God Save America

Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas wrote about the proposed NAFTA Superhighway in one of  his weekly columns. Unfortunately, none of the mainstream liberal media made no mention of this illegal agreement made between Mexico, Canada and the united States. The following article is from Rep Ron Paul's weekly column and it shows how dastardly some of the components of our government are working to destroy our country by undermining our sovereignty and our constitution.

By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor.  What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention. 

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City.  Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast.  Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.  

Click to read more …

WHY PROPERTY RIGHTS MATTER

By Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D.
Discerning The Times

Our view of reality and the role of government in our lives greatly influence how we view property rights. Americans no longer have the opportunity to learn the foundations of freedom and to understand what it really means to have the God-given right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Since the 1970s, we are increasingly following another system of governance that is systematically destroying the very principle that has made America the greatest nation in the history of the world.

America is in a war of world views between the principles of freedom laid down by John Locke (1632-1704) in his Two Treatises on Government (1689) and Jean Jacques Rousseau in his Social Contract (1762) and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1754). Government's purpose, according to Locke, is to join with others to "unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estate, which I call by the general name, property." According to Locke, the primary reason for government "is the preservation of their property." (Italics added) This fundamental principle became the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Rousseau attacked Locke's model, arguing that individuality and property rights divide man by focusing on self-interest and greed rather than the good of society. He claims that property rights bind the poor thereby giving "new powers to the rich" that destroys "natural liberty" and equality and converts "usurpation into unalterable right." He argues for the creation of the common good as embodied through an abstract, public will that he called the 'general will'. In his model, the enlightened state determines the general will of the people through the force of law, including how property will be used. Rousseau provided the foundational philosophy that spawned the bloody French Revolution and inspired the writings of Immanuel Kant, Georg W. F. Hegel and Karl Marx and many others, thereby planting the seeds for the European model of socialism and Russian communism.

Click to read more …

Orlando, FL - Early last week, Liberty Counsel filed suit against Osceola County, Florida, on behalf of a church called Men of Destiny Ministries ("Church") to protect the ministry from being shut down by the county and to stop the fines being levied each day the ministry continues to operate.

The Church's primary ministry provides healing and regeneration to men who have chemical additions to drugs and alcohol. The goal of the Church's "Regeneration Program" is to disciple men by introducing them to Jesus Christ and to help them gain freedom from addiction and become productive members of society.

The ministry in question involves fourteen men who live in a 6,300 sq. ft. home. The men work during the day and have Christian meetings in the evening, Monday through Thursday. During these evening meetings, Pastor George Shafter leads the men in prayer, teaches them about Jesus Christ, and instructs them on overcoming drug dependency. The meetings also serve to support the men and provide accountability.

On April 10, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners voted to shut down the ministry. The men can continue to live in the home, but the Christian-based drug regeneration program and teaching must stop. In other words, these men can play cards, discuss the events of the day, debate politics or watch football, but Pastor Shafter cannot lead them in prayer, nor may he encourage and support them to overcome their chemical addictions.

Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, "It makes no sense to say men can live in a home and play cards, talk about the events of the day or debate politics, but cannot pray, talk about Jesus or encourage one another to remain drug-free. Osceola County has violated numerous constitutional and federally protected rights. We should encourage this church and these men who want to live productive lives in the community, rather than penalizing them with unconscionable fines."

(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law, said today it will enter the legal battle to save the cross atop Mount Soledad in San Diego in place despite a federal court ordering its removal within 90 days.  A federal court has given the city three months to remove the cross or face stiff fines.  The ACLJ has offered San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders legal assistance in the case and says it will – at the very least – file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the cross if the city’s appeal moves forward.

“We believe the City of San Diego has strong legal arguments to ensure that the cross on Mount Soledad remains in place,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ.  “The Mount Soledad cross has been in place – in one form or another – for nearly 100 years.  It’s part of a war memorial honoring the men and women who died to defend our freedoms.  The ACLU’s lengthy legal battle to remove the cross underscores what most Americans already know – the ACLU will stop at nothing to remove any symbol of our religious heritage and history – even a war memorial.  We believe the City of San Diego must explore every legal, legislative, and political remedy available.  The ACLJ stands ready to assist the city in its legal defense and at the very least is prepared to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the cross if the appeal moves forward.  This cross should remain in place and we’re confident there’s legal precedent to support that argument.”

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.

A press release by The Becket Fund which makes its case for religious freedom in the court of public opinion, as well as the courts of law.

An Orthodox Jewish school won a decisive victory under RLUIPA’s (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000) land use provisions. Westchester Day School, which has been the subject of protracted litigation, recently won at trial against the Village of Mamaroneck. The school has been fighting for several years to renovate its facilities, some of which are more than a century old. After a 7-day trial, the court issued a detailed opinion.

In the opinion, the court found that RLUIPA applied to WDS’ case under both its interstate commerce (due to construction activities and out-of-state students) and individualized assessments (due to land use permitting procedures) prongs. The court found that the village placed a substantial burden on WDS’ religious exercise by seriously impeding that exercise and having a “chilling effect” upon it. In the words of the court:

By precluding the construction of much needed facilities, defendants significantly interfered with WDS’ ability to provide an adequate and effective dual curriculum of Judaic and general studies education, and so limited its ability to retain and attract students and faculty as to imperil its continued existence.

The village also failed the strict scrutiny test mandated by RLUIPA. It failed to demonstrate that its traffic interests were compelling, and that no other means, such as re-timing lights, widening roads, or adding turn lanes, would adequately address the problem. It also failed to demonstrate that decreased property values, parking concerns, and the aesthetic impact of the construction were a compelling interests and that could not be mitigated.

Lastly, the court also rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to RLUIPA, relying in part upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Cutter v. Wilkinson upholding RLUIPA’s prisoner provisions against an Establishment Clause challenge.