God Save America

Copyright © 2007 Ed Bagley

Many who read the title to this article might think that the second most controversial topic in America today is whether the United States should continue its war in Iraq.  Those who thought that would be, in fact, dead wrong.

This article is really about facts, not about our involvement in trying to make Iraq and its people adopt a democratic society, but to revisit the place God occupies in our public institutions and in our society.

Oliver "Buzz" Thomas explored this topic recently in USA Today (10-15-07), America's largest daily circulation newspaper.  Thomas is a minister, lawyer and author of 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You  (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).

First off, we have the oldest written constitution in the world, however, the United States Constitution was not the first constitution written in this country, that distinction belongs to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, written in 1639.

The U. S. Constitution was written in 1787, was ratified and went into effect in March 1789, exactly 150 years after Connecticut's constitution.

Very few of our citizens could tell you when our Constitution came into being, and even fewer could tell you much about God's place in our U. S. Constitution.

Thomas says many Americans do not know what our Constitution says about our first freedom: religious freedom.

Ask most Americans what the Constitution says about God, and their answer may surprise you.

"One nation under God?"  No, that is in our Pledge of Allegiance.

"Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights?"  No, that is in our Declaration of Independence.

A recent survey by the First Amendment Center asserted that 55% of Americans believe the our Constitution establishes us as a "Christian nation" and while nearly all Americans say freedom of religion is important, only 56% of the survey respondents think it should apply to all religious groups.

The plain truth is that the U. S. Constitution says nothing about God.  There is not a single reference to "God" in our Constitution.

Click to read more …

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a motion to intervene with the Federal District Court in New Hampshire today in its continuing efforts to protect the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Representing the Knights of Columbus and three New Hampshire families, The Becket Fund asked for permission to intervene and for the court to dismiss a case brought by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento physician-attorney who finds the words offensive.

“The Constitution doesn’t ban the word God from public discourse, in California or New Hampshire, in the Pledge or anywhere else” said Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund. “Every time we pledge allegiance to one nation under God, we are reminding the government that it must respect everyone’s rights – even Michael Newdow’s – because those rights are not given to us by the government, but by a source higher than the government.”

Dr. Newdow, who has a similar case pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, claims that the words “under God” violate the Establishment Clause of First Amendment of the Constitution. He won at the lower court, but the Becket Fund, representing the Knights of Columbus and eleven California school children, have appealed and are awaiting a decision.

In addition to lawsuits in New Hampshire and California, Dr. Newdow is also in the midst of a legal challenge to remove “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency. In 2004, Dr. Newdow sued to have all prayers, invocations and religious language removed from the U.S. Presidential inauguration ceremony. That suit was quickly dismissed.

Dr. Newdow’s latest complaint describes the voluntary recitation of the Pledge as “child neglect (if not child abuse).”

“Dr. Newdow’s theory that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes child abuse is his most outlandish yet.  If the courts adopted his reasoning, teachers would be in danger of going to jail. The court should reject this and the rest of his unfounded theories about the Pledge,” said Hasson

The Supreme Court has repeatedly used the Pledge as the standard for what is a permissible reference to God in a patriotic exercise.

To arrange an interview with a Becket Fund legal expert, contact Tom Carter , tcarter@becketfund.org  at 202-349-7205 or 202-538-2044

Rep. Heath Shuler’s (D-N.C.)  introduced last November,  H.R. 4088 Bi-Partisan, SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement. Presently, this bill has 136 co-sponsors representing 26 states. Shortly thereafter, two versions of H.R. 4088 Bi-Partisan, SAVE Act were introduced in the US Senate. The Pryor/Landrieu bill is S. 2368 and Sen. Vitter's bill is S. 2366.

The following is the November 6, 2007  press release from Rep. Heath Shuler’s office.
_______________________________________________________

SAVE Act Secures America’s Borders, Provides Employers with Tools to Verify Work Eligibility, and Enforces Current Laws

Washington, D.C. – Representative Heath Shuler was joined by over eighty other members of Congress today to introduce the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act. The bipartisan group of lawmakers came together to support what they called “commonsense” immigration legislation.

“Today Democrats and Republicans are joining together, putting politics aside and supporting a commonsense bill that is for the good of America,” Rep. Shuler said.

Rep. Shuler’s SAVE Act is 3-part plan to drastically reduce illegal immigration — a strict emphasis on border security, employer verification, and interior enforcement.

“Illegal immigration is one of the most pressing issues facing America today. It is estimated that over 12 million people are currently here illegally, and thousands more are coming in every week,” said Rep. Shuler. “Americans are very upset at their government for not taking action, and they have a right to be. ”

The SAVE Act addresses border security by increasing manpower and making needed technological and infrastructure improvements on America’s northern and southern borders, including 8,000 new Border Patrol Agents and provides the infrastructure they need to be effective.

