WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

This man should have mounted his mailbox on the basketball post.  That way, it would have all belonged to the U.S. Postal Service by Federal law and there would not have been anything the DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION could have done about it.  

Did you notice the lie in which the DelDot official was caught?  She plainly said he could keep it if he wanted it, but they hauled it off anyway telling this man he could come pick it up later.  And there are those that wonder why so many distrust government? 

"I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND I'M HERE TO HELP"

Former President Ronald Reagan once said that these were the nine most terrifying words in the English language.  As you already know, tornadoes tore through the Southeastern United States on April 27th leaving behind huge areas of devastation and hundreds dead.

In Bartow County, Georgia, local churches immediately sprung into action, some that had lost their buildings, with relief efforts.  There was a massive outpouring from the community in the way of donations.  Distribution and collection centers were set up and started operating with about twenty-four to forty-eight hours.  I helped this past Friday and Saturday with loading supplies and taking them into one of the hardest hit areas of Bartow County, and had the opportunity to speak with a Cartersville Firefighter who was overseeing one of the collection/distribution sites.  He said that they had been overwhelmed with donations.  The building was full of food, water, and other supplies, and a serving line had been set up for the tornado victims to come and have a hot meal.  One of the area ministries had a cooker set up there, and had another one at one of the other sites cooking food.  Keep in mind this was only two days later.  The firefighter sent us to another location that needed what our church had brought.  Donations kept pouring in from our area and from other communities too.  People were on Facebook offering housing to tornado victims, and a Facebook PAGE was set up to share information about relief efforts.

Now enter FEMA this past Monday, five days after the storm.  

By the way, where are all of President Bush's critics who railed on him for it taking four days for them to get into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?  I have not heard a one of them say one word about five days this time, and all of our interstate highways and secondary highways were open the entire time.  Just a thought.

Anyway, Monday night I started seeing Facebook posts from volunteers who were still at area churches that were set up as collection/distribution points saying that FEMA had come in and shut down the distribution of relief supplies, including food, to the tornado victims.  You read that right, shut down the distribution.  Notice it was just the churches. I don't hear any "separation of church and state" complaints here.  ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, comments?  Didn't think so. I wonder if FEMA would have been so eager to stop an Islamic mosque.  Somehow, I don't think so. 

The reason FEMA gave was to ensure that supplies were distributed "fairly and evenly."  Fairly and evenly??  No two victims have the same needs.  One family might need food only, another clothing only, another both, and another everything including toiletries, and so on.  The tornadoes didn't distribute the damage "fairly and evenly." From what I have seen, victims are being honest and taking only what they need. Some do not need much, others need a lot.  Everybody doesn't all need the same things. Badly needed supplies were there and distribution started almost immediately after the storm with volunteers walking into some areas inaccessible by vehicle to get to victims.  But FEMA had a problem with this.  I believe that it was because aid had come in so fast without any help from the government, but from the people.

One person posted the telephone numbers to FOX 5 NEWS in Atlanta and 11 ALIVE NEWS, also in Atlanta, urging people to call them and let them know what was going on.  People did.  I was one of several commenters who told them to continue their relief efforts as FEMA did not have the authority to stop them as individuals, churches, or any other charitable organization. I made the same comment on all the posts I could find on the community Facebook page and people's individual sites to get the word out the only way to stop government from overstepping its boundaries was to stand up to them. A short time later, 11 Alive News told one caller the same thing.

What happened next was exactly what should have happened.  Late Monday night, volunteers were posting that they did indeed make a stand, stood up to FEMA, and continued with giving out and delivering supplies to the victims.  The churches did not shut down, but continued with their efforts.  

Yesterday morning, a FEMA representative approached one of the volunteers and told her that FEMA was not involved because the community had pulled together so well and they were going to go help (there's one of those scary words again!) others.  Here's the government-speak translation of that statement: "We The People stood up to us knowing we had no legal authority to stop them from helping the victims, so we're outta here."

This is the way it's done.  In present-day America, we all need to be educated about our Constitutional rights, what the Constitution says about the limits of Federal government authority, and know what the government can and cannot do.  The government schools cannot be depended on for this.  Research it for yourself and learn it.  This knowledge might be necessary at a moment's notice at any time.  Who would have ever thought that such information would be needed in the middle of a disaster area, at a church providing aid to disaster victims?  It can happen anywhere, and the only way to stop it is to stand up to them.  Government many times depends on people not knowing and will say and do things they are not permitted to do, but many will stand by and let them do it because they are the government, and must know what they are doing.

