It’s Talk Show Radio the FCC is REALLY After

Don’t get too many shudders from the government monitors of the FCC arriving any time soon at the television newsrooms. They've been there for the last five years.

Canada Free Press, by Judi McLeod, Friday, February 21, 2014 

Dress newsroom monitors of the Obama Regime’s FCC in jackboots and military caps when they come to invade because the “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs” (CINS) they proposed last May is truly all about image.

Why are they sending monitors into the newsrooms at this particular juncture of the Fundamental Transformation of America?

Because it shores up Obama’s Marxist fear factor.  We’ve got ObamaCare, ready to be propped up with pictures of dogs, cats and other pets in a $1 million advertising campaign aimed at the same young people, dubbed “knuckleheads” by Michelle Obama.  We’ve got ‘Braggadocio Barry’s increasingly loud boasts that he’s got a pen and a phone with which to circumvent Congress.

The Marxist march through all of America’s public institutions is now ready to place a jackbooted-presence down at your local radio and television station.

Here’s the hidden message: Run, hide, cower under the nearest desk, CINS is on the way.

When the KGB and the Stasi invaded the news rooms of Russia and Germany, they killed off any who showed resistance.  In their mad, unquenchable thirst for power the Obama Regime thinks its people are already dead.

READ MORE.  

Must see video!

Diane Feinstein: First Amendment is a Privilege, Not a Right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAi3bdxfj2Q

Letter to the Editor: Far Right, by CCTA Education Chairman, Nancy Murdoch

Letter: Far right

Published: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 in Sun Journal New Bern

On a number of occasions the Sun Journal has identified certain members of the Craven County GOP as being “far right.” Perhaps that type of label sells newspapers, but exactly what does “far right” mean? According to Wikipedia: “The terms far right, or extreme right, describe the broad range of political groups and ideologies usually taken to be further to the right of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum. Far right politics commonly involves support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views. The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.”

After reading that definition, one might assume the Craven County GOP has been invaded by the Ku Klux Klan (who were Democrats) or some other such misguided group. However, that’s just not the case. The “faction” consists of individuals who believe every Republican in Craven County should have a voice as to who we support, we should hold our elected leaders accountable, and principles are important. 

Different scales have been used over the years to describe political beliefs. Many of us ascribe to the belief that on one end of that scale is anarchy and on the other is tyranny (what our Founders believe by the way). We prescribe to the balanced center, as we know that men are not angels and some government is required for a civilized society. In fact, “We The People” made a social compact to give the government enumerated powers as outlined in the Constitution, because government is instituted by the people and they derive their just powers from us. If the government follows the rules laid out in the Constitution, the social compact stays intact.  However, many of us in the GOP believe the social compact is broken, and we believe it depends on those among us who value the 4,400 words of the Constitution to get us back on track. Because we do not have blind allegiance to the GOP and we are aware that some in our own party have abused their power, we are attempting to restore the social compact to its rightful balance.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects the freedom of the press, among other things.  We implore the Sun Journal and all other media to use measured words, and to refrain from using slanted (and often incorrect) verbiage when reporting. Opinions belong on the editorial page, not the front page.

Nancy Murdoch, Havelock

http://www.newbernsj.com/opinion/letters/letter-far-right-1.227100

Nancy's letter was in response to the following article:

Craven GOP ‘tea party’ wing asserts influence

Separation Of Church And State: Then And Now

The term “separation of church and state” is being thrown around more every day, but it seems that its origin and meaning still escapes many Americans, even those who should know better. Even among Christian conservatives, there are now some who constantly check themselves at the door of separation of church and state before making private or public decisions or statements, readily accepting the popular understanding of the phrase.

The problematic reality of the situation is that they are being misled by those whose intentions are dishonest and far from the promotion of free speech and religion. Most political conversations now initiated, concerning the separation of church and state, claim that the separation they speak of is based upon the U.S. Constitution. In reality, this phrase is found nowhere in the Constitution; neither is their argument. The anti-freedom argument of separation of church and state contends that no reference, audible or visible, to any biblical or Christian tenet should be allowed in any federal or state facility (or in any decision made therein.)


Their unfounded claim is made in citation to the First Amendment to the Constitution, effective December 15, 1791. Amendment I states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Obviously, the exact phrase that is so popular among this crowd is not present in this amendment. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” actually originated from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut on January 1, 1802. This religious group, like many today, had learned just enough about the governmental terminology that had been established concerning the church and the state to entertain the possibility that the government meant to turn completely away from the interests and influences of Christianity and Bible teaching. That was their fear. The purpose of Jefferson’s letter was to remove their fears and to assure them that this “wall” was being erected to protect their religious freedom, in that it was meant to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business. The respect or display of Judeo-Christian faith is not the sort of “establishment” being addressed in the First Amendment. This faith had already been established long before the writing of the Constitution.