It expands the E-Verify program to provide all employers with the tools they need to ensure that their employees are here legally. The E-Verify program is a simple, effective, and free program that allows employers to efficiently and quickly ensure that the people they hire are legally allowed to work in the U.S. The program will be phased-in over four years, beginning with the federal government, federal contractors, and employers with over 250 employees. Smaller businesses would begin using the system in a graduated manner.

The SAVE Act also provides the tools, resources and infrastructure necessary to enforce existing federal laws and penalize offenders. It increases the investigative abilities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement with more agents and more training. Additionally, it provides assistance for state and local law enforcement.

“I am introducing this legislation because I have the ability to reach across the aisle and bring both sides together to reach a commonsense solution. This is what the people of Western North Carolina want and what the American people want,” Rep. Shuler concluded.

The SAVE Act has original cosponsors from 26 states.

Source: Numbers USA. Visit their website to get more info on the illegal immigration troubling our country.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”—Plato: Greek philosopher

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”—Edmund Burke: Irish statesman/philosopher  

Most of our lawmakers in Congress are not listening to the dictates of their constituents, and are instead, rolling out the red carpet for illegal aliens who are criminals, terrorists who have avowed to destroy the USA. They flagrantly disregard the US Constitution as if it no longer pertains to them. Instead, the Constitution hinders their agenda of destroying the United States. This tantamount to treason.

Meanwhile, drug dealers, terrorist, gang members, and other criminals are entering our borders with ease, since many members of Congress do not feel it is important enough to stop the flow of illegal aliens. 

The Secure Fence Act was passed to build the border fence with $300 billion funds allocated. Now those funds will end up in pet and pork barrel projects for the Democrats.

Sher Zieve, an author, political commentator writes:

As a refresher, the Preamble to the US Constitution reads: “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.” Instead, with Congress’ overruling the American people (spec. the political imprisonment of USBP Agents Compean and Ramos and TX Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez) “establish justice” is now relegated to illegals and enemies of our country—not US citizens who attempt to protect it and its people. With the backdoor dissolution of the Secure Border Act, “provide for the common defense” and “promote the general welfare” have now been tossed into the round file. With the previous outrages perpetrated by our elected leaders, suffice it to say “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” will no longer be possible.

Again Sher Zieve writes:

There may be one last hope. The SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement) is currently in play. And it may actually be our last hope. Take a look at it and get involved. It may very well be you last hope, too.

Source: Conservative Crusader

Visit http://www.numbersusa.com to get more info on the illegal immigration troubling our country.

By Warner Todd Huston

The recent outrage against Constitutional liberty by the Boston Police raises some very interesting questions. Can we voluntarily give up our Constitutional rights? Further, can government legally violate our rights even if we ask them to do so? These are questions that we all need to consider before allowing police into our homes, invited or no.

Last week The Boston Globe reported that the Boston police are about to launch a program in "high-crime neighborhoods" where a roving band of policemen will walk door-to-door and ask parents if they have permission to search the home for guns. These police squads intend to conduct searches without warrants, claiming that the invitation by the homeowner is all they need to commence the search.

Like all steps down the road to tyranny, the pavement here is being laid by folks with good intentions, officials who are, after all, only trying to "help" the community. The Commissar of Police, Edward Davis claims that he is giving the folks of Boston "an option" for what to do about gun violence in the city. The cops "ask permission" to enter and supposedly only do so when given the OK. They also target specific homes that have been fingered as troublesome by neighbors and other intelligence sources.

Some community leaders are professing their faith in this new program that is patterned after one instituted, but later abandoned, by the St. Louis police. Boston’s community leaders seem ready to give this a try because the program is supposed to be spurred by community interaction and tips to the Boston PD. It is interesting and instructive, however, to note that some reports about the demise of the St. Louis program claim that one of the reasons they shut it down there was because the St.

Louis PD began to rely more on their own intelligence and less on community tips. Meaning, the community was no longer involved and the police there began to act as if it was solely their own resources

Click to read more …

by Thomas E. Brewton

Enforcing proper behavior is anathema to liberals, but essential to learning.

The recent Supreme Court decision in the MORSE ET AL. v. FREDERICK case, better known as the "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" case, has generated controversy, both because of the Court's decision, and because of the concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Facts of the case were the following:

"At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS", which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event respondent Frederick refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him."

The Court's ruling, expressed in the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, was:

"Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick…. Our cases make clear that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969). At the same time, we have held that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986), and that the rights of students must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment."

