Posts Tagged ‘separation of church and state’

America’s Descent into Chaos and Depravity, Part 3

July 7, 2015
Revelation 18 and the fate of America

Revelation 18 and the fate of America

Excerpted from Chapter 5 of Revelation 18 and the fate of America.]

. . . and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!”

Revelation 18:2b

Prayer Out of the Schools.  The United States Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren issued three crushing decisions on prayer in public schools.  The first was in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale) and two in 1963 (Murray v. Curlett and Abington Township School District v. Schempp). The decision to ban prayer and Bible reading from public schools was made as a result of the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the First Amendment and the “wall of separation between church and state” dogma.

In the 1962 Engel v. Vitale case the issue centered on a prayer drafted by the New York State Board of Regents.  It simply read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”  Although it was not a biblical prayer or denominational prayer, the parents of ten students took offense and sued the Hyde Park, New York school district claiming the prayer violated the U.S. Constitution.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

The Board of Regents believed that such a non-descript, non-denominational prayer would get the students off to a good daily start and encourage good moral character, promote spiritual guidance and help overcome juvenile delinquency.  Since students were not required to participate and participation in the prayer was completely optional, the educators felt they were on solid constitutional ground.

The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 3, 1962.  Nearly three months later the Court rendered a majority 6-1 decision on June 25.  Associate Justice Hugo Black rendered the opinion for the Court.

In part, Justice Black wrote for the majority: “This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents . . . they recommended and published as a part of their ‘Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools,’ saying: ‘We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program.’

“. . . We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents’ prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. . . .”

Without citing any references, Justice Black then went on to enlist Thomas Jefferson to support his contention and conclusions about the “religious nature of prayer”.

Hear my prayer, O God; Give ear to the words of my mouth.

Psalm 54:2

In the paragraph containing the Court’s decision, Black wrote: “The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State’s use of the Regents’ prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion

must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.”

Associate Justice Potter Stewart was the lone dissenting vote.  Justices Felix Frankfurter and Byron White took no part in the decision.

In part, Justice Stewart summarized the case as he saw it.  “A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them and upon their parents, their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that in permitting this brief nondenominational prayer the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States.  I think this decision is wrong.”

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985)

Justice Stewart was appointed to the Court on October 14, 1958 by President Dwight Eisenhower and confirmed by the U.S. Senate the following May in a 70-17 vote.  All dissenters were Democrats.  Stewart was a centrist Republican who believed that the Warren Court misinterpreted the First Amendment “Establishment Clause” and exceeded the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.

“The Court does not hold, nor could it,” Stewart wrote, “that New York has interfered with the free exercise of anybody’s religion. For the state courts have made clear that those who object to reciting the prayer must be entirely free of any compulsion to do so, including any ‘embarrassments and pressures.’. . .  the Court says that in permitting school children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have established ‘an official religion.’

“With all respect,” he continued, “I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an ‘official religion’ is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation. . . .”

Religion is necessary to correct the effects of learning.  Without religion I believe learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind . . .

Dr. Benjamin Rush, Letter to John Armstrong on March 19, 1783

Justice Stewart went on to point out the inconsistencies of the nation’s religious observances.  “At the opening of each day’s Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God.  Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court.’  Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer.  Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy [then in office], has upon assuming his Office asked the protection and help of God. . . .

“In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words ‘one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’  In 1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer.  Since 1865 the words ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ have been impressed on our coins.”

Stewart wrote that he could list countless other examples but that his position could be summed by the fact that, “It was . . . this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: ‘We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being’” [see Zorach v. Clauson].

“I do not believe that this Court,” Stewart concluded, “or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned established an ‘official religion’ in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case.”

Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974)

Warren was appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1953 by President Dwight Eisenhower. Warren, although a Republican, was philosophically a centrist to liberal in his judicial renderings.  He served on the Court until 1969.

A year later, on the same day, the same Court (with Arthur J. Goldberg, a Democrat replacing Frankfurter) decided two other contentious cases that were argued before the Court at the same time concerning school prayer— Murray v. Curlett and Abington Township School District v. Schempp.

In the Murray v. Curlett case, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a radical militant atheist, who was despised and hated by many Christians and fellow atheists, brought suit against the Baltimore, Maryland school board.  Like the previous complaint in New York, O’Hair sued because she claimed that her son William’s school violated the First Amendment by having students recite the “Lord’s Prayer” (Matthew 6:9-13).  She also came against the school board’s approval of the daily reading from the Bible.

