saw Judge Moore and his wife standing at the register waiting to pay their bill. I walked over to him, put my hand out and said, “I’ve been praying for you.” And I had, in spite of my questions, something in my spirit told me to pray for him.
 I saw his eyes tear up and at that moment I knew the intense pain he was enduring in his fight. Having been there myself more than once I knew this was no quest for glory that this man was in his own Gethsemane.  Whatever one wants to think of Judge Roy Moore, whether one agrees with his stance or methods, the man is no hypocrite.
 Suddenly all the things I read about him in the media began to make sense. The papers talked about his service in Vietnam, how his troops called him “Captain America” because he was so strict about the regulations. I knew that such a man could be no other way because it was his duty to enforce the regulations and this man was about duty, and honor, and country. And as we discussed his case briefly I knew at the top of the list was his God. What the media (and perhaps some of his troops) meant as a slam against his character I now knew was a tribute to his integrity.
 One can say he lost his court battle and was removed and that the other seven justices on the Court opposed him. Well, I remember a story of a little boy who went against the crowd to tell the Emperor he was naked. Was he wrong because everyone disagreed with him?
 I’ve never understood how an administrative panel could remove an elected official from office. Under my understanding of Constitutional law it would require an impeachment proceeding by the State Legislature. But there are many things in the law that I have to admit baffle me.
 Since that day in the restaurant I’ve had the opportunity to meet, speak with, and hear Judge Moore on more than one occasion. I am always amazed at his encyclopedic knowledge of US history, the law, the Constitution, and the Bible. Even more so I am amazed at his understanding of these concepts and the practical application of them.
 I personally am glad he has not chosen to go hide in a corner but is once more offering to enter public service. We need someone up there who is not afraid to tell the Emperor he’s naked.

Tuesday
Aug252009

Glenn Beck--Expose on the Czars etc.

What Glenn Exposed on the Czars--click here

What’s Washington going to be talking about this week ? I am sure Glenn Beck’s show this week on his expose will –like it or not will be part of the discussion (it airs 4pm central time). It is a must watch. Many I hope will call Congress after they watch as new incredible things will be put in the light specially about these so-called czars. I think Glenn Beck is like most citizens of this nation–he is very concerned at the change of power that is going on. It does not take much to realize as he has that their stimulus plan plus, cap and trade plan plus health reform plan to be passed in haste is a road to disaster to bankrupting America! Why must it be done this fast–it sure is not to save the economy–or to save planet earth–as Australia’s scientific approach has made their government balk at the suicide pact of global warming and they have wisely said no to the farce. In truth, things have to be done speedily so that the lobbyist who have written up these bills stamped by their favored Congressmen/women– can please their bosses as they raid the American financial system before the people has had the chance to find out what is in them. It almost sounds like a robbery but then it is in a more dignified way–by using this nation’s rules against itself. Of course it’s unconstitutional but as long as the favored Congressman/woman gets their bread buttered–”we the people” doesn’t really matter”. That is until election time–then they start all over promising the world. But the lies can’t be covered up anymore–there is just too much.

It looks like America is finding out–so let’s all watch Glenn Beck’s truly great investigations and start having a plan of our own to reclaim this nation. His story just on Van Jones–the green czar–disgusts one as how can a terrorist reach such a high spot in this nation. I think you can figure it out.Glee