It was awesome to see people who not only knew otherwise, but had the backbone to not back down.  One person who had posted a lot of this on her Facebook wall replied to my comment which was very similar to the preceding: "I agree with you 100%...we def stood our ground...operation will cont as normal...thank you."

Well done folks!  Now the work of helping our neighbors can go on smoothly.

CHRISTIANS NOW HAVE NO FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS . . .

. . . at least in Dearborn, Michigan.  Here is a well written post from the blog ANSWERING MUSLIMS.  For background on this, see my post, THE TRAMPLING OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  Here's the story:

Sharia Judge Michael J. Callahan Nullifies the Fourth Amendment Rights of Christians in Michigan

Michigan's war against the Constitutional rights of Christians has reached its peak.

In every state in this country, with one exception, a police officer cannot seize a person or her property without probable cause (a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime).

Today, Judge Michael J. Callahan ruled that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to Christians in the state of Michigan. If a Christian visits Michigan, she may be detained, seized, arrested, and thrown in jail based on no evidence whatsoever.

At last year's Arab Festival in Dearborn, Corporal Brian Kapanowski approached Negeen Mayel and ordered her to turn off her video camera. Since Negeen hadn't been accused of committing any crime, she was under no legal obligation to obey his order (and, let's face it, he was only ordering her to stop filming so she wouldn't catch our unlawful arrests on tape). When Negeen didn't immediately turn off her camera, and instead asked why she was being questioned, Corporal Kapanowski grabbed her, seized her camera (which police then kept for more than three weeks), dragged her out of the tent, arrested her, threw her in jail, and charged her with two crimes.

Obviously, in any court that honors the Constitutional rights of citizens, Kapanowski would be in trouble. It turns out, however, that Dearborn courts have as much contempt for the Constitution as Dearborn police. Before the trial even began, Dearborn Judge Mark Somers ruled that Corporal Kapanowski had probable cause to arrest Negeen, even though she hadn't been accused of any criminal activity.

Do not miss the implications of this ruling. According to Judge Somers, in the City of Dearborn, police have probable cause to arrest Christians, even if the Christians haven't been accused of a crime. This means that any Dearborn police officer may arrest any Christian, simply because he feels like it.

Since we realized we weren't going to get justice in Dearborn, we were hopeful that the appeals court would have more respect for our fundamental rights as American citizens. Our hopes were dashed today when Judge Callahan ruled that police may indeed arrest a Christian who hasn't been accused of a crime.

Amazingly, people act like we're crazy when we say that Dearborn is being influenced by Sharia. But the facts speak for themselves. Christians are rapidly becoming second-class citizens in Michigan, and anyone who speaks up is quickly labeled an "Islamophobe." The saddest part of this is that non-Muslims are the ones who are doing the difficult work of destroying the Constitution. Mayor John O'Reilly, City Prosecutors William "Sharia Bill" DeBiasi and Debra Walling, Corporal Kapanowski, Sergeant Mrowka, Chief Haddad, Judge Somers, and now Judge Callahan are all trying desperately to undermine the U.S. Constitution.

And practically no one seems to care.

Many Dearborn residents are offended when people say that Sharia is taking hold in their city. But until the City of Dearborn starts showing some degree of respect for the rights of non-Muslims, until Christians are free to discuss their faith without being arrested, until the Fourth Amendment actually protects teenage girls from illegal search and seizure, the accusations are going to continue.

For a complete summary of the events in Dearborn, with video footage, click here.

(NOTE: I have referred to the "Constitutional rights of Christians." Since certain readers love to misrepresent and distort what I say, let me go ahead and state clearly that I do not believe, never have believed, and never will believe that only Christians should have Constitutional rights. All U.S. citizens, regardless of race or religion, are protected by the Constitution. Indeed, I would be just as opposed to police violating the civil rights of a Muslim or an atheist as I would a Christian. But in this case, it's the rights of Christians that are being violated, so that's the topic of the post.)

REBUTTAL!

I haven't done this in a long time, but Bruce Gourley, Director of the BAPTIST HISTORY AND HERITAGE SOCIETY, took the time to leave a well thought out comment with a somewhat opposing viewpoint.  His comment on my previous post is lengthy, so I won't repeat it here.  Please read his comment first before reading this post.