14th Amendment

Section 1 [of 5]. . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Passed by Congress on June 13, 1866

Before reaching the Supreme Court, a local Maryland judge, J. Gilbert Pendergast, dismissed O’Hair’s petition, saying, “It is abundantly clear that petitioners’ real objective is to drive every concept of religion out of the public school system.”  The Maryland Court of Appeals had a similar viewpoint and concluded that, “Neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to stifle all rapport between religion and government.”

In the Abington Township School District [of Pennsylvania] v. Schempp the complaint was similar—that the voluntary student participation in morning prayer and listening to a teacher recitation of ten verses of the Bible was unconstitutional.

In its majority 8-1 decision in both cases, with Justice Stewart once again being the lone dissenter, the Court once again cited its position as in Engel v. Vitale but with many more pages of nebulous Founder legal positions and case law.  The bottom line was that, again Thomas Jefferson’s non-binding, non-Constitutional statement on the “wall of separation between church and state” was held up as the justification for their affirmative decision for the plaintiffs.  When attorney for the petitioners, Leonard Kerpelman, used Jefferson’s statement in his presentation and implied it was in the Constitution, Justice Stewart quickly interrupted and asked him where it occurred.  A silence fell over the Court as Kerpelman was stumped for an answer.

In writing his dissent, Justice Stewart stated, in part:

I think the records in the two cases before us are so fundamentally deficient as to make impossible an informed or responsible determination of the constitutional issues presented. Specifically, I cannot agree that on these records we can say that the Establishment Clause has necessarily been violated. But I think there exist serious questions under both that provision and the Free Exercise Clause – insofar as each is imbedded in the Fourteenth Amendment – which require the remand of these cases for the taking of additional evidence.

The First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” It is, I think, a fallacious oversimplification to regard these two provisions as establishing a single constitutional standard of “separation of church and state,” which can be mechanically applied in every case to delineate the required boundaries between government and religion. We err in the first place if we do not recognize, as a matter of history and as a matter of the imperatives of our free society, that religion and government must necessarily interact in countless ways. Secondly, the fact is that while in many contexts the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause fully complement each other, there are areas in which a doctrinaire reading of the Establishment Clause leads to irreconcilable conflict with the Free Exercise Clause.

Religion is the only solid basis of good morals: therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.

Gouverneur Morris, Signer, U.S. Constitution

Interestingly and sadly, not one Christian group, church or organization chose to file a brief in either case on behalf of prayer or Bible reading in the public schools.  However, it is important to note that these joint decisions by the Supreme Court, DID NOT, as widely believed, remove prayer or Bible reading from the public schools.  The Court only concluded that “government-sponsored” prayer and Bible reading were a violation of the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment.  Students in public schools are still free to pray or read the Bible on their own or to conduct or participate in prayer or Bible study groups.

In essence, what the Warren Supreme Court decided to do was to deliberately misinterpret and re-write the First Amendment.  They changed the intent of the “Establishment Clause” of the Founders and replaced it with at statement out-of-context made by Jefferson in a letter.  North Carolina’s senator at the time, Sam Ervin (1896-1985), quipped, “I should like to ask whether we would be far wrong in saying that in this decision the Supreme Court has held that God is unconstitutional and for that reason the public school must be segregated against Him?”

Perhaps ironically, O’Hair’s son, William J. Murray, became a Christian and a Baptist minister and is chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition and author of My Life Without God.

America’s Descent into Chaos and Depravity, Part 2

July 3, 2015
Revelation 18 and the fate of America

Revelation 18 and the fate of America

Excerpted from Chapter 5 of Revelation 18 and the fate of America.]

. . . and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!”

Revelation 18:2b

Separation of Church and State.  After the dual victories against the Nazis of Germany in Europe and in the Pacific against the Imperialist Japanese, the people of America were euphoric.  Despite tremendous losses of life and great national hardship, Americans believed that nothing was beyond them; that there was great redemption ahead.  Wartime industry re-tooled for domestic production and a house building boom ensued as returning soldiers sought to return to civilian life.

