“Common Sense” Profiling

I am re-posting the following article I wrote in 2005.

On January 19th, 2005, I watched a program on CNN entitled, “Defending America”.  The program aired during the Anderson Cooper 360 show.  In it, CNN’s Drew Griffin interviewed Michael Touhey the American Airlines ticket agent who sold tickets to Mohammed Atta and his henchman.


The most compelling part of the show, to me, was that the first thing Mr. Touhey thought when Atta approached his counter was, “if these two don’t look like terrorists, I don’t know who does” (paraphrased).  Yet, despite his “gut feeling”, he issued tickets to both.  In fact, he said that his second thought was of shame for judging based on his “gut feeling” and their appearance.


Thus, he faced a “catch-22” situation that has been imposed by our country’s incessant quest for political correctness and tolerance.  If he questions their motives, he is likely to face a reprimand for “racially profiling.”  If he issues tickets, he runs the risk of letting two individuals who may be terrorists, on board the plane.  Unfortunately for hundreds of people that day, he erred on the side of political correctness.


Of course Mr. Touhey would take it all back were he given the chance today.  So this brings us to the question, if hindsight is 20-20 would he be correct in calling the authorities to check out the two men?  Of course, the rational among us emphatically scream, “YES!”  However, if this is the case, why do we still not allow our law enforcement officers to do the same?


The answer is because the “deafening minority” is louder than the “silent majority”.  Anytime there is the appearance of a law enforcement officer singling out a minority, this relatively small minority of people (or groups like the ACLU or MALDEF) cry foul.


Is it safe to assume then, that those opposed to allowing law enforcement officers to use their experience (aka “gut feelings”) and profiling techniques to question individuals would still want Mr. Touhey to issue the tickets?  Doing otherwise would be to “racially profile” according to some people.


Which way do we want it? We cannot have it both ways.  Do we continue to cower in the face of the “deafening minority,” or use “common sense” profiling to thwart crimes in our nation?


I liken the situation to the inland immigration enforcement operations (aka “sweeps”) that occurred in June of 2004 in southern California.  When, once again, the “deafening minority” cried foul to Asa Hutchinson and the sweeps were stopped, a human rights commission was convened in Riverside, CA to discuss the appropriate methods for our law enforcement officers to use when identifying potential illegal aliens (or other criminals for that matter).  At that meeting, I reasoned with the commission that the techniques used by immigration officials should be similar to those of vice officers when picking up prostitutes.


If the law enforcement officers see a group of scantily clad women (a subjective assessment) at night approaching cars that stop by the side of the road, in an area known for prostitution, their reasonable conclusion is that these women are prostitutes.  Likewise, if immigration officers see a bunch of men in work clothes (another subjective assessment) on the side of the road approaching pick-up trucks as they come by and leaving in those trucks, their reasonable conclusion is that these men are illegal aliens.


It is entirely possible for the women to be tourists asking for directions, just like it is possible for the men to be American citizens looking for work.  With the presumption that there can always be doubt about these conclusions, why can vice make these judgment calls and immigration and local law enforcement officials not be allowed to do so?

We need our public officials to reassure the law enforcement community that they will be defended by their federal, state and local governments, should a group like ACLU or MALDEF bring suit against them for using “common sense” profiling.  We need to begin standing up for each other when we see someone wrongly labeled as a “racist” with the not-so-hidden-agenda of silencing them.  We cannot continue to let the “deafening minority” dictate the security—or lack thereof–of our country and usurp our laws to suit their purpose.

Read More

So you call yourself a Patriot?

It seems that everywhere you turn on the internet, someone is calling himself a “patriot.”  There are patriots, patriot groups, patriotic sentiments, patriotic language, and the list goes on.

But are all of these “patriots” operating from the same definition of the word? Does it even matter?

Words do matter.  The more complacent we become about the use of the English language, the easier it becomes for the opportunists and the more devious among us to subtly (or not so subtly) hijack the language to suit their own nefarious purposes.

This can lead to very dangerous and/or counterproductive results.  Take the co-opting of the Tea Party movement by the establishment as an example.  Because most will consider the “Tea Party” movement as patriotic on faith (thanks to clever marketing), little to no research or investigation is done before carrying the banner, or doing work on behalf of, any group labeled “Tea Party.”  While the sentiment of those following groups like this is well-intentioned, it does not absolve us of the responsibility to “think before we act” to ensure our efforts are truly constructive and effective.

So for this reason (among others), I am placing a stake in the ground to define how I evaluate whether someone or something is “patriotic.”

Let’s start with Webster’s definition:


A person who loves his country, and zealously supports and defends it and its interests.

Webster’s Dictionary, 1828

There is a lot to digest in that definition dating back nearly 200 years.

“A person who loves his country…” 

When he used the word “country,” is Webster speaking of a chunk of land, a government, a people, or some combination of the three?

Digging into some of Webster’s definitions of “country” and using the context from the remainder of his definition of “patriot”, I believe the following definitions fit best:


  1. The kingdom , state or territory in which one is born; the land of nativity; or the particular district indefinitely in which one is born.(as it applies to natural-born citizens)
  2. a region of permanent habitation (as it applies to naturalized citizens)

We can see that Webster is not speaking about government when he refers to “country”.  He is clearly referring to a political jurisdiction that also includes a geographic boundary.

But how are the geographical boundaries of that land determined?  Well, in the case of our country the geographical boundaries are derived from the original thirteen states who “form[ed] a more perfect union” and the various annexations since then that are pursuant to Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which is the basis for our political jurisdiction.

But what is a country without its people?

