Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? I mean TRULY ever read the whole thing? I'll bet that most of you who read my blog have never read it in it's entirety. It's fascinating. It makes me wonder how we got so far in our government today from what the original Founders put in place. Today it's all about greed. About who can make the next big buck and an "I'll wash your back if you wash mine" mentality. No longer does the government work for the people, they work for the lobbyists, for the drug companies, for big business - for the continuation of the money poured into their pockets.
Both parties are corrupt - that is not to say that every person in both parties are corrupt. There are some genuine members who go in to public service full of good intentions and integrity who end up getting that squashed out of them once they realize that integrity and honor and honesty get them nowhere in Washington. They learn to play the game, to give people what they want to hear and never follow through and it is not a problem with one party, it is a problem with both.
America has come so far from the intent of what the Founding Fathers had hoped for it. A place where everyone is equal, where everyone has a chance for the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These days abortion takes lives in the most brutal of ways - not just the lives of the unborn children but the suicide rate of those who have had abortions are higher as well. There are talks of making euthanasia legal for the elderly, for the disabled b/c it will make
our lives easier. Since when did we become a society who couldn't care for the less fortunate and the less able among us? We are the most wealthy country in the WORLD - and yet we still have become a society for the "haves" as we ignore the "have nots" b/c we don't want to be bothered with viewing other's suffering as we keep in our glass houses and crystal palaces. The "haves" don't want to be bothered with anything unpleasant.
Our liberties are being silenced by the minority voice because the majority voice has allowed themselves to be bullied into silence instead of rising up and saying "WE WILL NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE!" What about the freedoms we enjoy that are given to us by those who are in the military - those men and women in uniform who give their very lives - who leave their families and friends to make sure we are safe when we go to bed at night. Who take it upon themselves to make sure that we keep our liberties and are not taken over from other countries and people who "martyr" themselves to try and take our freedoms, our liberties, our lives our rights. We ought to be thanking them EVERY chance we get. We ought to honor their sacrifices - it's the least we can do when they lay down their lives for us willingly to keep us safe. instead - the majority of the liberal left out there try and vilify them every chance they get - try to dishonor them. It's a shame is what it is. It's a horrifying shame that they are cursed, their families are threatened by those who call them baby-killers, vicious, without conscience, etc. SHAME ON YOU who do that. Shame. These men and women fighting know you do that to them and yet they fight on - they still protect you and do it willingly - to make sure you still have the right to say whatever you want to about them.
And we? We blindly give up our rights, just hand them over to those who are part of the PC Patrol. Heaven forbid a child bring their Bible to school to read during break or lunch! They get punished while those who bring the Koran to do the same thing get a pass. That's BS and we know it. What if I were offended by someone reading the Koran? My complaints would most likely be brushed under the rug in the pursuit of "appeasement" whereas if someone were offended by me reading the Bible, you can bet I would be the one to be vilified for being "insensitive" or breaking some separation of church and state crap rule. Speaking of the separation of church and state issue - I'm going to give you a little history lesson right now.
Did you know that the separation of church and state is NOWHERE to be found in the Constitution? It was a sentence in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. When he was President, he received in late 1801 a letter from the Association of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They were concerned about the newly formed federal government. This leviathan that had been created could, they feared, become a great danger to their Christian faith and to their churches.
Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and when the Bill of Rights was proposed and passed, and he had nothing to do with it. He said that he was greatly impressed that the American people, through their representatives and through the First Amendment, had, in effect, erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state,
so they need have no fear that the federal government was going to intrude upon their religion or in any way disturb their faith. His purpose was to assuage the fears of the Danbury Connecticut Baptists; He told them that by the First Amendment this wall had been erected to protect them. He took the language, actually, from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist church in America, who talked about a wall being erected around the garden of the Church to protect it.
So Jefferson took that same phrase and said that this wall protected the Church not against hostile Indians or worldly things, but against the Federal government that had been appointed. However, liberals have taken that phrase and turned it around completely.
It is an unfortunate metaphor, because it can be used two different ways.
The First Amendment completely controls the government only and not the churches. It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A wall can work against people on both sides. People on either side of the wall are inhibited.
The phrase "separation of church and state" has now been turned around 360 degrees. The only time you ever hear it used today is not talking about what Congress can do; it's talking about what you can't do, what I can't do, what the Church can't do, what any religious people cannot do. So it has been turned completely around.
That is not what Jefferson meant. It is not what his friend James Madison meant, who, by the way introduced the Bill of Rights into the Congress, which stated very explicitly that the purpose of this was to interdict the federal government from interfering with the religion of the people.
But it was Jefferson's view during his whole public life that the government should not interfere with religion. In fact, as you may know, the Constitution ends with the phrase, "In the year of our Lord, 1787." And so it was throughout the presidency of Washington. For eight years, all of his presidential papers ended "In the year of our Lord 18..." whatever. When Adams came to the presidency, for the next four years he again followed suit: "In the year of our Lord . . ."