It’s easier to put the true intent of the nation’s founders into perspective when we consider their plight in the earlier American colonies and, for some of them and many of their ancestors, in the mother country of England. There, under the British monarchy, the Church of England and the government were one in the same. Both entities infiltrated the other, causing citizens’ lives, well-being, and freedoms to suffer. This “establishment” of a state religion is what the founders wished to avoid in the independent separation of their young nation of the United States from British control. Their intention was never to remove the free expression or practice of religion from public or private American life. Quite the contrary was true.

In fact, 52 of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established colonial orthodox churches. As the very first Supreme Court justice, John Jay, in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797, said that “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” In 1798, John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Based upon historical record, these views were also shared by others, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Dr. Benjamin Rush. Although the nation was not officially founded to be a Christian nation, in that it was not penned into founding documents that “the United States of America is to be solely representative and influenced by Christianity,” by the very nature of the Founders’ faith and actions, it should be clearly understood that America was, from the beginning, a Christian nation. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times and clearly states that “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.” By any contextual interpretation, it can only be concluded that the “Creator” being spoken of in this document is the God of the Holy Bible.

Other evidence of the country’s traditional Christian heritage can be clearly observed in the nation’s Capital and in other public institutions elsewhere. The words “In God We Trust” are emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court building, built in the 1930’s, contains a carved monument above its East entrance featuring Moses holding stone tablets representing the Ten Commandments. God is mentioned, including Bible verses, in the stone architecture of various Federal buildings and monuments in Washington, D.C. The liberty bell also contains an engraved Bible verse. In every presidential swearing-in ceremony, prayers have been offered, and every U.S. president has uttered the words “So help me God” as they were sworn in on the Bible. Every president who has given an inaugural address has invoked the name of God in their speech. Other courtroom oaths have also always invoked God, and chaplains have always been included on the public payroll. God is mentioned in the original Constitution of all 50 states. Including official festivities under every administration at the White House, our nation has also always celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior’s birth.

CONTINUED:  http://www.westernjournalism.com/separation-of-church-and-state-then-and-now/

Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: What you don't know, by CCTA Member Lou Call

August 1st



The Sun Journal
Letter to the Editor

What you don’t know….

Languishing in Congress is a little known House Joint Resolution 88 which has been introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) and supported by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It is known by its name, ‘Peoples Rights Amendment’ and declares that:

(1) the rights protected by the Constitution are intended to be the rights of natural persons; and


(2) the words "people," "person," or "citizen" as used in the Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies, or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and that such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the states. Prohibits this Amendment from limiting the rights of freedom of speech, the press, exercise of religion, association, and all such other inalienable rights of the people.

On the surface it sounds innocuous enough until you consider what the sponsor had in mind when he proposed this amendment to the Constitution. As its author, Rep. McGovern explained,””..all corporate entities – for profit and non-profit alike-are not people with Constitution rights”.

Under the People’s Rights Amendment anyone who tried to exercise his or her constitution rights collectively with other people would be “subject to such regulation as Congress deems reasonable”.


So who would be affected by this resolution? Americans for Prosperity, Citizens United, National Rifle Association, American Family Association etc…


Even MSNBC and the New York Times come under this ruling.....assuming you can find someone in Congress to challenge them.

The only purpose of this amendment to our Constitution is to ‘muzzle’ organizations from speaking out for its members regardless of who is control of Congress. A dangerous and unnecessary precedent.

Before you dismiss this as some radical leftist pipe dream consider this. At least four States-Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont and Rhode Island-have already passed resolutions calling for this amendment.

Perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts summed it up when he wrote in the Citizens United case, “The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soap box and the lonely pamphleteer. “

We need to remember this in November for there is much more at stake than just the office of President.

The very survival of our Republic hangs in the balance.

Louis Call
River Bend, NC

Barack Obama’s Totalitarian Plan to Destroy Free Speech

Obama's chief political adviser, Alinskee radical David Axelrod, said on national TV that they plan to change the First Amendment.

Mr. Obama doesn't like Freedom of Speech the way it currently works, so if he wins a second term, he wants to remove some of the protections that it holds for all of us. And can you guess what conveniently happens right around the time that these new rules will kick in?


Not content to simply ram legislation down the throats of Americans without the input of Congress, King Barack Obama the First (and hopefully the Last) has now openly announced that the First Amendment to the Constitution needs to be amended. His main radical adviser said on national television that they want to do away with free speech provisions in the Bill of Rights, in order to silence the opponents of hope and change. That’s you, by the way, if you’re reading this and all of us here at the Beat Obama Committee. We can’t stress enough how serious this issue really is.