Merely a swath of land.  Therefore, a patriot who “loves his country” by inference loves his fellow citizens as part of that country.  To substantiate this assertion, let’s look at the case of veterans of our armed forces.  Each of them volunteers to make the ultimate sacrifice, if needed, to defend his “country”.  God-given common-sense tells us that they don’t do this merely for the land, but for their loved ones who inhabit the land, and the pursuit of their livelihoods to support these loved ones once their noble service to our country is concluded.

By the way, in order for anyone to enlist or be commissioned as an officer in the armed forces of the United States, they are required to affirm that they will “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”

Continuing with Webster’s definition of “patriot”…

“…and zealously supports and defends it…”

The word “zealously”, in my opinion, is one of the two major distinctions that I believe are lost in the current, myriad, and tepid interpretations of the word “patriot.”

According to Webster, zealously is defined as “with passionate ardor; with eagerness.”

In no interpretation of the word “zealously” is one left believing it can be demonstrated passively.  To be “zealous” about something requires active and enthusiastic work (or “animated” as Webster also describes the word “passionate“).

Isn’t it interesting that to define the activities of a patriot, Webster uses some of the same words that have been used since 1789 to codify our oaths of office pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:  “support” and “defend”.  In fact, the very first section of the very first Act of Congress was to establish this oath.  This is no coincidence.

It seems that all roads lead back to the Constitution–the nexus of those characteristics that define a patriot in the United States of America.

Clearly, to our Founding Fathers and Framers of our Constitutional Republic, the acts of “supporting and defending” the Constitution as written and with their intent, was of paramount importance.  After all, the Constitution cannot defend itself.

Finally: “…and its interests.”

This means “in the interests of the country”.  Again, since a chunk of land cannot have interests, the implication is that a patriot supports and defends the interests of the citizens of the country.  This is distinct from the interests of a government or a political party.  Because our government’s scope is limited to enumerated powers (authority) by the Constitution, there can be many situations that a patriot must support and defend that will fall outside of this scope.  This concept is summed up by the phrase “America First” but includes the principles of “Allegiance and Protection” and federalism.

So far the characteristics that define a patriot are:

  • Citizenship–A citizen of the United States who:
    • Activity–will actively and passionately support and defend:
      • the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic, and
      • the interests of his fellow citizens ahead of any other nation’s interests thereby demonstrating his love for his countrymen.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

–Thomas Paine

So what does it mean to “support and defend” the Constitution?

This is the second major distinction between the common use of the word patriot, and my understanding of the effective definition.

Again from Webster’s 1828 definitionSupport – To vindicate; to maintain; to defend successfully; as, to be able to support one’s own cause.”

A “patriot” cannot passively sit by as the Constitution is attacked, undermined, usurped, infringed upon, or directly violated and still claim to be supporting it.  It is not enough to be mad about it.  But this begs the question: “how will one know if this is happening?”

There is a two-part answer:

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine

  1.  A patriot must pay attention to politics in order to know something is afoot
  2.  A patriot must know and understand the Constitution to determine if it is in jeopardy

And once a patriot becomes aware of such an attack on his Constitution, by his oath of allegiance, he is committed to a course of defending it until such time as the threat or violation is neutralized.

This is a significant undertaking, but we were warned by Thomas Paine who said:

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.  “

So be very careful when calling yourself a “patriot” for you will have committed to course that will last your entire lifetime.

Truth be told, all who pledge allegiance to our Republic are duty-bound to “support and defend” it, but by proclaiming to the world you are a patriot, you receive a double-dose of scrutiny.

But while this is a heavy burden to bear, you do not have to do it alone.  Working together with other patriots in an organized, common direction and aligned to the same strategy makes for more effective use of our time in “support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Visit http://www.PatriotCoalition.org/join-us to learn more.

Read More

Article V: Defend not Amend

It is called by many names:  Constitutional Convention, Con-Con, Convention of States, Article V Convention.

But just because we can have one, doesn’t mean we should have one.  In fact, the opposite is true.

Fox News recently published an article in their Politics section entitled “States’ rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution.”  As the title implies, the article discusses the efforts by what they refer to as “States’ Rights advocates” to call for a “convention of states.”  Right out of the gate, the deception begins–be it intentional or simply due to ignorance and lazy reporting.

With all of these references to the states, you would think that an Article V Convention (as it is most precisely called) is controlled by the states.  However, this is not the case.

Let’s review exactly what Article V of the U.S. Constitution says.

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents, and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”  Article V, U.S. Constitution

So there are two phases to the amendment process.

A) Amendment Phase

B) Ratification Phase

Additionally, there are 4 types of actors involved.

  1. Congress
  2. State Legislatures
  3. National Convention
  4. Conventions in the States


ArtV - Phases and actors new


Let us set aside the case in which Congress proposes amendments, since that is not being discussed in this article.  The next case in which an amendment can be proposed initiates with the state legislatures.

The Congress… on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments…

This is the “convention” that is referred to when you hear all the various names of an Article V Convention including “Convention of States.”  And this is where the involvement of the states ends until the ratification phase.  While proponents of an Article V Convention attempt to deceive the general public (and uninformed state legislators) into thinking that a “Convention of the States” is comprised of the several states, it is not the case at all.

Notice that in the language of Article V, two-thirds of the state legislatures must apply, but Congress is the actor who “call[s] a convention for proposing amendments.”  This is a significant point.


ArtV - Convention called new



How are the delegates selected? What are the rules of the convention?  How many votes does each state or delegate receive?

For the answers to these, we need to refer to another clause of the U.S. Constitution–specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 17–otherwise known as the “Necessary and Proper” clause.

The Congress shall have power…To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”  U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (Emphasis added)

As you can see, because the power of Congress to call an Article V Convention is vested by the Constitution, Congress may decide the how delegates are selected, how the rules are established, and potentially how many votes each state or delegate will receive.

