Washington warned us. We forgot his warnings, and are paying for it.

Commentary by James Shott

In his farewell address at the end of his second term as president on September 19, 1796, George Washington warned the nation of the problems with political parties “in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”

The “spirit of party” has its roots in the “strongest passions of the human mind,” he said, and exists in all governments, to varying degrees, being stifled, controlled or repressed in most. But even in the young nation he had led, perhaps because of the high degree of freedom provided by its Constitution, “is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”

Looking across the political landscape today, Washington’s words are brought to life. And he can objectively address the issue of political parties, as he is the only president to have had no party affiliation. Washington had to be persuaded to seek a second term, and refused to run for a third term, despite great popular support for him to do so.

Essentially, parties are dangerous because they are collections of persons who share passions, and inevitably passion creates ideas that do not fit within constitutional guidelines.

Perhaps there exists a circumstance that prompts the party to encourage expanding the meaning of the General Welfare Clause to deliver “welfare”; to imagine the need for a federal department to dictate the kinds of light bulbs or toilets we should buy; or to reinterpret the plain language of the Second Amendment “for the common good.” None of these actions are legitimate under the processes set forth by the Constitution. Such ideas may highjack party members, and shift their attention from strict adherence to the principles of the Constitution.

“Well,” the members may say, “the Founders could not have foreseen this development. The Constitution does not address this.” The party starts to rationalize how to achieve these things without following the methods provided to change the Constitution.

Maybe this perspective results from a sincere desire to fix a significant problem; maybe it is merely means to an end. Either way, it is a step away from the intent and the letter of the law of the land. Devising circuitous routes to somehow find a way to do what the Constitution does not say you may do is objectively wrong, yet our government has grown absurdly large and expensive and immorally oppressive as a result of precisely these types of activities, and is what Washington warned of.

 “[T]he common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it,” Washington advised. “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”

America’s elected leaders have seemed to be more concerned with the activities of political parties – the spirit of party – than with focusing on the principles of the governing document. This has made a mishmash of a once-clearly defined government structure. It is a tribute to the government structure the Founders’ created, however, that even after these attacks on its foundations, it still remains singularly better than any other nation on Earth. That may not be true for much longer, however.

Were all Americans focused laser-like on following the U.S. Constitution when addressing national issues, would political parties form? Would there be a need for a formal organization to defend the Constitution? Does not the very existence of political parties signal motives other than strict adherence to the Constitutional principles?

The idea of originalism, the dedication to the language and intent of the Constitution, will draw strong disagreement from those that maintain that a document created more than 200 years ago cannot possibly apply satisfactorily to today’s circumstances. Which proves Washington’s point rather well, as it is primarily ideologically driven political parties and their adherents that want to loosen the specific language espousing the principles of the Founders, so that it means what they want it to mean, rather than what is says.

Neither major political party any longer strongly represents and defends the founding principles. The Republican Party – which once fairly strongly defended the founding principles, and still outperforms the Democrats in that category – has let spirit of party rule its integrity.

The leadership of the Democrat Party long ago adopted liberalism/socialism in stronger and weaker forms, and many/most of its goals run headlong into Constitutional prohibitions.

So liberals in both parties have decided that rather than properly change the Constitution through amendments or a constitutional convention – either of which is a long, difficult path to follow – they will instead sneak through the back door, pretending that the Constitution is outdated and must therefore be reinterpreted, all the while aided in their subversion by like-minded liberal judges.

It is unlikely we can do away with political parties, but given what they have done to the country, “wouldn’t it be loverly?”

Cross-posted from Observations

America's King

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.  ...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." --George Washington in his Farewell Address

After America gained its independence from Britain, many people called on the hero of the American Revolution, George Washington, to be their king.  He refused, instead accepting the honor of becoming the nation's first President.  Whether consciously or subconsciously, Washington probably knew that the majority of the American people already had a king--the Eternal King--Jesus Christ.  No man, not even George Washington, could ever sit in His place.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution do not refer specifically to the God of the Bible, however upon close examination and study it is clear that our nation's founding was based on His Word.  For example our founders referred to the Creator in several places--a Creator that is not Allah, or Buddha, or some pagan god, but clearly the Christian God.  Because the majority of Americans acknowledged God as their Creator and Jesus Christ as their Savior, our form of government can function properly as designed.