Below is what Senator Mitch McConnell told NewsMax.TV this week:

“David Axelrod – [Obama’s] principal political adviser – said a few days ago that the administration wanted to amend the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This has never been done before in 235 years, to make it possible for the government to control political speech in this country. A truly radical, astonishing to say out loud, even if you believed it.”

This is the most fundamental threat to our way of life in America since we fought our war for independence from Britain.

Picture this in 2013.

CONTINUED:  https://beatobama.us/1st-amendment/barack-obamas-totalitarian-plan-to-destroy-free-speech

Letter to the Editor: Our Chairman, Nancy Murdoch

April 4, 2012

At the risk of being called a racist by WJ Gould and others who worship at the altar of Obama, I intend to speak up against what I consider the biggest threat of modern times, and that would be the reelection of the radical hack now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As long as the First Amendment still exists I don't intend to sit idly by as our Country is destroyed by a bunch of so called “progressives”, wrapping their hearts and minds around an ideology that is closer to Marx than Madison.

For someone portrayed as a Constitutional scholar Obama has total disdain for our Founding Documents. He glibly misquotes the Declaration of Independence, not once, but twice. He decries the Constitution as it doesn't give him the power he believes he so richly deserves, failing to realize the Constitution was intended to protect the citizens from the tyranny he embraces, not to allow power maniacs the right to ride rough shod over the People.

The Declaration lists all the injuries suffered at the hand of King George. It could easily be rewritten for modern times with a list of grievances against Obama and his regime.

• He has entered us into war situations without approval from Congress.
• He has apologized to other Countries for injustices that no one presently alive is responsible.
• He thinks we are no more exceptional than Greece, failing to understand that freedom and liberty are exceptional ideas of which some can only dream.
• He makes appointments without Senate approval on a regular basis.
• He appoints tax cheats to high office.
• He appoints known socialists and others wishing to destroy the free market to high office.
• He assaults the free market and capitalism, bastions of a free society.
• He appoints an Attorney General who openly opposes the Second Amendment, and is interested in justice for only “his people” rather than equal justice under the law.
• He appoints a Secretary of Energy who wants gas prices to be equal with Europe.
• He funnels taxpayer money to green energy companies who are dubious for future success.
• He presents a budget so onerous that it gets no votes, not even from his own party.
• He interjects into situations of which he is ignorant or uninformed (the police acted stupidly).
• He has dalliances with fringe elements (Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, ACORN, George Soros).
• He has insulted our friends, and cozies up to our enemies.
• He has increased the national debt at a rate unequal in our history.

The list is far from complete, but space is limited in this forum. I implore citizens to advise themselves of the danger posed by one who dictates rather than leads, and the current threat to our liberty as we head down the road of serfdom and tyranny.

Nancy Murdoch
Havelock, NC

PATRIOT POST: Essential Liberty--The Obama approach to the Constitution

The Obama approach to the Constitution

[F]or the past week America has watched the media elite and some in Washington bend over backward to turn attention away from an issue that is fundamental to the future of this country: Obamacare's attack on individual liberty. ... It all stems from a decision by the Obama Administration to mandate that religious employers, including schools, hospitals, and charities, provide health care coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and contraception. ... Some have attempted to make this a debate about other issues, but despite their efforts, the core complaint about this anti-conscience mandate remains: The President's policy is an unprecedented attack on all Americans' rights as protected by the First Amendment. ... No matter the direction the debate has taken, the deeply flawed policy remains, as does the opposition. Fortunately, Americans are not powerless to take action against this continuing encroachment on liberty. To begin with, Congress can and should take action now to stand in opposition to this anti-conscience mandate and ensure that the liberties guaranteed under the First Amendment remain intact. As Obamacare's two-year anniversary approaches, we've already seen two monumental reasons it must be repealed: the individual mandate and the anti-conscience mandate. But these are by no means the last of Obamacare's attacks on Americans' liberty."
--Heritage


CONTINUED:http://patriotpost.us/edition/2012/03/12/brief/

Sun Journal Letter to the Editor by CCTA Chairman, Nancy Murdoch

If something is said as truth enough times, many will assume that it is true.

However, regardless of how often it is said, the phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Church, and is co-opted by those wishing to establish a secular, progressive state without God's love or wisdom.


The First Amendment simply states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  A prayer before a public meeting does not establish a religion, but prohibiting of prayer certainly is in conflict with the free exercise thereof. Why exactly is the ACLU so offended? Why is the left so adamant about removing any reference to God or our Creator from the public square?