So the bottom line is that this will be a federal convention, not a “Convention of States” as the name implies.

So why does Fox News align this movement with States’ Rights?  Part of the answer lies in the quote from the Texas Public Policy Forum president:

The American people are mad and they’re looking for a way to say, ‘No more,

the U.S. Constitution is not a self-enforcing document

Proponents of an Article V convention are attempting to tap into this anger; specifically in those who, without researching the actual mechanics of a convention, will latch onto the rallying cry of “States’ rights!”  Unfortunately, as I have described above, states may have nothing to do with the actual proposing of amendments which will happen on the floor of the convention by the delegates Congress authorizes.

Even Fox News in their shoddy reporting gets it wrong when they say, “Article V of the Constitution allows a minimum of two-thirds of the states to call for a convention to propose amendments, in turn going around Congress. ”  Article V does not “allow.. the states to call for a convention.”  Only Congress can do that as it is plainly written in Article V.

While there are many other dangers inherent in an Article V conventions, I will only briefly mention a couple here for you to consider and then move on to more important matters.

  1. An amendment to the Constitution can change just one comma or everything except one comma.  Despite the claims to the contrary, there is no such thing as a limited Article V Convention.
  2. Four simple words can change everything “States’ sovereignty is abolished.”  Although lawyers today would add 40, 400, or even 4,000 words to obfuscate this simple concept.

The sad part of this entire discussion to this point is that it is all smoke and mirrors.  Proponents of an Article V Convention misdiagnose the problem and then proceed to prescribe the wrong solution hoping to keep your attention away from the root causes of our failing republic.

The Wrong Solution to the Wrong Problem

what we have is a people problem, not a document problem

Anyone with an ounce of God-given common-sense will tell you that the first step to solving a problem is correctly identifying the problem.

So what do the advocates of an Article V Convention tell us is the problem?   An out-of-control federal government.

Let’s break this down…

Our republican form of government is made up of the people we elect and their appointees.  To be precise, it is not the government that is out-of-control; it is our public servants who we allow to run the government that are exhibiting “out-of-control” behavior–individually and en masse.  Our minimum expectation of these officials (elected and otherwise) should be to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”  The problem is that they are not.

They do not support and defend the Constitution because “we the people” do not hold them accountable when they fail to do so.  Unfortunately for the lazy, complacent, and apathetic Americans, the U.S. Constitution is not a self-enforcing document.

In “The American Crisis, No. 4” written in 1777, Thomas Paine says:

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

Advocates of an Article V Convention are trying to convince us that there is something wrong with the Constitution.  That if we can just make a few tweaks, everything will be back on track.  But, what we have is a people problem, not a document problem.

So after they have misdiagnosed the problem as an out-of-control federal government (or public servants in effect), proponents of an Article V convention propose that in order to fix this “problem” we should change the Constitution.

But, if public servants won’t uphold the Constitution, why is amending it the solution?

Will we add an amendment that says “We really mean it this time!”?

Should we then amend the 10 commandments because people won’t obey them?

The real problem is not an out-of-control government, nor even our public servants.  After all, we already have term limits on our elected officials…they are called elections!

The real problem is a complacent public who would rather choose the simple solution of allowing professional, well-organized, and well-funded organizations to promote an Article V Convention, because it gives us the feeling that something is being done rather than do the hard work of staying informed and holding our public servants accountable for their individual actions.

The root problem with the Republic is that “We the People” are not holding our public servants accountable.  Until we hold them accountable, no change to the Constitution will matter.  Once we hold them accountable, no change to the Constitution will be necessary.

Read More

The “Race” to the Bottom for America

Are you tired yet of every racial grievance making its way into the political arena to try to score political points? Tired of people using race as an excuse to justify poor behavior like tearing down or defacing historical monuments? Tired of the double-standards, hypocrisy, and the dredging up of historical animosities to perpetuate racial divides?

We are in a “race” to the bottom in America, and we’re getting there fast!

Recently, during two school assemblies at Glen Allen high school in Henrico, VA, administrators played a four-minute, “racially-charged” video created by the African American Policy Forum (AAPF) portraying any non-Caucasoid American as a victim of discrimination and white privilege. The title of the video? “Structural Discrimination: The Unequal Opportunity Race

There is too much to dismantle about this blatant “error in judgement” on the part of school administrators, but let us try to at least discuss the major problems.

Reportedly, the purpose for showing the video was to educate about American history and racial discourse for Black History Month.

Now, because I am a firm believer that words still have meaning I want to take just a moment to define the word “race” in order to clarify how it ought to be used, and to illustrate how it is being completely hijacked for the purposes of the racial grievance industry.

Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines race as “The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock.”   Now, consider that the current forensic anthropological classification of the 3 races are:  Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

Noah Webster

Noah Webster

The “stock” (or progenitors) of the 3 races are Shem, Ham, and Japheth who were the sons of Noah.  Negroids are descended from the line of Ham, Mongoloids are descended from the line of Shem, and Caucasoids are descended from the line of Japheth.  Obviously, today the races have greatly intermingled which is why forensic anthropologists must use the size and shape of various bones structures such as the upper jaw and cheekbones in order to determine from which race a person descends.

Yes, you read that correctly– even though the grievance industry uses the word “race” to describe the color of a person’s skin, the pigmentation alone does not determine race.

By way of comparison, the word “racism” does not even exist in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.  As you may have guessed, this word has only been used recently (since the 1930s) in its current inappropriate context.  One of the problems with creating new words that are vague in nature or lack a precise definition is that it allows anyone during the period of its earliest usage to hijack it for their own purposes.  While the reasonable person would expect that the word “racism” deals with the 3 different races, the actual application of the word by the racial grievance industry changes depending on which classification of people are attempting to extort benefits from their counterparts in the other classifications.  On one day the classification could be by ethnicity, yet on another it could be by nationality, skin color, or a geographic region their ancestors came from.