The United States government as described in our Constitution can be viewed as a caretaker government until the King returns.  That government is designed to be run by humans to manage normal human affairs and to protect the nation from external threats while giving maximum freedom to the general population to choose their own ends and for most to follow the direction of their King, Christ.  Without faith in God, personal ends have a greater potential to become evil.  George Washington appreciated this fact as evidenced by this portion of his Farewell Speech:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.  ...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

We must acknowledge that none of us are perfect nor can be...Christians included.  But if we as a nation keep our eyes on our Savior, our point of aim, then we are headed in the right direction in spite of our error and sin.  But if we were to remove our gaze from that point of light and instead rely exclusively on ourselves or other men to determine our ends and how we get there, then we have a serious problem and our form of government will no longer be effective.  It will be undermined by those who seek another path, and the threat they pose to the People will only increase as more and more eyes are turned away from Christ.

At its creation our nation gave deference to Jesus Christ as the King of the people.  During our time, there have been louder and louder calls for Him to abdicate His throne.  Let it be known that Christ will never abdicate His throne.  However we as a people can choose to reject Him as our King and guiding star for the ship of state.  Evil forces in America are laboring to make this happen, and have achieved much success.  Unless something is done to reverse this trend, such as a national Christian revival, we as a nation are on a pathway to bondage and doom.

For without Christ as the King of our people, we will seek another to replace Him, and it will be found in our human government and its human leadership.  God help us when that day comes (is it already here?).

As for me, Christ will be the King of my life, my family, and my house.

This Christmas season I ask you: In whom do you place your faith and trust?  Is it yourself?  Is it the government?  Or is it God?

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

The Case Against Secession

According to the WhiteHouse.gov petition website, there is a petition from almost every state requesting that it have the right to peacefully secede from the Union (Texas example). These are not official petitions from state governments, but from individuals within the states.  In effect, these petitions are circumventing the authority of the states.

In response to this multitude of secessionist desires, I contend that this is not the time for secession.

Over the past four years, a prominent Community Organizer has done his job agitating the people of this nation...and done it quite well.  According to Saul Alinsky, that is exactly what a community organizer is supposed to do--agitate:

“Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.”
“A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives; agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values....”  (Rules for Radicals)

And this is exactly what has been done to us, leading some after the President's re-election to petition for the secession of their state.

Think about it--the dissolution of our Republic is exactly what our enemies want, and if it can be accomplished through internal agitation, all the better.  Secession will not happen peacefully.  There are already comparisons being made between the current President and Lincoln (and a timely release of a film about Lincoln).  And what did Lincoln do?  Lincoln used the power of coercion possessed by the State to forcefully hold the Union together.  The current President would most likely act in the same manner.

In his farewell speech, George Washington admonished us that the most important thing for us to do is hold the Union together:

"The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people...is a main Pillar in the Edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize.  But...much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth..."  He advised us to "indignantly [frown] upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country from the rest..."  He also warns that "To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable.  No alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute."  He states that "your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other...the continuance of the Union as a primary object of Patriotic desire." (from George Washington's Farewell Speech)

To break apart our Union would leave us vulnerable to being ravaged by foreign powers.  And that is what will happen this time should our Union be dissolved.

Should secession occur, and if the military (which is largely located in self-described "red" states) not act on behalf of the federal government to hold the Union together, the President may request assistance from outside powers..."peacekeepers."  These "peacekeepers" will come from every nation that ever hoped to see the United States carved up and sold at auction--Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, to name a few.  Carved up and occupied we will become, magnificently achieving the collectivist and globalist goal of destroying America and our freedoms, for there is no place for our freedoms in a collectivist world.

There is opportunity amidst this national crisis.  As our countrymen experience the tyranny and oppression of a pseudo-socialist system, they will look for the light...for hope.  Point them to our nation's founding, and point them to God.  This battle isn't over, and we still have a chance to win.  There are still Patriots left amidst our ranks, and more will flock to the cause.