America was definitely on the upswing—emotionally, economically and spiritually.  Then the big lie was foisted on the citizenry of the United States that destroyed the Judeo-Christian foundation of the country. Prior to the big lie America had frequently had challenges to its Constitution, its interpretation and espoused way of life for the citizens of America.  But nothing destroyed the biblical foundation and fabric of faith more than the big lie of the “Wall of Separation of Church and State.”

. . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

Although there had been previous attempts to weaken the role of the Christian church in the lives of Americans, the door was opened wide to usher in a full assault on February 10, 1947 (less than two years after the end of WWII).    On that date the U.S. Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision in the case of Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing (New Jersey) made what would become a “landmark” decision relative to the issue of the “Separation of Church and State”.  The case originated when a New Jersey taxpayer, Arch Everson, sued the Board of Education of Ewing Township because he claimed that their reimbursement of the costs of bus transportation to parents of students going to religious schools was a violation of the “Establishment” clause of the First Amendment.

Amendment I.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

U.S. Constitution

Representing the majority decision, Justice Black reviewed the essence of the case.  “A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools. . . . this statute, authorized reimbursement to parents of money expended by them for the bus transportation of their children on regular busses operated by the public transportation system. Part of this money was for the payment of transportation of some children in the community to Catholic parochial schools.”

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (1886-1971)

Justice Black was a lawyer and a Democratic U.S. Senator from Alabama who was appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1937.

“The appellant,” Black continued, “in his capacity as a district taxpayer, filed suit in a state court challenging the right of the Board to reimburse parents of parochial school students. He contended that the statute and the resolution passed pursuant to it violated both the State and the Federal Constitutions. . . .”

Justice Black pointed out that “The New Jersey statute is challenged as a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion.’

The First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth, commands that a state “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . Whether this New Jersey law is one respecting an ‘establishment of religion’ requires an understanding of the meaning of that language, particularly with respect to the imposition of taxes.”

In an effort to explain the majority decision Justice Black wrote several paragraphs that reviewed the religious history of the early settlers and his understanding of the intent of the Founders in authoring the First Amendment.

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”

Justice Hugo Black, February 10, 1947, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

“A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches,” Black wrote.

“. . . The imposition of taxes”, Justice Black penned, “to pay ministers’ salaries and to build and maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation. It was these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment.”  In the same paragraph Black referred to the colonists of Virginia and their role in understanding the importance of religious freedom.  Presumably referring to The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the Virginia General Assembly on January 16, 1786, Black wrote that “The people there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.”

Referring to earlier Supreme Court history in relation to the First Amendment, Justice Black continued.  “This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute.”

Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (1924-2005)

Justice Rehnquist was a conservative Republican attorney who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in January, 1972.  In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated him to become Chief Justice.

Although Justice Black and the justices that joined in the majority decision got it right by deciding that neither Ewing Township nor the State of New Jersey violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, Justice Black

concluded the decision with this sentence: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”  The five justices determined that the laws of New Jersey had not breached this “wall” between church and state.  However, by referring to Jefferson’s statement on the “wall of separation between church and state” in his letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association, the justices forever opened a Pandora ’s Box for judicial misinterpretation and misapplication of Jefferson’s intention.

Thirty-eight years later in another landmark case before the Supreme Court, Wallace v. Jafree, 1985, the Court, using the same “wall of separation” reasoning, in a 6-3 majority decision struck down the Alabama public school’s minute of silence for personal meditation or prayer.  Dissenting Associate Justice, William Rehnquist, wrote for the minority opinion, “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers [of the Constitution] intended to build a wall of separation. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the Framers.”

If the Founding Fathers meant to insert a separation of church and state clause in the Constitution, why did they not?  To the contrary, in the midst of debating the ideals of the Constitution, they passed the Northwest Ordinance on July 13, 1787 that included this maxim: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Wall of Separation: Jefferson’s Intention or Judicial Fabrication, p. 53

(For a more complete review and understanding of the issue of the “wall of separation between church and state” read We the People: Birth of a Nation by this author.)

We the People, Birth of a Nation

October 30, 2014

BookCoverPreview.WTP.2.2nd Ed

Just released a second addition (revised and expanded) of a an early American history book I published in 2005.  If you are an American history buff or just want to know the true history behind America’s start and the Founding Fathers, you will want a copy of We the People, Birth of a Nation, Second Edition for your very own library.  I guarantee you will not find another American history book like it anywhere.  It is now available on Amazon, but will soon be available at other online sites or through your local bookstore.  At 640 pages it is chock full of original documents and the words of the Founders.  It’s an easy read that you will enjoy and cherish as a family heirloom.