However, when Jefferson came to the presidency, he changed that. Many of the documents he signed while President says, "In the year of our Lord Christ 1804." Here is Jefferson, the "anti-Christian, irreligious infidel," saying that it is Christ who is our Lord and no one else, lest anyone have any false ideas about that.
So, the letter to the Danbury Baptists has been greatly perverted and distorted. The ACLU today says that phrase means there should be no religion of any sort in any public building. Is that what Jefferson meant? That is what the liberal left has indeed pushed upon the minds of the American people.
On Friday, January 1, 1802, Jefferson's letter was sent to the Danbury Baptists. On that Sunday, two days later, Thomas Jefferson went to church. He said that he was going to throw the influence of his position as chief magistrate, President of the United States, in favor of the public display and support of the Christian religion. How did he do that? He went to church.
Where did he go? He went to the largest church in America. Do you know what that was? Do you know where that was? It was held at first in the chambers of the House of Representatives in Washington. Then later, when the complete building was finished, it was held in the Capitol Rotunda, the most visible public building in America, bar none. There, every week for seven years, during the rest of his presidency, Thomas Jefferson was there. He sat in the front row. He wasn't pleased with the music, and so he ordered that the Marine Band, under his control, come to church on Sunday and play to support the singing of hymns and psalms in the church. (By the way, they were paid out of the Federal Treasury.)
I guess Thomas Jefferson didn't know what he had written when he talked about the separation of church and state. Some say, "But that was in the Congress, and he didn't directly control the Congress." Well, that's about as feeble an argument I guess you could have. But let's take a look at it. He did control the War Office. That is part of the Executive Department. He did control the Treasury Department, and another church was holding services in the War Department and yet another in the Treasury building. Who was in the Treasury Department? Well, you see these Scotsmen that came over here and started the Presbyterian Church knew a good place to start a church . . . right in the Treasury building.
That may be allowed by the Congress and the Executive Office, but what about the Supreme Court? They would never allow anything like that. Well, as a matter of fact, the Chief Justice then of the Supreme Court, one of the most famous of them all, Chief Justice John Marshall, ordered that the facilities of the Supreme Court be turned over every Sabbath Day to another church to hold Christian worship, which included not only prayers and songs and hymns, but also the preaching of the Word of God. No religious activities in public buildings? Jefferson never even dreamt of such a thing.
This is a total distortion that has been used by the ACLU and their ilk to try to suppress and demolish Christianity and remove it altogether from the public square. In fact, one of the justices in recent times, taking the separation of church and state metaphor, said, "The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Well, I guess you could say that Thomas Jefferson had a few slight breaches in his wall-you could drive a truck through it. In fact, you could drive a whole company of tanks through the walls. That is not what he intended at all.
In fact, Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights, said that the government was forbidden from establishing a national religion. The First Amendment was given, as all of the testimony indicates, to do two things: to prevent the Congress from establishing a state church (like the Anglican Church in England, from which they had mostly fled), and second, from interfering with the free exercise of religion. That has been grossly distorted in our day. I hope that we will begin to understand that we have been deceived, that this whole separation thing of Thomas Jefferson has been turned into a total distortion and perversion, and it is a lie.
Do you wonder what an authority on the matter says? How about this:
There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and State] . . . the "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. -William Rehnquist.In case you do not know who Rehnquist is, let me say that he is the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
I hope that maybe America will wake up to the realization that they have been deceived, that the Thomas Jefferson presented to them is a myth and a lie, and that he never intentioned anything like what the ACLU and others today say he intended.
There ends the history lesson. And here is another lesson - though not one from history:
You can't please everyone. You can't appease everyone. If we did that, pretty soon we have given up all of our rights and are forever silenced.Let's not forget the last one shall we? The pursuit of happiness. How many of you can say that you are truly happy? Most people base their lives on getting a leg up, on chasing the almighty dollar instead of pursuing a relationship with the Almighty God. I guarantee you that if people's minds were in the right place, if their hearts were in the right place instead of being materialistic minded, there would be a lot more happiness to be found.
I am an American, I love my country but I am not happy with what She has become - with what we have become.
The Bible says
"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof . . ." (2nd Timothy 3:1-5) Gosh, that sounds a lot like America doesn't it?
I leave you with the Declaration of Independence - in its entirety. Read it through. It's time to get our government back into the hands of the people instead of the hands of the fat cats who have taken over - before it's too late. May God Bless America once again and forgive us for turning our backs on Him.
My thanks to Dr. D. James Kennedy for the information regarding Thomas Jefferson.
This is not a criticism of Bush, but rather the American Government in its entirety - the partisan BS that is and has been going on for at least the last three to four decades. As you can tell I am rather disenchanted today and have decided to let it out.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of AmericaWhen 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Having a job even though the outcome is uncertain after the company lost the big contract. Several people have left and have "left" already. Even without receiving the child support I'm supposed to be I am making ends meet (barely) by staying on a very strict budget right now.
