Babylon Today    |   home
What Happened?   |   Why Babylon?   |   Solutions   |   Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit   |   Abortion   |   Salvation   |   End-Time Scenario   |   Episcopalians   |   Charities and Organizations   |   The Environment   |   Forestry   |   The Constitution   |   Page of Outrage   |   The U.N.   |   General Assets   |   Stocks Bonds   |   General Politics   |   Politics 2004   |   Politics 2006-2008   |   Politics 2009-end   |   Bahamas Freedom   |   Instructions   |   My Purpose   |   OBAMACARE / HILLARYCARE   |   THE DEMOCRAT PLANTATIONS   |   NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
THE CONSTITUTION
"There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy." - David Barton (Reference to Jefferson's Danbury letter and the so-called "separation of church and state")

".....He that ruleth over men [must be] just, ruling in the fear of God." 2 Samuel 23:3.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is that you cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians - it creates a hostile work environment. - anonymous email

THE BIG LIE

Where in Article 1 is there any provision for a "separation of Church and State"?  The language of the "separation of Church and State" appears nowhere in the First Amendment.  More correctly referred to as the "establishment clause", Article 1 was intended to prevent the Federal government from establishing a single "State Church" such as the Church of England while at the same time guaranteeing the free exercise of religion.  While it prohibits the Federal government from establishing a State Church, individual states were free to establish their own state churches and several did.  

Will the atheists chisel the religious inscription off of virtually all of our government buildings?  Will they end the prayers before every session of Congress and even at our local Commission meetings?  The interdenominational prayer that opened the first congress was over 3 hours long.  Twenty-six of the members of our original congress were graduates of seminary schools.  Our forefathers knew, and stated repeatedly, that the form of government they were establishing could never survive without firm roots in God's laws, and His ultimate judgment.  The only books required in our early schools were the Bible and a hymnal.

THOMAS JEFFERSON DANBURY LETTER

The germ of where the historical revisionists, aristocratic activist liberal judges and media pundits began to be so misguided regarding "church and State" is from a court case from 1947 which used a metaphor contained in the Danbury letter written by Thomas Jefferson.  But, "So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:  And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson ('Original Intent' p. 46)

THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS IN FRANCE DURING FRAMING OF 1ST AMENDMENT

"The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did." (Original Intent p. 48)

Founding Father James Madison wrote: "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."  This is why the U.S. was established as a representative republic.

When the government fears the people there is liberty.  When the people fear the government there is tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson

 ABUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
(From "Original Intent" - David Barton - Wall Builders)

"Since the introduction of the 1947 Everson guideline, activities upheld as constitutional in prior years are now regularly prohibited. The Everson decision, however, was distinctive not only for its introduction of the modern "separation" doctrine but also because it dramatically expanded the role of the federal courts. How was this accomplished?
In Everson, the Court took the Fourteenth Amendment (which dealt with specific State powers) and attached to it the First Amendment's federal provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishement of religion".  The result of merging these two Amendments was twofold: first, the Court reversed the bedrock constitutional demand that the First Amendment pertained ONLY to the federal government, second, the Court declared that federal courts were now empowered to restrict not only the religious activities of the federal government but also those of States and individuals as well.
This expansion of the Court's jurisdiction in the Everson decision was accomplished only by direct violations of the porposes for which both the First and Fourteenth Amendments were enacted." (Original Intent 17)

From the back cover: "In their own words, the Supreme Court has become "a national theology board," "A super board of education," and amateur psychologists on a "psycho-journey." The result has been a virtual rewriting of the liberties enumerated in the constitution.

A direct victim of this judicial micromanagement has been the religious aspect of the first amendment.  For example the Court now interprets that Amendment under:

.....a "Lemon Test" absurdly requiring religious expression to be secular,
.....an "Endorsement Test" pursuing an impossible neutrality between religion and secularism,
.....and a "Psychological Coercion Test" allowing a single dissenter to silence an entire community's religious expression.

Additional casualties of judicial activism have included protections for State's rights, local controls, separation of powers, legislative supremacy, and numerous other constitutional provisions.  Why did earlier Courts protect these powers for generations, and what has caused their erosion by contemporary Courts?  

Original Intent Answers these questions.  By relying on thousands of primary sources, Original Intent documents (in the Founding Fathers' own words) not only the plan for limited government originally set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights but how that vision can once again become reality.

Article VII of our Constitution ends:   "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, ...."

Everson in 1947 was followed by McCollum in 1948 removing religious instruction in schools (Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.), combined with the founding of the World Council of Churches in 1948 and declaration of independence of Israel, spelled the beginning of the prophetic end of the Church age and witness (the two candlesticks/two olive trees/witnesses), and the beginning of the last generation.  Look at where we have degenerated to (fallen away from the Word) nationally in such a short time.  When I was a kid Leave it to Beaver was a prime time show.