Are you tired of American history that has been revised and sanitized to be politically correct or reinterpreted to conform to present-day political or philosophical thinking? We the People: Birth of a Nation, from A Summary View of the Rights of British America, written by Thomas Jefferson, through the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution to President Washington’s Farewell Address, covers the most important period of America’s history.

Learn about the miraculous and providential underpinnings that established America as the most unique nation of free people in the history of the world. Read the actual documents and about their historical significance, as well as the thinking of those Founding Fathers who put them in force for the posterity of all Americans.

Each historical document had its place and importance and is presented in its entirety for your review. Each is preceded by an informative historical narrative to help the reader understand the importance and place each document plays in America’s history and form of government.

Birth of a Nation provides the reader with unique historical insight like no other American history text. It is an historical heirloom for every American.  Read history as it was meant to be read.

http://www.amazon.com/We-People-Birth-Nation-Edition/dp/1503022196/ref=sr_1_6_twi_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414672052&sr=8-6&keywords=james+f+gauss

Constitution Day Sermon of Rev. Samuel Cooper

March 12, 2012

Excerpted from We the People: Birth of a Nation

©2004 by James F. Gauss

 

As another election season is in full swing and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is under full assault, perhaps it is a good time to be reminded what our forefathers had in mind.

On the day in 1780 that the Constitution of the United States was officially executed, 55-year old Samuel Cooper, the ever popular and influential pastor of the prosperous Brattle Street Church in Boston, preached a sermon on the rights and responsibilities of the newly formed government and its people.

“Righteousness exalteth a nation,” he asserted, as he quoted from Proverbs 14:34. This dictum of wisdom did not rely upon its own merit, he noted, “but also on a divine authority; and the truth of it hath been verified by the experience of all ages.

“Our civil rulers will remember, that as piety and virtue support the honour and happiness of every community, they are peculiarly requisite in a free government. Virtue is the spirit of a republic; for where all power is derived from the people, all depends on their good disposition. If they are impious, factious and selfish; if they are abandoned to idleness, dissipation, luxury, and extravagance; if they are lost to the fear of God, and the love of their country, all is lost.” (more…)

A Prayer for Revolution

February 9, 2012

A Prayer for Revolution

James F. Gauss

January 27, 2012

If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

Heavenly Father, in the name of Your Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of all who will accept His sacrificial work on the Cross of Calvary, I fervently pray that you send a spiritual revolution upon America.

I pray that You raise up this year bold and godly men and women of righteousness in Your Church across America that will lead Your people in a heart-wrenching repentance; a repentance for:

  • Remaining silent and unmoved by the murder of millions of innocent children through grisly abortion;
  • Remaining silent when prayer was taken out of our schools;
  • Remaining silent when the practice of homosexuality and other perversions were sweeping the land;
  • Remaining silent as corruption and injustice were running rampant throughout the country;
  • Remaining silent as church leaders perverted Your Gospel;
  • Remaining silent as politicians led America into bankruptcy, stealing the financial future away from current and future citizens;
  • Remaining silent while You were banned from the halls of government, education, our places of work and our communities;
  • Remaining silent as the country’s defenses and military are gutted and weakened;
  • Remaining silent as subversive forces are allowed to infiltrate the land under the guise of freedom of speech and multi-culturalism;
  • Remaining silent as anti-American politicians and other leaders pass laws or make judgments that subvert the sovereignty and freedom of the land.

Father, may You raise up godly men and women in the tradition of those bold men and women who spoke out against oppression and tyranny during the Revolution that spurred the founding of this great country, the United States of America, and may the spirit of repentance flood the land with seeds of revival like never before.

So, that You, Father, will be lifted up as the One and only Sovereign Lord of America.

So, that You, Father, will be our One and only Trusted and Faithful Leader.

A revival, Father, that will return the heart of America’s people to You; to a foundation of faith in Your saving grace and redemption.

A revival, Father, that will return America back to the foundations of God-inspired truth, justice and personal freedom so that we may once again be a “light” on a hill; “salt” on the earth.

A revival Father that will bring godly wisdom and knowledge to our thinking, understanding, decision-making and voting decisions.