“Racism” is just a convenient word to incite fear in those who concern themselves with political correctness.

So let’s allow a gracious definition of the word “racism” so we might continue this discussion and further dismantle the motives of the school administrators and the premises behind the video itself.

Other than trying to align an individual’s identity with the pigmentation of their skin rather than their citizenship and allegiance to the Unites States, what purpose is served by acknowledging “Black History Month” in the school system? Should we then have “White History Month,” “Yellow History Month,” “Brown History Month,” and “Red History Month” as well?  Perhaps we should reorganize our calendar to allow enough months for each self-identified victim class to have their own month to air perceived grievances? After all, wouldn’t that be fair?  (More on fairness later)

Why should it matter if a person is descended from sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans, or indigenous peoples from Latin America? Isn’t it more important that the American history we learn is about America and how Americans have arrived at our current set of circumstances?

Of course, like every other nation, our history involves strife between nations, races, and ideologies (e.g. War of 1812, slavery, politics), as well as strife within a nation (e.g. the Civil War).  Every rational American literate in our nation acknowledges the political, martial, social, and moral obstacles we have overcome to get where we are today.  Yet, it is the current choices we make as individuals (guided by our principles and values) that define us–not one or more snapshots in the history of our nation, or the pigmentation in our skin.


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” –Dr. Martin Luther King

So, if we accept that each of us should be defined by the “content of [our] character” as evidenced by our current choices, and not by mistakes we made in the past, how can our entire nation be judged differently?  Only through hypocrisy can both be accepted.  Is not the United States (as our name implies) made up of the several states, which in turn are comprised of us as individuals?  President Thomas Jefferson said it best in his letter to George Logan in 1816.

President Thomas Jefferson

President Thomas Jefferson

“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately” –President Thomas Jefferson in The Works of Thomas Jefferson, pg. 43

If we are truly interested in teaching history for the sake of learning from its teachings, shouldn’t we spend some time on the former Yugoslavia and how its ethnic divides gave rise to the term “balkanization?”  Perhaps it is not a great idea to promulgate the perceived injustices of various races, ethnicities, or any other arbitrary classification of peoples living together.  As we have learned from even recent history, there are severe consequences.

So, back to the video…

The major premise of the video is clearly evident in the title “Structural Discrimination: The Unequal Opportunity Race”

I don’t think this warrants much time, but the implication is that some form of discrimination is built into the structure of America, and that somehow there is a race afoot where different classes of individuals have unequal opportunities to “win.”

Based on the content of the video, the “race” seems to be about acquiring wealth.  While I do not personally believe that this is the race we are running in life, for the sake of our discussion, let’s give the benefit of the doubt to the African American Policy Forum and assume that the wealth of which they speak is that which is necessary to support a person through his lifetime.

After watching this video, somehow we are expected to arrive at the conclusion that the pigmentation of a person’s skin may somehow cause an individual to have an unequal opportunity to acquire the wealth necessary to support himself.

Since the video is about racial discourse, let’s put our “race” glasses on and see what we can learn.

There are four actors in the video:

  • one pale-skinned male and one pale-skinned female runner
    • We will presume both are Caucasoids although we are unable to be sure without our forensic anthropology measurements
  • one slightly darker male runner who could be Latino or from the south of Asia
    • Perhaps we are to presume he is Mongoloid, but again, who can know what race he is without measurements;
  • one even darker-skinned female runner who might be of African descent
    • We are to presume she is of the Negroid race;

This is the part of the problem with the racial grievance industry…they throw around vague and nondescript terms like “race” and “racism” without informing the public of how they are using the term.  Then when you point out a flaw in the premise of their argument by saying something like, “how do you know what race these runners are?”, they will inform you that their definition of race has changed to the color of skin.  The problem with this tactic is, where do you draw the line in shades of color? Can a light-skinned Irishman call a tan Italian a racist? Can a dark-skinned Latino call a native Central American a racist?  This is why the grievance industry must constantly change the definitions of the “injured” party or allow them to self-identify in order to keep the industry alive and profitable.

booker-t-washington greivance

From My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience (1911) by Booker T. Washington, pg. 118

Back to the race…

So, when the race starts, the time on the clock is 1492, which is supposed to be symbolic of the discovery of America by Europeans (Caucasoids).  The implication? That the “structural discrimination” began as soon as Columbus arrived to America.  However, no mention is made of the discrimination that took place between indigenous tribes on the continent before or since that date.  In that era, discrimination took the form of violent inter-tribal warfare, and it is only the lack of modern technology (gunpowder) initially that prevented the “discrimination” from claiming even more lives.

Certainly the AAPF is not suggesting that discrimination from within a race is acceptable are they?  That only discrimination from a separate race is frowned upon?  Because they do not mention this discrimination at all! But then again, consider the lack of outcry from the “Black Lives Matter” proponents about the significant amount of deaths caused by individuals with the same (or similar) pigmentation in their skin...

Read More

Judicial Shell Game: Kim Davis and the Case of the Missing Statute

The other day, as I scanned my news feed on Facebook, I read a comment that caught my eye.  In it, a woman who was clearly in support of marriage between sodomites said she wished she could punch Kim Davis in the throat.  My first thought was, “that seems like a visceral reaction to a woman she had probably never met!”  When I looked closer, I noticed that she was not the only one who had this reaction.

So I stopped and took the time to watch the video that elicited this type of reaction.  In it, Kim Davis was just released from jail and walked to a microphone where she 1) thanked her supporters, 2) told them that she loved them, 3) gave God the glory, 4) affirmed the strength of her supporters, 5) acknowledged that God knows each of us intimately, and 6) encouraged them to “keep pressing”.