First, the issue of schools renting church buildings isn't a separation of church and state issue.  This has been ruled on by the Supreme Court in reverse a long time ago giving churches equal access to school buildings in which to hold services.  If a church were to deny a school access to its facility, but give access to other groups and organizations, that church would be open to a law suit.  This just exposes even more the Americans United for Separation of Church and State's true agenda which is anything but religious freedom.

The First Amendment has been turned upside down for about the past fifty years by groups such as the ACLU, AU, Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) into suppressing the rights of Christians.  With a leftist activist judiciary in place in the U. S. Supreme Court for about the same length of time, these groups have violated the Constitution by bypassing entirely the legislative process which represents the will of the people.  A very glaring example of the anti-Christian agenda was a lawsuit in Louisiana about 2005, in which the ACLU sued an elementary school for displaying a Nativity scene.  What the ACLU failed to mention in their suit and court briefs was that there was also a Kwanzaa display, a display for a Mexican bilingual display, and a Menorah.  The ACLU lost that lawsuit, and should have.  

I believe there are several reasons these groups use lawsuits rather than go through the various State legislatures and Congress to further their agenda.  One is that they know what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion . . . "  So, they just bypass Congress.  The next reason is tied in to the first in a way.  Anytime polls are conducted, the overwhelming majority of Americans express a belief in God.  The statistics are anywhere from the mid-eighty percent range to over ninety percent.  Now whether or not they are living the life is another question and another sermon!  If any type of legislation were somehow attempted, these groups and Congress would risk a huge backlash.  Politicians want to keep their jobs, not lose them.  The last reason I believe is speed.  Since Supreme Court rulings have been unconstitutionally given the authority of law (as in "caselaw"), it is much faster to further an agenda through lawsuits and once a ruling is handed down, it is law.  Period.  We The People can't vote on it or have anything to say about it.  Pretty dictatorial, isn't it?  No where in the Constitution or any of its amendments, or anywhere else for that matter will you find Supreme Court rulings becoming law.  This concentration of power without representation is another reason America was founded.

While freedom of religion is an essential part of our heritage and the reason this country was founded, the short quote from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Baptist Association has been turned around to limit our right to religious expression to certain venues,  specifically out of the public eye totally whether or not government property is involved or not.  All it takes is one person to claim they are offended, and one call to any one of these groups to set the wheels in motion, just as in the case of the Christian flag in King, North Carolina. 

In order to keep Jefferson's position on the role of Christianity in government clear, here are a few historical facts that probably will not be found easily anymore.  

First, Jefferson actually encourage local governments to make land available for Christian purposes in a letter to Bishop Carroll on September 3, 1801.  This letter is in the Library of Congress, #19966.  The Capitol building in Washington, D. C. was also a church building (as voted on by Congress) in which then President Jefferson chose to worship.  He even provided government paid musicians for the services.  He also had Christian services in the War Building and the Treasury Building.  He also closed all of his presidential documents with, "In the year of our Lord Christ, by the President, Thomas Jefferson."   Jefferson proposed the Great Seal of the United States include a depiction of a Bible story and include "God" in its motto (August 20, 1776, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Report on a Seal for the United States, with Related Papers).  Jefferson also endorsed the use of a local courthouse for church services (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, to Dr. Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822).  He even promised government business to a Christian religious school (letter to the Order of the Nuns at Saint Ursula at New Orleans, May 15, 1804).

The final clarification of Jefferson's position on the role of Christianity in government.  Jefferson was quoted as saying, "[The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will, [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." Funny thing, the left now seems to believe that worshipping our Creator is "incompatible with good government."  Continuing on, "No nation has ever existed, or been governed without religion.  Nor can be.  The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example."

The many writings of the other 250 or so men involved with the founding of America are along the same vein.  Our government was never intended to be run totally devoid of the Christian faith.  The term "separation of church and state" clearly meant the government would not establish an official national religion as had been the case in England to the exclusion of all others.  This concept was never intended to prohibit our elected officials from practicing Christianity in the performance of their jobs, praying to God in public, or local governments not being able to put out Christmas decorations.

If "separation of church and state" was intended to mean what is commonly found in textbooks and history books now, then why don't the ACLU, the AU, the FFRF, and others not file lawsuits when Islamic imams are allowed in our schools for example? Why are there no lawsuits when public schools provide facilities for Islamic students to pray at their appointed times during the day?  Under the current misconception of "separation of church and state", is this not the government "establishing" a specific religion?  Yet, students wearing clothing with Christian symbols to school (or these days, the American flag) are sent home.