We must stand firm in the Constitutional foundation of our nation and never compromise.  The tyrannical opposition never compromises...they keep getting everything they want in incremental steps.  And every one of those steps is a step away from our founding.  We must reverse course.  We must redirect this rising desire to secede into an unrelenting resolve to stop the excesses, perversion and tyranny of our government in its current form.  It is time to get it back on track with our founding.

Should an all-out attempt to get our nation back on track fail and it falls into tyranny, then it would be worth considering secession.  For now, we Patriots have only just begun to fight.  And as a patient whose body rejects an organ transplant, the American body needs to reject this insidious organ of socialism that has somehow slipped into our borders.

Once we turn our back on the Union that we have, we will never, ever be able to gain it back.

If you would permit me a final comment, the very existence of the WhiteHouse.gov petition site undermines our republic.  It smacks of serfs petitioning an all-powerful king.  We are not serfs, and the President is most certainly not a king.  If you want something to happen, fix it at your local or state level, and only bring it up through your representatives if it has to be dealt with on the federal level.  The Executive Branch of the United States Government was not created to solve every problem under the sun...and we most certainly do not want it to.

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

George Washington's Farewell Address and Where We Are Today

"But a solicitude for your welfare...and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me...to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments; which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a People."

--George Washington in his Farewell Address to the People of the United States (1796)

Our first President, a man who pledged his Life, his Honor, and his Fortune to secure for us a nation wherein we could safely enjoy our God-given rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, left us with a series of warnings upon his voluntarily departure from the office of the Presidency.  These warnings did not come from any normal man, but from someone who had lived under tyranny and therefore understood its seductive quality and the oppression it brings to the people.

George Washington was a man who took up arms against the most powerful empire on the planet to free his people from this tyranny.  He was a man who was the first to administer the executive branch of a brand new form of government, designed to protect the liberties of its people.  He knew it would forever face enemies who would seek to arrest the freedoms of the people and restore power to the hands of a few.  He was a man who lived his life amongst a group of national leaders who had spent long hours studying human government and designing, discussing, and debating the new republic they were to create.

George Washington is someone who should be heeded.

Looking back at his thoughts on how to preserve our hard-won liberties, where do we stand today?  Have we as Americans been successful keeping the threats at bay, or have we violated his guidance and, whether consciously or unconsciously, taken the return path to tyranny?  Let us look at his advice, point by point, and consider where we are as a nation today.

1. The Union.  "The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people...is a main Pillar in the Edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize.  But...much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth..."  He advised us to "indignantly [frown] upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country from the rest..."  He also warns that "To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable.  No alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute."  He states that "your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other...the continuance of the Union as a primary object of Patriotic desire."

PASS.  We have effectively preserved our Union through the years, which provides the main pillar of strength at home to preserve our liberties.  A strong Union provides a bulwark against foreign adversaries who constantly seek to pick us apart, turn the parts against each other, and destroy our nation piece by piece. However, our Union could be torn asunder by the factionalism and Spirit of Party that have infected this nation, which will be discussed in points to follow.  Should our Union be weakened in the slightest, our enemies will be sure to exploit it.

2. Overgrown Military Establishments.  Because of the greater security the unity of the nation provides against external danger, we can therefore "avoid the necessity of those overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty..."

FAIL.  Since the conclusion of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the United States has maintained a very large military in response to the fear of external threats.  A constant threat of attack causes the people to be more apt to give up their rights in return for supposed protection by the government (The Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act are cases in point.).  Some thinkers believe that a perpetual state of war is necessary to ensure the people's allegiance to their nation (see "The Report from Iron Mountain" study).  High levels of military spending gives the government control over a large part of the national economy, enriches and empowers the banks and military-industrial complex, and supports the continued rationale for a permanent tax on the population through both income tax and inflation.  Finally, this military force can be turned on the people should the wrong individual occupy the Oval Office.

3. The Sacred Obligation to Follow the Constitution.  "The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government.  But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory to all."