Nothing that should cause such a reaction from a rational individual.  So that is when I began to consider the possibility that it wasn’t the video to which they were reacting, but more than likely the strong moral stand that Mrs. Davis took; and her willingness to stand up to unlawful orders.  Next, it occurred to me that these social media commentators probably did not have a firm grasp how federalism works, or the doctrine of “separation of powers” as codified in the U.S. Constitution.  For that matter, depending on the quality of their education, many of them may not have ever read the Constitution or remember it well enough to understand how the 1st, 5th, 10th, and 14th Amendments apply or don’t apply.

I guess I cannot blame them…neither did the attorneys and judges in the case!

So, let’s dive into this case and reveal why, for several reasons, Mrs. Davis should never have been incarcerated.kim davis

Mrs. Davis first appeared on the legal radar when she was sued in Federal District Court for choosing not to issue marriage licenses to sodomites for religious reasons.  In the end the court ordered that Mrs. Davis was prevented from maintaining her policy of “no marriage licenses.”  At best, this order amounts to the circumvention of an elected official by a judge to prevent her from representing her constituents.  At worst, it compels an elected official to disregard her constituents and perform a specific act against her judgement.

At this point in the discussion, it is important to note that Mrs. Davis’ job, when issuing marriage certificates, is precisely to discriminate: against the mentally disabled, against the currently married, against more than 2 people, against “members of the same sex,” etc.  That is the subject of an entire sub-chapter in the Kentucky Revised Statutes 402.020.

Imagine if a federal judge ordered your congressman to vote a certain way on a bill (oh, I don’t know….an immigration bill perhaps) because to do otherwise would violate an equal protection decision by the Supreme Court!  In both cases, the office-holder was elected to represent a constituency’s principles and values, yet those principles and values are subjugated to the whims of one man who is unelected.  This is scary stuff, gang!

This brings us to the meat of our discussion.

law book

Reason #1:  What law was broken?

The reason given for Mrs. Davis’ incarceration was “contempt of court” implying that she did not comply with a “lawful order” of Judge Bunning, who presided over the case.  The problem is that the judge’s order was not lawful.  He did not cite one law that Mrs. Davis was violating through the course of action she chose in her elected position as county clerk.  In his ruling, Judge Bunning wrongly assumes that Mrs. Davis must issue marriage licenses in all cases.

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges relied on yet other Supreme Court opinions that claim that the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment guarantee the right to marry.  Yet, there was no discussion of the distinction between a religious ceremony which truly cannot be infringed, and a civil document (or license) which is at the discretion of the states to grant according to their own laws.

There are no rights, privileges, or liberties for sodomites seeking to receive marriage licenses in Kentucky that are a) secured by the Constitution, and b) are being deprived.  In fact, it is quite the opposite! There are laws that restrict sodomites from receiving marriage licenses, but none that restrict them from performing a ceremony in a religious setting.  The bottom line is anyone who wishes to receive a marriage license (including the parties to the law suit), must follow the state laws that have been properly enacted.  This brings us to Reason #2…

Reason #2: States’ Rights and Federalism. tenth amendment

The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “[t]he 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.”  Granting marriage licenses is not a power that the Constitution delegated to the United States, but it is also not prohibited by the Constitution to the states.  As a result, the power to issue marriage licenses, as well as any guidelines and restriction, is reserved for each state to decide individually.

In the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the issue was fundamental enough to codify in the state Constitution in Section 233A which states, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”  This section in the Kentucky Constitution is further supported in the Kentucky Revised Statutes 402.020(1)(d).

The crazy thing to remember about all of this nonsense is that it is essentially a shell game.  There is no law that is central to the case against Mrs. Davis!  The supreme court case Obergefell v. Hodges is not a law–only an opinion of the Supreme Court.  Judge Bunning’s order was unlawful because it was not based on any federal or state law that mandates the granting of marriage licenses.  A judge cannot simply give any unlawful order he comes up with, where if a citizen refuses, he can unilateral send them to prison.  This is exactly why we are protected by the 5th Amendment against the deprivation of liberty without due process which brings us to Reason #3.

jefferson on jury trials

Reason #3: All trials must be by jury. 

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury…”  (emphasis added).  Additionally, the 6th Amendment to the Constitution states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” (emphasis added).  When Mrs. Davis was ordered to jail for allegedly committing the crime of “contempt of court”, she was not granted a trial by jury.  The Constitution could not have been clearer in two distinct places (one of them specifically outlining the protections of all Americans) about which trials and criminal prosecutions must be by jury: all of them.   Even in a Supreme Court opinion nearly 50 years ago, the justices recognized this danger and reaffirmed the Framer’s intent:

“Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right trial by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.” (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968))

As a final note, though it is technically not a reason that Mrs. Davis should not have been jailed, it should be equally as alarming to you that the doctrine of “separation of powers” is clearly violated in this case.

An elected official in the executive branch of government of a county, was ordered by an appointed official in the federal judicial branch to perform one of her discretionary duties in a specific manner (against her discretion and in contravention of state law and the U.S. Constitution) thereby circumventing and disenfranchising her constituents and resulting in her incarceration without “due process” or the option of a jury trial as required by the Constitution.

That about sums it up!  Nothing to see here….please move along.


Read More

Achor (babies) Away!

In a recent article in The Texas Observer, the subject was raised about whether or not to grant American citizenship to children of illegal aliens. These children are more commonly known as “Anchor Babies” because they are used as an anchor to secure their family to this country illegally.

The most common justification for allowing this practice of granting citizenship to anchor babies is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which reads


“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” (Emphasis added)

That pesky phrase underlined above somehow has been ignored for decades when applied to anchor baby cases.