SCHOOLS TO BAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?

Certainly it should come as no surprise that our liberal academic establishment would indeed want to ban the Declaration of Independence considering how it, that is our articles of incorporation, begins:  

"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Misplaced (that is inverted) fear, of religious leaders in U.S. government has helped to demonstrate that the intolerant secular detractors are the only true radicals.  It would seem that their goal is to achieve freedom from being exposed to religion by infringing on the rights of others who choose to engage in the free exercise thereof, guaranteed in our Constitution.  Since the vast majority of Americans are Christian, they must necessarily accomplish this through outrageous decisions of activist judges.  Here is a copy of The Declaration of Independence.  This document was considered to be so dangerous and subversive by the ACLU and activist judges, because of its reference to God and our Creator, that they attempted to ban it from being taught in our schools.  The most popular text regarding our Constitution in colleges today is "The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness".  The potential dangers to our Republic, at the hands of radicals that fear that a leader in government or especially a judge would use Judeo-Christian values as a guide in decision-making, are obvious.  This is the same group that would control all speech through regulatory device, such as so-called "hate speech", which can be simply defined as speech with which they do not agree.  A prime example is Clinton's, Donna Shalala's speech code at the University of Wisconsin.

WHY FEAR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN POLITICIANS?

There are a lot of democrats and republicans that express fear of politicians, and judges, that are self-described Christians.  This describes the Democrat filibusters of Bush appointed judicial nominees.  Is it really so scary to have a person in power, that makes decisions based on his belief that he will ultimately be held accountable by his Creator, for the consequence of that decision, for eternity?  It would seem to me that the more that you perceive that a politician has a healthy fear of God, the more you can relax about his decision making.  ".....He that ruleth over men [must be] just, ruling in the fear of God." 2 Samuel 23:3.  I don't believe I have even heard atheists argue that the rules in the Bible, such as the 10 commandments, are a bad guide for a person to live their life by.  It is certainly hard to imagine an atheist having an objection to his neighbor living his life by these rules.  It would make for a pretty responsible neighbor.  The entire reason that U.S. residents of all faiths are welcome to worship as they choose, or choose not to, is precisely because we are a Judeo-Christian nation, certainly not in spite of it.  This is why one Muslim I heard speak stated that there is no place on earth he would rather practice his religion than here in the freedom of the U.S.  Our forefathers were not concerned that an atheist would ever be elected to office.  If he were, how could an atheist even swear an oath of office, or swear an oath before serving as a witness in court?  What juror could trust in a witness that believes in no ultimate accountability beyond himself?

I would further suggest that no Jews that are at all familiar with the New Testament, would have any legitimate fear of a leader that would conduct his own life according to the prescriptions of the New and Old Testaments, any more than any Christian would have a fear of any Jewish leader that conducts himself in accordance with the prescriptions of the Old Testament.  This is all about personal accountability to our Creator, as our forefathers referred to Him in The Declaration of Independence.

WHAT ABOUT AMORAL OR SECULAR HUMANIST LEADERS?  
WE'VE SEEN PLENTY

Certainly we well know the consequences of selecting a "leader" who does not act accordingly.  As a result the primary Clinton legacy is a generation of kids that believe that oral sex is not really having sex, and sadly that same group is now rife with STDs, teen pregnancy, abortion etc..  Does an atheist even find this preferable?  The Bush judicial appointments are primarily being held up because these fine men and women are not shy about defining themselves by their faith in God.  Would Americans prefer judges that make decisions based purely on their unguided personal worldviews, from their own personal sense of right and wrong?  Haven't the most despotic and oppressive governments, at least in the modern world, been ruled by atheistic, secular, or quasi-religious governments?  Did Hitler believe he was a maniacal dictator or did he believe he was a savior out to "fix" the world?  He was guided by his own personal moral compass.  "Heinrich Heine, who understood that despite its anti-Semitism and other moral failings, Christianity in Europe prevented the wholesale slaughter of human beings that became routine with Christianity's demise. In 1834, 99 years before Hitler and the Nazis rose to power, Heine warned:  A drama will be enacted in Germany compared to which the French Revolution will seem harmless and carefree. Christianity restrained the martial ardor for a time but it did not destroy it; once the restraining talisman [the cross] is shattered, savagery will rise again."  Remember Pol Pot.

IN WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY DO YOU WANT TO LIVE?

From "Original Intent" - "Identifying the Spirit of the Constitution" - "As a result of the two distinctly differing philosophies of constitutional interpretation, there have been two distinct eras of judicial decisions.  The fundamental difference between these two was summed up by a U.S. attorney General:
Under the old system the question was how to read the Constitution; under the new approach, the question is whether to read the Constitution. "
"The second era, which began with the slow accumulation of positivistic Justices on the Court throughout the 1930s and 1940s, was not fully actuated until the Court's 1962-63 decisions.  Those decisions openly repudiated the transcendent, Biblical, natural-law standards which had prevailed-or had at least not been set aside-since the time of the Founders, and instituted legal positivism as the replacement."