FAIL.  Our leaders do not believe they have a sacred obligation to support, follow, and defend the Constitution, even though they have sworn oaths to do so.  Presidents such as Woodrow Wilson believed the Constitution needs to evolve in its meaning to remain up-to-date in changing times.  We have Justices on the Supreme Court who believe the Constitution is no longer relevant in this age.  Every branch of our government, both past and present, actively seek and find ways to circumvent and undermine that which the Constitution dictates.  Most concerning are the powers being abrogated by the Congress and given to the Executive Branch by such laws as the War Powers Act which essentially gives the President the ability to declare war.  Congress passes a great number of laws that should be handled at the State, local, or individual levels as per the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.  All are essentially "work-arounds" to the limits purposefully imposed on our form of government by the Constitution.

4. Obstructions to the Execution of Laws.  "All obstructions to the execution of the Laws...with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency.  They serve to organize faction...to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the Community....  However combinations...of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government..."

FAIL.  We have an Executive Branch that refuses to enforce the laws passed by the Legislative Branch and makes laws through Executive Directive and regulation, and a Judicial Branch that legislates.  These are done to advance the agenda of particular parties in contravention to the will of the people.

5.  The "Spirit of Innovation" Undermining the Constitution.  "Towards the preservation of your Government...it is requisite, not only that you discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts.  One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown."

FAIL.  We have presidents calling for a Second Bill of Rights, a New Deal, a Great Society, and Hope and Change, all with grand ideas for social perfection that goes against the Constitution in its current form and will eventually lead to the establishment of tyranny in this nation.

6. The Danger of Political Parties.  "Let me now...warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party....  It exists under different shapes in all Governments...but in those of popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.  The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetuated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.  The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty....  It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public administration.  It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.  It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption..."

FAIL.  In America today we are strictly limited to a two-party system with each party appearing to occupy diametrically opposed positions.  However, should those who hold great wealth and power "back both horses," they will control the agenda of both parties and wield great power over our nation no matter who is elected.  We are limited to the establishment's set of choices, where any voice outside of the established parties, no matter how right for the nation, cannot be heard.  This is even a greater threat today as the Executive Branch holds so much power that it was not originally designed to have.  But because it does, we cringe at the thought of who from the "other side"may occupy it, and anxiously await the day when "the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

7. The Separation of Powers.  "It is important...that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres....  If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation..."

FAIL.  The Executive and Judicial branches have succeeded in gathering more power to themselves at the cost of the Legislative Branch and the Constitution.  The Federal Government as a whole has taken upon itself the powers relegated to the States and the People not relegated to it by the Constitution.

8. The Importance of Religion and Morality.  "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.  ...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

FAIL.  We have perverted "freedom of religion" to mean the "separation of church and state," which essentially means "freedom from religion."  The Christian faith is being persecuted in America, driving the religion out of the public square and underground.  Carnality is being celebrated openly in public.  We have slaughtered millions of our children so that we can have "freedom of choice."

9. National Debt.  "One method of preserving [public credit] is to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of Peace to discharge the Debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."

FAIL.  Our entire monetary system depends upon the creation of debt.  The more debt sold by the Federal Government, the more money the Federal Reserve can put into circulation.  The National Debt is increasing exponentially, with absolutely no plan to slow it down, let alone reverse the trend.  Economic collapse is imminent.

10. Foreign Relations.  "Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations.  Cultivate peace and harmony with all.  ...to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.  Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it?  ...The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.  ...The Nation, prompted by ill will and resentment impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.  ...Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification....  And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country....  Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence..., the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake...  The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connections as possible.  ...'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances."

FAIL.  Our President is called the "Leader of the Free World," a burden which requires that we continually look to shape the world in our image.  We meddle in the internal affairs of other nations, and even go so far as to create reasons to go to war, such as in Iraq.  Our government is infiltrated with foreign operatives, as in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood.  We have carved up the world into "Combatant Commands" so that we have the command and control in place to "solve problems" anywhere in the world.  Our nation has become an empire, and an imperial power tends to dominate other nations instead of showing them good faith and justice.

11.  Foreign Commerce.  "But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences...'tis folly in one Nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its Independence for whatever it may accept under that character..."

FAIL.  Two items that seem to violate this thought are free trade agreements and granting most favored nation status.

Conclusion.  With our nation failing to follow the advice of our first President in all but one category, how can that last category not fall as well with all its pillars removed?  We must immediately seek to restore our nation to its original founding and purpose, lest we risk losing it altogether and witness the return of tyranny.