As you know, whenever possible, I will go back to original sources in order to draw out the intent and context of the period in which the law was written to apply the most accurate representation.  So here we go…

The 14th amendment was ratified on July 9th, 1868.  During the debates surrounding the amendment, the author of Section 1, Congressman Jacob Howard of Michigan, describes his intent for the section:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.  This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already , that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course,include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” (Emphasis added) — Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1866, pg. 2890

Clearly, as the author of this section states, even those born in the United States who are foreigners (as all aliens are–legal and illegal–until they are naturalized), are not intended to be granted citizenship by this amendment.

Furthermore, this language and intent is consistent with the Civil Rights act of 1866 which passed two years earlier on April 9th 1866 which, in part, reads:

Be it enacted . . ., That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” (Emphasis added)

All illegal aliens are subject to the power of the foreign government to which they owe their allegiance–not to the United States.  This, in my opinion, cuts to the reason behind the phrase “and  subject to the jurisdiction therein.”  We should not make citizens, those foreign nationals who are loyal to another nation!  We are seeing the results of this folly today in spades with the balkanization of our own country.

It does not matter which judge gives an opinion, or which Congress enacts a law to the contrary, neither one trumps the Constitution!

The intent of the 14th Amendment has not changed over the years, only the political views of judges offering opinions on it or those defying their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”

So, God Bless Texas for taking a stand, although the article does claim that the Texas Department of State Health services would accept a foreign passport with valid visa, which would still place the mother and the child in a foreign status and consequently ineligible for citizenship according to the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

There is still much to do in this country…

Read More

Words Still Have Meaning

Can we all agree that words have meaning and that changing them to suit those in our populace who seek to avoid responsibility for their actions only helps blur the line between good and evil?

Good. Next question: why do we allow the words like “gay” to be co-opted into a euphemism for “homosexual” or even the original word for it “sodomite”?

After all, who could argue with  Noah Webster?

What we are really talking about in light of the recent SCOTUS opinion is “marriages between sodomites”– not “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage”.

Even the whole national “conversation” has been focused on the gender of the sodomites instead of their elective predisposition to commit “crimes against nature” as Webster so eloquently put it.

It was these crimes that our Judeo-Christian society originally enacted laws against for good reason.

SOD’OMY, noun A crime against nature.

–Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

Yes, there is a negative connotation to the word “sodomite” because they are committing crimes against “Nature and Nature’s God.” The connotation was intended by our forefathers.  It is the same with words like “illegal alien” (which is the term used for them in the United States Code 8 USC).  Somehow we have started calling them all sorts of nonsense like:

Noah Webster


  • illegal immigrant – an immigrant is someone who comes here legally with the intent to assimilate
  • undocumented immigrant – see above
  • undocumented worker – not all of them are working or want to work for that matter
  • guest worker – they are not our guests and see above
  • seasonal labor – in which season do they return home?
  • etc

We can love a sinner and still recognize and name his sin for what it is.

Do not bow to pressure because a spade doesn’t want to be called a spade!

Read More

Chopping at the Root

Sometimes I get so frustrated scrolling through all of the social media out there full of the latest unbelievable act of this politician or that branch of government.

I get frustrated because recounting and underscoring the wrongness of these acts, or testifying to how angry it makes you, or spending time creating memes about them does nothing to solve the problem. While sharing news stories and commentaries with your fellow citizens is important, I believe we have far too many of these social media “pundits” out there and not enough analysts, planners, and principled leaders.

Further compounding the problem is that the “pundits” do not do their own research, but just re-post what they have already seen, further inciting the already near-riotous, pitchfork-wielding, froth-mouthed internet mob with half-vetted stories.

Imagine that all of these problems we see flying around the internet (as well as their detrimental consequences) are branches or limbs on an undesirable tree in your backyard.  The branches that are growing closest to your house, powerlines, or fence are the urgent issues.

You can continue building the analogy to suit the situation, but hopefully, you get the idea!  As part of this scenario, our assertion is that all of the branches are eventually connected to a root system that represents the “root” cause(s) of these problems.

Now, if you are fed up with all of these problems (branches), does it make sense to continue to swat at the limbs and break off the branches, or would it be better to identify where the root system extends and “chop at the root” of the problem?

Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.

–Thomas Carlyle

You see, that is what frustrates me:  too much hacking at branches and not enough chopping at roots.  Branches are a distraction–sometimes an urgent distraction–but a distraction nonetheless.  All of the time we are not chopping at the roots, they are extending, growing deeper, and seeking out new sources of nutrients to extend the life and support needed for the ever-growing size and number of branches (problems).

Break the branch of one corrupt politician and another one will grow back…

Slap away the branch full of unconstitutional legislation and more will grow back…

Saw off the limb representing the latest executive amnesty or comprehensive immigration reform and another will grow back in its place…

Rip off the thousands of leaves and twigs representing the hypocritic, immoral, and downright anti-American objectives of the progressive agenda and it will continue to surface to influence our politicians…

Unless you chop at the root!

So how do we chop at the root?

First you have to find the root(s).  “That’s easy,” you might say, “just follow the branches down until it reaches the ground!”  It’s the politicians, stupid!

Yes, that seems simple enough…or is it?

How many times have you heard someone say something like…”all we need to do to fix our country is to vote for this person or that party and we’ll be saved!”

Tell me, how is this strategy working out for us?

Even if we do truly find the roots, then what?  How do you expose them? Destroy them? Ensure that they are completely uprooted and destroyed?

To answer questions and make decisions of this magnitude, we need a framework that will help us choose the best course(s) of action–a set of priorities and principles if you will–to guide what promises to be a long and arduous journey to ensure that our collective efforts are focused, in concert, and ultimately “chopping at the root”.