No, clearly, Jefferson's concept of "separation or church and state" was not a government devoid of Christianity.  It merely means the government can't decree an official national religion outlawing all others.  Just as clear, it also doesn't mean Christianity is only to be practiced behind closed doors.

The only "fabricated history" here is that of the Progressives, i. e. liberal leftists.  Historical records of the writings of the Founding Fathers, and the liberals' favorite, Thomas Jefferson, totally contradict the revisionist history we see today have seen for the past few decades.  The only mockery of our nation's founding principles are carried out by the leftist groups attempting to prohibit any mention of Christianity in the public arena.  This violates the will of the vast majority of Americans which is clearly unconstitutional, and such lawsuits making the Christian faith illegal except in private is a clear violation of the First Amendment they claim to be upholding.

I am not denying separation of church and state here, just the twisted context in which we find it today.  Comparing Islamic governments to the Christian faith in our government is comparing apples and oranges.  Just ask Jefferson.  Jefferson believed just the opposite. He believed the Christian faith to be our government's best support.

Thank you very much for your thoughts, Mr. Gourley.  I always invite different points of view, and thoroughly enjoy the resulting discussions.  I invite you to stop by regularly, and comment often, whether you agree or not.

HOW TO SEND THE ACLU PACKING, PART DEUX

UPDATE ON THE CHRISTIAN FLAG IN KING, NC . . .


The 24 hour guard is still there . . . 

THE FLAG IS STILL THERE!

but the ACLU is not . . . wonder why??

                                                     (cartoon created by Robert Davis)

Could it be they got a lesson on Constitutional government? That ONE person CANNOT overrule the majority?  It's happened way too many times over the years and it's time for the majority of Americans to stand up to special interest groups that use intimidation and bully tactics to promote their agenda.  As I saw one commenter say on the Christian Flag-King Facebook SITE, too many times the ACLU has said "boo!" and we all run and hide.

A look at the cases listed on the ACLU's WEBSITE clearly shows they are not the least bit interested in freedom of speech, or freedom of anything for that matter, for everyone equally.  Just as in the case of King, NC, cases are carefully chosen to advance their agenda.  The ACLU likes challenging small towns because they know small towns do not have the finances to fight the ACLU army.  That's why it's vitally important to stand up and fight for your rights as guaranteed by the Constitution that leftist groups such as the ACLU are trying to take away.  There is strength in numbers, and there are far more of us than there are of them.

cat dog United States Washington government pig sarah palin building engineering truck car Wall Street Ford Chrysler Lincoln Mercury General Motors tree insect spider plants sky space Facebook MySpace boy girl man woman TSA liberal conservative sand World War I World War II Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Barack Obama George Bush

                                       

WARNING: THE CONSTITUTION MAY BE HARMFUL TO TYRANNY

Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

By Diane Macedo

Published June 09, 2010

| FOXNews.com

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments (722)
• Text Size

Warning that appears on Wilder Publications' reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and other historical texts.

A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.

Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”

The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, says the company may be trying to ensure that oversensitive people don't pull its works off bookstore or library shelves.

"Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other," Olson told FoxNews.com. "…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you're wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history."

The warning seems to be offending more people than the documents themselves.

Amazon.com’s customer reviews of Wilder’s copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation show an overwhelming number of people speaking out against the disclaimer, describing it as “insulting,” “sickening” and “frankly, horrifying.”

Another review for Wilder’s edition of the Federalist Papers calls for an all-out boycott of the publisher, sarcastically pointing out the "dangerous ideas" it’s trying to protect children from: "limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy."

And though warning labels are usually posted to protect a company from potential lawsuits, constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says this disclaimer has no legal benefits.

"Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,” Francisco told FoxNews.com. "The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document."

As for the idea that this warning label might help keep these works from being yanked off bookshelves, Francisco says it is more likely to have the opposite effect: people not carrying the book because it has the disclaimer.

"By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence," he said.

Amazon customers appear to agree. Almost all of the reviews discussing the disclaimer end with the same thought: don't buy from this publisher.

Efforts to reach the publisher were unsuccessful.

All I have to say to this is this is obviously a "progressive" publishing company. The "progressives" have believed the Constitution is outdated as far back as 1938. A quote from the book, American Progressivism: "The Progressive Era was the first major period in American political development to feature, as a primary characteristic, the open and direct criticism of the Constitution." The progressives believe that the limitations on the Federal government only serve to hinder the evolution of our country, and that it was only written to deal with the issues of the time. The reality is the Constitution was written to control something that has never changed for thousands of years: human nature.