--Against All Enemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

America, Religion, and Depravity

Today we witnessed a brutal and senseless killing of innocent people in a movie theater in Colorado.  Some will declare that guns are the problem and that our right to bear arms must be curtailed.  Many will look to the government for solutions, to save us from ourselves.

What most people do not realize, however, is that our Founder Fathers already solved the problem by allowing for the free practice of religion (Christianity) in both public and private sectors.  Since the 1940's, however, the Supreme Court has steadily curtailed the freedom of religion in the United States, resulting in the massive increase of depraved behavior that we observe today.

Of note, the commonly used phrase, "separation of Church and State," is not to be found in either of our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.  It is a phrase written by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists...a phrase that has been hijacked, perverted, and perpetuated by the ignorant and those who support the eradication of Christianity from the fabric of our nation.

(The discussion that follows uses David Barton's "Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant" as a resource for many of the quotes that are used.)

Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The original intent of our Founding Fathers when they drafted this Amendment was:
(1) to prevent the US Government from establishing one religious (Christian) denomination as the approved State Religion, such as the Church of England or the German Church (which Adolf Hitler successfully commandeered to help achieve his own twisted ends), and
(2) to allow the free exercise of religion in public and private venues unless "its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." (1878 Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. United States )

Furthermore, our Founding Fathers, and those who followed shortly thereafter, clearly understood that our form of government required the Christian faith to maintain order in the nation by encouraging the good conduct of its citizenry. 

George Washington:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them."  (Address of George Washington, 1796)

"[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."  (Address of George Washington, 1796)

John Adams:

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  (Works, 1798)

Noah Webster:

"All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." (History of the United States, 1832)

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson alleviated concerns of the Danbury Baptist Association that the Constitution did not expressly identify the freedom of religion as an inalienable right.  Jefferson responded with a letter that reaffirmed the individual's freedom of religion that says in part:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."  (Jefferson's Letter to Danbury Baptists, 1802) (You can also read the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson here.)

However, beginning in 1947, the Supreme Court began misinterpreting the 1st Amendment and Thomas Jefferson's letter, specifically where he spoke of "a wall of separation between Church and State."  In short, the Judicial Branch of the United States Government began deliberately rejecting the Christian foundation of our nation and the morals it teaches, which are essential to the good behavior of its citizens.

In 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court "interpreted the 'separation' phrase as requiring the federal government to remove religious expressions from the public arena--that is, it interpreted the First Amendment not as a limitation on government interference but rather as a limitation on religious expressions and principles."  ("Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant.", p.14)

In its 1962 Engel v. Vitale ruling, the Supreme Court perverted the meaning of the word "church" within Jefferson's letter to mean "public religious activity" instead of "denomination."  They also perverted the use of the word "state" to mean the "public square." ("Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant.", p.14)

In 1963 Abington v. Schempp, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bible could no longer be included in public education:

"[I]f portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and...had been psychologically harmful to the child."

In 1980 Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled against the public display of the Ten Commandments, stating:

"If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the Commandments...[T]his...is not a permissible...objective."

Our Founding Fathers clearly articulated that to have good citizens you need to have religion and morality.  Thus you should not have to sit for long and wonder why we have such problems in our current time...we did this to ourselves.

I will leave you with some of the findings of the Colorado Board of Education on the Columbine shootings which clearly identify the lack of moral teachings in schools being partly responsible for the depraved behavior we are seeing in our children:

"As we seek the why behind this infamous event, we must find answers beyond the easy and obvious. How weapons become used for outlaw purposes is assuredly a relevant issue, yet our society's real problem is how human behavior sinks to utter and depraved indifference to the sanctity of life. As our country promotes academic literacy, we must promote moral literacy as well, and it is not children, but adults in authority who are ultimately responsible for that....
As a Board we believe, with Edmund Burke, that all that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. We further believe that society must act now before it is too late for more innocent children. We also recognize that failing to act shall make us all accomplices in such future tragedies as may engulf our schools.

Accordingly, we make the following recommendations for renewing that unity and strength of purpose that has historically bonded our schools, our homes, and our society....
Finally, we must remember, respect, and unashamedly take pride in the fact that our schools,
like our country, found their origin and draw their strength from the faith-based morality that is
at the heart of our national character.