Heritage page
Your child's trashy reading list.  "Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture That’s Gone Stark Raving Mad"
Review the Index of Dependency.
Under construction; more to follow.

NOBODY WANTS TO FORCE ANYBODY TO BE A CHRISTIAN

Make no mistake, nothing would be more unchristian than for someone to be so misguided as to consider it their charge to have government force Christianity on others.  History has demonstrated repeatedly that the opposite result than that which is desired is inevitable.  The whole point of evangelism is to demonstrate, through example, and when asked to explain, the beauty of God's love and what it means to be a Christian and what a wonderful influence Jesus can be on one's life.  The responsibility of the Christian is to help cultivate a desire in another to be saved and thus enjoy a life in Christ.  

THE CONSTITUTION

Here is a copy of the U.S. Constitution compliments of Congressman Ron Paul's web site.
Of particular importance is our Constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion which includes Valedictorian speeches as graduations, self or group-motivated prayer in or after school, religious clubs at school, as well as the same in the workplace, or neighborhood, as long as the exercise is not directed by school leaders, etc.  

WALL BUILDERS 

Any reasonable person that is not so narrow minded as to exclude other points of view to this misconstrued so-called separation of Church and State should visit  Wallbuilders.com, and order Original Intent, if you have enough integrity to learn for yourself rather than to parrot the fraud, that is the BIG LIE of activist judges since 1947, and the ACLU, who, incidentally, almost invariably looses to the ACLJ in court on this issue.

It would seem that the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers had a good handle on the downside of central government.

LAUS DEO (bookmark)

"On the aluminum cap atop the WashingtonMonument in WashingtonDC are
two words: Laus Deo. No one can see these words. In fact ... most
visitors to the monument have no idea they are even there and ... for
that matter ... probably could care less! But there they are ... 555
feet, 5.125 inches high ... perched atop the monument to the father
of our nation ... overlooking the 69 square miles which comprise the
District of Columbia ... capital of the United States of America.
Laus Deo! Two seemingly insignificant, unnoticed words ... out of
sight and, one might think, out of mind ... but very meaningfully
placed at the highest point over what is the most powerful city in
the world. And what might those two words ... comprised of just four
syllables and only seven letters ... mean? Very simply ... "Praise be
to God!" Though construction of this giant obelisk began in 1848
when James Polk was President of the United States, it was not until
1888 that the monument was inaugurated and opened to the public. It
took twenty five years to finally cap the memorial with the tribute
Laus Deo! Praise be to God! From atop this magnificent granite and
marble structure ... a visitor can take in the beautiful panoramic
view of the city with its division into four major segments. And from
that vantage point one can also easily see the original plan of the
designer, Pierre Charles l'Enfant ... a perfect cross imposed upon
the landscape ... with the White House to the north ... the Jefferson
Memorial to the south ... the Capitol to the east ... and the Lincoln
Memorial to the west. A cross ... you say? How interesting! And ...
no doubt ... intended to carry a meaning for those who bother to
notice. Praise be to God! Within the monument itself are 898 steps
and 50 landings. As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings
the memorial stones share a message. On the 12th Landing is a prayer
offered by the City of Baltimore; on the 20th is a memorial presented
by some Chinese Christians; on the 24th a presentation made by Sunday
School children from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7,
Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6. Praise be to God! When the cornerstone
of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848 deposited
within it were many items including the Holy Bible presented by the
Bible Society. Praise be to God! Such was the discipline, the moral
direction, the spiritual mood given by the founder and first
President of our unique democracy ... "one nation, under God." I am
awed by Washington's prayer for America. Have you never read it? Well
now is your opportunity ... read on! "Almighty God; We make our
earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy
protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to
cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and
entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for
their fellow citizens of the United states at large." "And finally
that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do
justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity,
humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics
of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble
imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a
happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus
Christ our Lord. Amen." Laus Deo! As you might have guessed ... I
kind of like the idea that our Pledge of Allegiance includes the
phrase "under God." It is clear when one studies the history of our
great nation that Washington's America was one of the few countries
in all the world established under the guidance, direction and banner
of Almighty God, to whom was given all praise, honor and worship by
the great men who formed and fashioned her pivotal foundations. And
... when one stops to observe the inscriptions found in public places
all over our nation's capitol ... one will easily find the signature
of God. We are a nation under God!!! Laus Deo!!! Praise be to
God!!!"

"Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labor in vain. Unless
the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain.
(Psalm 127: 1)" From several sources.