To do otherwise would only be perpetuating the status quo of “hacking at limbs”.  We will come back to the framework a little later.   First it is time for a healthy dose of the truth.

So, you think the root of the issue is the politicians? Think again.

Root Causes v3

The politicians are just the trunk of the tree in our analogy.  Blaming the politicians for our nation’s problems is like blaming our own children for the way they turned out after years of tantrums, outbursts, and disrespectful behavior without consequences; or like blaming a company’s employees for its bankruptcy after years of poor employee performance and no change in staff.

No, the responsibility lies with each of us.  After all, we are the ones responsible for electing them to office and then allowing them to stay!  Collectively, and individually in most cases, we have not fulfilled our solemn duty of being good stewards of our Republic.  We have failed each other!

Early in our nation’s history, President Andrew Jackson warned us about this.

President Andrew Jackson

But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.” — Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

 In our analogy, this failure is represented by allowing the roots of “Apathy” and “Selfishness” to grow unabated.  We have abdicated our individual responsibilities as the ultimate caretakers of our great nation.  Either we think our efforts don’t matter or we have too many other important things to do.

If we do not accept responsibility on an individual basis for our failure to safeguard our Republic, we will continue to blame the guy in office and go on to replace him with the next guy with the “correct” letter next to their name at the ballot box.  This is the same thing we have been doing for decades, and it will continue to give us the same results.

When is the last time someone you know ran for elected office; or at a minimum someone who goes through the same struggles in life as you?  Someone who shares the same principles and values? Someone you know to be altruistic and true to his word?

“Ok, so I have accepted that I have not done enough to safeguard my country.  What now?”

Chances are that if you are like the rest of us, for that period of time when your head was down, grinding away at life, going to school, working, raising families, and paying bills, you only picked your head up occasionally to see what was going on around your state or country.  And I don’t mean just to watch the news; I mean to take extra time out of your day to dig deeper, research, make phone calls, or get materially involved in some way.  It was probably when some news story broke about something that was going to affect your existence in a direct and tangible way:  such as your bank account or personal safety and security.

If this is the case, then you have some catching up to do.  Because unless you are staying vigilant as Jackson warns, chances are you do not have the knowledge, context, and history to effectively contribute to the cause of liberty.  Thomas Jefferson had some sage words to say about this:

President Thomas Jefferson

President Thomas Jefferson

No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity. –Thomas Jefferson to the Virginia Board of Visitors, 1821


I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power. –Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William C.Jarvis, 1820

So, now is the time to “inform [your] discretion with education.” Start with the basics; the building blocks of our nation.  Read the Declaration of Independence and the full Constitution–several times.  The Founders wrote differently back then.  It will take several readings to get the hang of it, but it is important.  Do not read an interpretation of these documents, but the original text!  Then move on to the Federalist Papers and Elliot’s Debates to understand the context of the framing of our nation.  There is also some excellent context in the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Volume I, Volume II, and Volume III.

This introductory reading list will begin to address the “ignorance” root in our analogy, but don’t stop there.  Continue to learn about how this nation was founded and designed to function.  This knowledge is one of the tools you will use to restore Constitutional governance.

“But, all of this is terribly overwhelming! I have a job and kids and other activities that occupy my time.  How will I ever afford to spend time on any of this?”

Let’s begin by asserting the following: we can’t afford not to spend time on this.  Should we fail to devote the time, we allow the “apathy” and/or “selfishness” roots to continue to thrive, and the cycle continues ad nauseam.  The good news is that you are not alone, there are millions of other Americans out there that have to play catch-up–probably as close as your next-door neighbor!  It begins with one other person to help educate each other and reset our expectations of those elected officials in whom we entrust our communities, states, and nation.  Iron sharpens iron!

Eventually the two of you will seek out others to share, learn, and get involved by engaging your public officials at all levels of government to “inform their discretion” and reset expectations.

Seek. Share. Learn. Engage.  Repeat.

I told you it would be long and arduous! But then again, we did not get into this predicament overnight!

So, let’s get back to that framework we talked about earlier, and see if we can put all of this into perspective.

Now, I am going to make some “radical” proposals, so buckle up!  (Actually, these ideas would not have been considered “radical” as recently as 65 – 70 years ago–in fact they were accepted as common-sense at the time).

Whether we know it or not, each of us uses some form of framework for making decisions in our life, both big and small.  For the small ones, it is probably sub-conscious and routine so it takes little thought...

Read More

On “General Welfare”

One of the rare, positive effects that has come out of Congress recently is the introduction into the Rules of the House of Representatives the requirement to cite “as specifically as practicable (sic) the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill…” (113th Congress, House Rules, Rule XII, paragraph 7c).

Sounds great, right?  Well, unfortunately these days, when an equally rare Constitutional challenge is leveled against legislation making its way through Congress, more often than not, the knee-jerk response is that the “general welfare” clause gives them carte blanche authority to spend our tax money on social welfare programs.

To those who have not had the opportunity to closely study our founding documents and the primary sources of information from which we discern their original intent, this may sound legitimate–overly vague–but legitimate.

So, let’s dig into these original documents, debates, and correspondence which helped frame and clarify them.

President James Madison

President James Madison

First, we should see what the Constitution has to say about the “general welfare” of the United States.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution / Emphasis added)


“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8; Emphasis added)

Aside from the definition of the word “welfare” from Webster’s Dictionary in 1828 which defines it as “ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states,” there are several primary sources to which we can turn to understand the intent of these phrases.

The first set of sources we will consider are The Federalist Papers which were written after the Convention to articulate to the public why the proposed Constitution was the right replacement to the Articles of Confederation.