Today our schools have become so fearful of affirming one religion or one value over another that they have banished them all. In doing so they have abdicated their historic role in the moral formation of youth and thereby alienated themselves from our people's deep spiritual sensibilities.

To leave this disconnection between society and its schools unaddressed is an open invitation to
further divisiveness and decline. For the sake of our children, who are so dependent upon a consistent and unified message from the adult world, we must solve these dilemmas."  ("What is to be Done: Searching for Meaning in our Tragedy")

The main resource for this article is David Barton's "Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant."  I recommend that you obtain this pamphlet to enhance your knowledge of this topic.


Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Why I Did Not Celebrate President's Day

Why I Did Not Celebrate President's Day

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

***********************************

First, my regular readers must have noticed that yesterday the so-called holiday, referred to as President's Day, was not mentioned by THIS scribe. Rest assured -- there was reason.

First of all, President's Day is an invention of the commercial community. Congress made it plain, when they instituted President's Day; the holiday was to memorialize President George Washington, our first President. But Washington WAS NOT OUR FIRST President! He was, in fact, or fifteenth President!

There were fourteen presidents BEFORE George Washington! Washington actually led the county's seventeenth administration. Washington was the first President of the US under the current US Constitution.

Below is a list of the Presidents of this country serving before George Washington:

Peyton Randolph of Virginia (1723-1775)

Henry Middleton (1717-1784)

John Hancock (1737-1793)

Henry Laurens (1724-1792)

John Jay (1745-1829)

Samuel Huntington (1732-1796)

Thomas McKean (1734-1817)

John Hanson (1715-1783)

Elias Boudinot (1741-1802)

Thomas Mifflin (1744-1800)

Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794)

Nathaniel Gorham (1738-1796)

Arthur St. Clair (1734-1818)

Cyrus Griffin (1736-1796)

If you'd like a bit of a synopsis on each of these men then we suggest you go HERE .

President Cyrus Griffin was a reluctant supporter of the Constitutional ratifying process. It was during Griffin's term in the office of the Presidency—the last before the new national compact (the current US Constitution) went into effect—that ratification was formalized and finalized. Griffin served as the nation's chief executive from January 22, 1788 until George Washington's inauguration on April 30, 1789.

Now, I'm OK with celebrating George Washington's birthday. No problem at all. Washington was a Southern gentleman. It was under Washington's guidance that this country had its first economic boom.

But, when they dragged Lincoln into President's Day, I lost interest in the holiday.

Look, I am a Southerner. I am no lover of Abraham Lincoln. I dare say that if Americans knew the real story of Abraham Lincoln they'd have no more love for the man than I do.

Lincoln was a duplicitous politician... at BEST! He said the following on the floor of the Congress on January 13th, 1848: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement."

I didn't make that up. It is a matter of official record. Lincoln said it. Yet when a portion of the people of the US decided they wanted to do exactly what Lincoln said they could do, he sent an army of aggression into their new country to kill and destroy and drag them back into the very government they had just rejected at the point of a government bayonet.

We ALL know that Lincoln was anti-slavery, right? After all he was The Great Emancipator, right? Well, read the following statement Lincoln made in a speech in Peoria Illinois and then decide: "We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go north and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go south and become most cruel masters.When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter."Lincoln also said: "I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves."

In his Inaugural Address Lincoln said: "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

In a letter to Alexander H. Stephens, Lincoln said the following: "Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington." You'll find it on page 150 of "Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens." (By the way Alexander Stephens was Vice-President of the Confederate States of America.)

In a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune at the time, and dated August 22nd, 1862, Lincoln said this: “My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union.”

Do you begin to understand why I cannot celebrate the birth of a man who found it necessary to drag the American people into the bloodiest war this nation has ever seen, or is likely to see? Of all the nations involved in the slave trade, the US was the only one to decide to end that horrible traffic with a war between brothers resulting in a patched-up a nation scarred for all eternity.

If you want to celebrate the birthday of George Washington, I’m all for it. But celebrate the birth of Abraham Lincoln? NEVER!

J. D. Longstreet