Thank You Father for so richly blessing America in the past; for revealing Yourself to those who set the godly and just foundations of this country so many years ago.

Thank You for Your mercy and grace.

American Suicide

May 3, 2010

American Suicide

James F. Gauss

©2006

 

It’s hard to know where it all began,

The demoralization of this land.

Was it the statesmen elected to serve?

Or was it the preachers who lost their nerve?

Was it the people who were so blindly led?

Or was it the educators in what they said?

Was it the judiciary so liberalized?

Or was it justice that closed its eyes?

Whomever the source, whatever their reason,

For American survival it’s open season.

It’s hard to know when it all began,

Was it when prayer left our land?

Was it when we got tired of one more kid,

And murdered the innocent like Hitler did?

Or was it when the church winked at sin,

And invited the unrepentant sinner in?

Was it when the judges struck God from the land?

Or was it when Congress gave them the upper hand?

Was it when educators taught our kids wrong is right?

Or was it when parents let their children out of sight?

It’s hard to know at whom the finger is pointed,

With the land so fractured and disjointed.

Is it the Congressman who gives our money away?

Or the greedy businessman that sends our jobs to Taipei?

Is it the teacher who gets our youth way off base?

Or the preacher who becomes a moral disgrace?

Is it the judge who lets a criminal slip on by?

Or the banker who charges interest too high?

Is it the American who buys nothing but Chinese,

Then wonders why his job goes blowing in the breeze?

Whenever it was; whoever is to blame,

The end result will still be the same.

A country with no morals, no firm place to stand,

Its face turned from God, will no longer be grand.

America for sure is headed on a suicidal bent,

It has forgotten what civility and justice meant.

There’s no way off a slope this slippery,

Unless, of course, we come to agree,

Our only way out is repentance, you see.

A genuine reversal to set us free,

To be the country God meant us to be.

We the People, Volume I & II

February 17, 2010

Laying the Foundation                  Birth of a Nation

 

We the People Accolades

 

Modern America has developed cultural amnesia, but the documents and speeches in We the People are a valuable resource for recovering our heritage and identity

Rev. Peter Marshall

Peter Marshall Ministries

 

At a time when the schools…have forgotten or deliberately obscured the true history of the United States, along comes We the People to remind us of the uniqueness of our founders’ inspiration.

Joseph Farah  

CEO/Editor, WorldNetDaily

 

I think Volume I is terrific and will make an important contribution to an understanding of America’s foundation.

Howard Phillips 

President, Conservative Caucus Foundation

 

Here is a book that literally speaks for itself…Valuable historical research that makes for refreshing and inspiring reading.

Dr. D. James Kennedy  

President, Coral Ridge Ministries

 

This is a book that should be on a shelf in every library and required reading for every young person of college age.

W. J. Rayment   

Conservativebookstore.com

 

Here one can find in one reference book those documents which were key to establishing our country’s principles and laws—find them as they were originally penned, not revised to suit present philosophy or political correctness.

Kathleen Carper   

President, SC Assn. of Indep. Home Schools

 

The book would be tremendously helpful for students and teachers.  It should be required reading in our schools, ‘should’ being the operative word.

Monty Rainey   

Chairman, The Junto Society

 

These are important documents that we hope will be treasured by all Americans.

Lynne Cheney

 

What an amazing and wonderful resource…This is a definite must have for every family…I can’t wait to get my hands on Volumes Two . . .

Diane McNett   

Books4Homeschool

 

In post-modern America, the need for teaching the foundations of our nation is greater than ever….A look at foundational documents is vital. 

…We the People, is a complete treasure house of those documents.

Susan Stewart

The California Parent Educator

 

[Volume II] is a superb compilation of historically significant documents which ought to be available to every citizen and especially to America’s young people.

Howard Phillips  

President, The Conservative Caucus, Inc.

Volume I, 2003 and Volume II, 2005 are available at Authorhouse.com or other online bookstores.

 

The Problem With the U.S. Constitution

April 21, 2009

Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.  John Adams

The problem with the Constitution of the United States of America is, indeed, that it was conceived and formulated by God-fearing men, who, while not perfect, had a high degree of morality and integrity.  They were men from diverse backgrounds, but statesmen who sought the common good for the common people.  They could not conceive of an America that would degenerate into an immoral and irreligious citizenry that would lust after the sinful nature of man. (more…)