The Court's decision was opposed by many people, particularly liberal-Progressives.

What really agitated them, however, was the concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Click to read more …

By Alan Caruba

If you want to witness the most blatantly un-Constitutional and un-American laws at work than just take a walk through your local schools. They are currently under the control of the federal government.

Why any town or city bothers to hold an election for members of the local board of education is a mystery to me. Between the U.S. Department of Education and a union, the National Education Association—masquerading as just a group of concerned teachers—local boards have no real power to reverse the subjugation and destruction of the nation’s education system.

Since the Constitution does not even mention education, it is a continuing mystery why the federal government has a department devoted to it. Well, it’s less of a mystery if you consider that its purpose is to indoctrinate the children passing through it to accept a whole range of values and ideas that lots of Americans think are wrong.

From the Head Start program to the International Baccalaureate, the whole purpose of “education” today is to create new generations of Americans who think that the United Nations should govern the entire planet and who uncritically accept politically correct beliefs about gender issues, diversity, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. To insure this occurs, Congress and some States are ready to sign off on programs that would evaluate the mental stability of every child from pre-school on through graduation. That’s Big Brother!

Click to read more …

By Alan Caruba

If you want to witness the most blatantly un-Constitutional and un-American laws at work than just take a walk through your local schools. They are currently under the control of the federal government.

Why any town or city bothers to hold an election for members of the local board of education is a mystery to me. Between the U.S. Department of Education and a union, the National Education Association—masquerading as just a group of concerned teachers—local boards have no real power to reverse the subjugation and destruction of the nation’s education system.

Since the Constitution does not even mention education, it is a continuing mystery why the federal government has a department devoted to it. Well, it’s less of a mystery if you consider that its purpose is to indoctrinate the children passing through it to accept a whole range of values and ideas that lots of Americans think are wrong.

From the Head Start program to the International Baccalaureate, the whole purpose of “education” today is to create new generations of Americans who think that the United Nations should govern the entire planet and who uncritically accept politically correct beliefs about gender issues, diversity, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. To insure this occurs, Congress and some States are ready to sign off on programs that would evaluate the mental stability of every child from pre-school on through graduation. That’s Big Brother!

Click to read more …

By Alan Caruba

In a month, August 20 and 21, the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico will sit down together in Montebello, Quebec to discuss making the borders between these three nations disappear. They will discuss progress on a vast highway project passing through America to link Mexico with Canada.

So far, no one has asked the citizens of these three nations whether they want to do this. It is not up for a vote in Congress and, indeed, Congress has no supervision over the gnomes in the U.S. Department of Commerce who are busily “harmonizing” the laws under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

This, we’re told, is not a treaty so Congress has no constitutional oversight obligation. I guess it’s more like a nice big handshake between the presidents and prime minister of these three nations who, let’s face it, just know better than the rest of us. I mean, do Canadians really think they’re in charge of Canada? Americans should have a say about programs affecting America? Or has anyone asked Mexicans if they want to be part of some “harmonized” configuration not unlike the European Union?

Last time I checked, the European Union lacked a constitution because some of its member states, notably France, had rejected the one that was offered.

Click to read more …

WASHINGTON, May 2, 2007 - Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid said today that the proposed federal media shield law, the so-called Free Flow of Information Act, is a Pandora's Box that would backfire on the media because of the inability to adequately define basic terms such as "journalist."

"The term is so loosely defined that an al Qaeda propaganda front could qualify as a legitimate news organization," the AIM editor said.

"The legislation is not in the interests of the media or the public," he said, adding that AIM would seek an opportunity to testify against the bill and would recommend a presidential veto if Congress passes it.

The bill, reintroduced in the House and Senate, purports to protect the media's use of confidential sources, Kincaid said, but would actually enable federal authorities, including members of Congress and judges, to decide who or what qualifies for special federal protection. As such, it amounts to a federal press licensing scheme, designating who should enjoy special rights from law enforcement authorities and who should not, Kincaid charged.

The AIM editor said that journalists should give up their attempts to protect questionable sources in extraordinary and rare national security cases and start acting like ordinary citizens with a duty and obligation to report evidence of criminal activity. "The media are not above the law that applies to the rest of us," the AIM editor declared.

Alluding to the involvement of some 40 media companies and other journalistic organizations at a Capitol Hill news conference to re-introduce the bill, Kincaid warned the public of a propaganda blitz designed to get the legislation through both Houses of Congress without serious scrutiny. When an issue like this is before Congress, involving the perceived self-interest of the media elite, Kincaid said the public can count on one-sided "news" coverage.

Accuracy in Media (AIM), founded by Reed Irvine in 1969, is America's original media watchdog organization. For more information, please visit www.aim.org.