The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers

A key factor we must consider when studying the Constitution is that the document was written with the average man in mind–not for lawyers, judges, academics, etc.  James Madison, considered the primary author of the Constitution, confirmed this for us in The Federalist Papers.

“It will be of little avail to the people… if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;” (The Federalist No. 62)

Madison (and other framers) feared that the language and volume of our laws, beginning with the Constitution, could soon spiral out of control.  To keep it in check, we would need to ensure that all of our legislators were not replaced at the same time in order to keep some institutional knowledge, and that the laws were written plainly for the common man to understand minimizing the need to re-write or amend them for clarity.  This tells us that the framers carefully crafted the wording of the Constitution to keep it free from hidden, double, vague, or ambiguous meanings.

Bearing in mind the simple language with which the framers intended to write the Constitution, we should also review the debates of the framers during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  Fortunately for us, several of the framers (including Madison) kept notes about the proceedings at the Convention from which we can glean even further insight into the original intent of the various clauses of the document.  A terrific source for this purpose is the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and Vol. 3) which chronicles from several perspectives the debates, findings, and conclusions of the various committees at the convention.  This is an invaluable treasure for those seeking the original intent of the framers.

Welfare — ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

-Webster’s Dictionary 1828

The first we learn about the phrase “general welfare” is from Edmund Randolph of the Virginia delegation.  On May 29th, 1787, Mr. Randolph introduced what is now referred to as the Virginia Plan or Randolph Resolutions.  The very first resolution advocates that the “articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely ‘common defence, security of liberty and general welfare'”.  Notice the phrase “corrected & enlarged”–keep this phrase in mind and we will revisit it shortly.

In fact Article III of the Articles of Confederation read, “the said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare.”  So as we can plainly see, the phrase was borrowed from our first attempt at constituting our nation.

Convention of 1787

Through the rest of the proceedings of the Convention, anytime the clause containing “general welfare” is brought up (August 11th and August 25th, 1787), it is in the context of paying the debts owed from the Revolutionary War that were secured to “provide for the common defense and general welfare” of the newly formed nation.  Also notice when the phrase is used in Article I, Section 8 (see above), it immediately follows the phrase “pay the debts”.

In fact, as Madison described in his letter to Andrew Stevenson on November 17, 1830 (which can be viewed in the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. 3, page 483), there was no need to refer to any future debts for those were already accounted for in the powers granted to Congress in Section 8.  The only reason to include this phrase was to satisfy debts for “common defense and general welfare” prior to the new Constitution.

The final source we will look at is the correspondence of the primary author of the Constitution.  Specifically we will look at the letter James Madison wrote to Andrew Stevenson in which he conveyed his intent and understanding of the incorporation of the phrase.

In addition to the argument presented above, Madison goes on to argue that the “general welfare” phrase could not be construed as unlimited and indefinite.  If so, then how could it be “enlarged” as Edmund Randolph proposes on May 29th (remember his resolution from above?).  A corollary to that argument is that there would not have been a need to enumerate such specific powers if the intent was to allow for unlimited scope of the phrase.

Finally, in the same letter, Madison argues that “it exceeds the possibility of belief, that the known advocates in the Convention for a jealous grant & cautious definition of federal powers, should have silently permitted the introduction of words or phrases in a sense rendering fruitless the restrictions & definitions elaborated by them”

Moreover, in the dozens of proposals by way of the Convention in 1787, the subsequent debates between the colonies prior to ratification in 1789, and the many proposed amendments to limit the power of the new federal government prior to 1791, it defies logic that this phrase would have escaped notice–especially from those who were still fearful of an out-of-control centralized government similar to the one for which they sacrificed their lives and treasures to separate from in the first place!

While this is just one of many phrases of the Constitution that has been warped and twisted for political purposes in recent years, what we should also take away from this study is that all it takes is a careful examination of the original documents to help us understand, return to, and ultimately defend the values and principles laid out by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

Read More

The Myth Surrounding Separation of Church and State

“That violates the ‘separation of church and state’!”

How often do you hear this phrase screamed across the airwaves in a news program or a heated debate about the role of religion in our government?

Do you ever give it a second thought?

Do you know where the phrase originated?

If you said, “The Constitution” or “the 1st Amendment”, you’re wrong!  This phrase does not appear once in any of our founding documents–even though, the proponents of a “separation of church and state” would have you believe just that, or that it was a founding principle of this nation.

Let’s explore the history of this phrase and look at the words of the Founders and our government documents that will arm you with the true history of Christianity in our government’s history.

The place where most people mistakenly think this phrase originates is from the 1st Amendment, so let’s start there.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis added)

Do you see anything missing?  That’s right: our mysterious phrase!

So where did it come from?

The first known occurrence of the phrase “separation between Church and State” came from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association on 1 January 1802.

In the letter, President Jefferson was responding to concerns from the association seeking an assurance of their “[r]eligious [l]iberty.”  They go on to describe that their state charter was built upon the establishment of religion first and foremost (Puritanism) and that they had been forced to rely on the state to grant them the “privilege” of worshiping rather than enjoying it as an “inalienable right”.

Notice that the concern was not the influence of religion upon government, but the other way around.

President Thomas Jefferson

President Thomas Jefferson

In his response, President Jefferson, replied to this specific concern and assured the Baptists that the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the 1st amendment build a “wall of separation between [c]hurch & [s]tate” so as to protect the Baptists from an intrusive government establishing the official religion for their state as well as interfering with their right to worship as they please.

So, as you can see, history tells a much different story than what we hear in the mainstream media; and for that matter much different than our own Supreme Court has tried to establish through one of their opinions.

This is only one example of the mainstream media propagating a lie often enough that even well-educated Americans have begun to buy into their agenda.  Be sure to do your own research before simply accepting what your favorite radio or TV personality tells you—be it from the left or the right!

Read More