REVIEWS ON ORIGINAL INTENT FROM AMAZON.COM

A review posted in Amazon.com - ORIGINAL INTENT: IT'LL KEEP YOU FROM STEPPING IN IT!, June 29, 2005
Reviewer: STEPHEN T. McCARTHY (a MENSA-donkey in Phoenix, Airheadzona.) - See all my reviews
If one was to look through my Amazon reviews they would find that I rarely award 5 Stars to any product, but I would be making a mockery of the grading system if I said that David Barton's, ORIGINAL INTENT was anything less than a 5 Star publication. (And I'm not even a "Christian" by contemporary definition.)

ORIGINAL INTENT played a major role in my self-education (which is the only REAL education. Trust professional educators to direct you to knowledge and you'll get all of the information that seemingly supports their bias, and no more!) ORIGINAL INTENT is a genuine masterpiece of research that meets the stringent standards of scholarship; it will certainly blow the lid off of what you've been conditioned to believe about "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" (it exists neither in word nor concept in ANY Founding Document) and the religious nature of early America and Her Founders.

As the back cover states: "A DIRECT VICTIM OF...JUDICIAL MICROMANAGEMENT HAS BEEN THE RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT...ADDITIONAL CASUALTIES OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM HAVE INCLUDED PROTECTIONS FOR STATE'S RIGHTS, LOCAL CONTROLS, SEPARATION OF POWERS, LEGISLATIVE SUPREMACY, AND NUMEROUS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. WHY DID EARLIER COURTS PROTECT THESE POWERS FOR GENERATIONS, AND WHAT HAS CAUSED THEIR EROSION BY CONTEMPORARY COURTS? 'ORIGINAL INTENT' ANSWERS THESE QUESTIONS. BY RELYING ON THOUSANDS OF PRIMARY SOURCES, 'ORIGINAL INTENT' DOCUMENTS (IN THE FOUNDING FATHERS' OWN WORDS) NOT ONLY THE PLAN FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT ORIGINALLY SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS, BUT HOW THAT VISION CAN ONCE AGAIN BECOME REALITY."

The thesis of this book is supported by an astonishingly extensive array of quotations and judicial citations - over 1,400 footnotes to explore for substantiation. The appendix includes THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and THE U.S. CONSTITUTION in full.

Sure, you'll encounter the occasional mendacious "Historian" and indoctrinated "M.A." who broadly claim that Barton is a li ar, but don't expect them to get more specific; they can't! To be sure, there are liars in the house, however, Barton is not amongst them.

Incidentally, regarding "HISTORIAN's" comment about Donald Lutz : Yes, his 'The Origins Of American Constitutionalism' is cited in ORIGINAL INTENT, along with (by my count) 451 other publications. Barton borrows from his book in only one chapter (#11, which accounts for 14 of ORIGINAL INTENT's 346 pages of non-appendix text) in the form of 2 charts isolating our Founding Fathers' most frequently quoted sources. To say that Barton's statistics are distortion is falsehood unless the findings of Lutz et al., were distorted to begin with.

Barton relies strictly on the clear meaning of the Founding Fathers as revealed by their own words and official documents. But what he reveals in his masterpiece so unnerves the liberals and/or atheists (read : Socialists and/or Secular Humanists) that these flapjacks will say ANYTHING to dissuade you from reading it!

For a cookie-cutter, milquetoast-looking "Christian", ol' David Barton knows how to linguistically put up his dukes. He's got a strong jab and a knockout "RIGHT" "CROSS". I like that; I like a punishing counter-puncher! To see how Barton counterpunches "Historians", "M.A.s" and other flapjacks, go to his website, www.wallbuilders.com and click on "Issues & Articles" (under the category of "Resources") and read the article, "Taking On The Critics."

If I was your benevolent dictator, nobody would receive a high school diploma until they had demonstrated that they had a comprehensive understanding of the content of the books, 'NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON: 25 YEARS LATER' by John Stormer; 'THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND' by G. Edward Griffin; and 'ORIGINAL INTENT' by David Barton. Read these three and you'll never again slip on the political dog poop that is continually strewn about by your judges, your media, your professors, your politicians, and some of your fellow Amazon reviewers. The TRUTH will not only make you free, but it will keep that smelly stuff off of your shoes and out of your mind!

Another book review snippet from Amazon:

In rebuttal to some who say that some of the quotes in the former edition of this book, The Myth of Separation, were retracted on Barton's website (www.wallbuilders.org), what those people do NOT say is that Barton withdrew them because he wanted to raise the standard for references and quotations by taking them ONLY from original source materials, not just on the say-so of professors, judges, history professors, legal scholars, and early textbooks. Although using quotations from such sources is acceptable in the acedmic community, Barton often testifies in court, and he wanted to use only the "best evidence."