Anyone who has studied the framing of our Constitution or the formation of our Country knows full well that God and religion had a huge part in determining the form of government we would have. Our Founders were not perfect, but they wished to form a more perfect union. They knew that men are not angels and needed the restraints of religion and morality to guide them. Writings from almost all the Founders show a deep commitment to God and morality, and knew that those precepts were needed for a nation of free men and women to survive. Can anyone argue that as we have drifted away from those guidelines that our Country has not drifted away from freedom and more toward serfdom and tyranny?

Often the left has taken the Bible or religion to boost its own agenda, cherry picking verses to back up their idea of  social justice or fairness, all the while ignoring the parts not fitting their ideology.

How ironic it is that the ACLU would fight to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, but does not fight for those same principles of honesty and decency espoused therein. When did edicts like thou shall not steal, commit murder, lie, or covet become a threat? Perhaps when it was permissible to overlook the lying, stealing, coveting and adultery of our public officials. We don't like to be reminded of how far we have fallen away from decency and honor.


Is the USA to become like Europe: full of beautiful churches and empty people?
Agree: Yes

URGENT: Tell Your Senators to Vote YES on the Blunt-Rubio-Ayotte Amendment to Protect Conscience

URGENT: Tell Your Senators to Vote YES on the Blunt-Rubio-Ayotte Amendment to Protect Conscience


Tell them to vote YES on Amendment #1520

Last Friday, the President Obama announced a new “accommodation” for religiously-affiliated organizations under the ObamaCare mandate that requires all health plans to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. This so-called compromise, however, is nothing but an accounting gimmick that still forces religiously-affiliated organizations, like Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities, to provide abortion-inducing drugs to its employees. This mandate remains a gross violation of the First Amendment which forces these institutions to either abandon their essential beliefs or not provide health insurance to their employees and pay a heavy fine.

Take immediate action by contacting your Senators to vote in favor of Amendment #1520 to S.1813, put forward by pro-life hero Senator Roy Blunt and supported by Senators Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte and others. Amendment #1520 would ensure that religiously-affiliated organizations are not coerced by the government to provide abortion-inducing drugs that violate their religious and moral convictions.

Act Now!  Send email or print letters from here for free!
http://capwiz.com/sbalist/issues/alert/?alertid=61000461


Senator Burr:  DC: 202-224-3154; Rocky Mount: 252-977-9522

Senator Hagan:  DC: 202-224-6342; Greensboro: 336-333-5311;
Raleigh: 919-856-4630

REPORT: Craven County Commissioners Meeting, February 6, 2012

Dear CCTA Members and Friends,


The last meeting of the Craven County Board of Commissioners was held on 6 Feb 12 at the River Bend Town Hall. I believe it was attended by the most people I have ever seen at a CC BOC meeting except the one at Havelock where the football team was introduced. Team members and family and fans made a big crowd. Anyway, I am proud to say that many CCTA members were at the River Bend meeting to protect the principles we believe in.

The meeting got off to a strange start in that the traditional invocation was missing. It was a while before we found out why. The reason is that the ACLU had just won a big victory over Forsyth County and the taxpayers of that county ended up picking up the tab for the ACLU's legal fees of $200,000. The County Attorney, Jimmy Hicks, said he had already been informed by the ACLU of possible lawsuits against two other counties he represents (not Craven). Our Board of Commissioners do not want to risk being involved in such a lawsuit, thus the lack of an invocation.

I feel angry at the ACLU and disappointed in our Board of Commissioners that they have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and yet allow a bunch of lawyers to facilitate this infringement on our 1st amendment rights by prohibiting the free exercise of our religion. I realize that among those lawyers are Supreme Court judges. I believe that the Congress should impeach any federal official who flouts the Constitution. Apparently, Forsyth County Commissioners have decided to continue to have prayers that are to God only (not to Jesus). I don't like that either, but, in my mind, it is a better solution than completely eliminating the invocation. At the very least there could be a moment of silent prayer.

A Mr. Michael McMillan gave a good account of activities of the Religious Community Services organization that he heads. They do a great deal of very worth while work, there is no disputing that. At the end of his presentation, Commissioner Dacey reminded him that he and his organization had been forewarned that the county may not be able to continue it's financial support in light of the belt tightening needed for fiscal prudence in these tough time. Commissioner Dacey asked what measures they were taking to obtain private financing to replace the taxpayer funding. The answer he got was that they raise money privately and had done some belt tightening themselves, but had not given up on taxpayer support. I believe I speak for most CCTA members when I say that the government should get out of charity work. It is not right to take what one citizen has earned and give it to another. When will we ever have enough elected representatives with the courage to live by that to affect a change?


The Commissioners also adopted a Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation. It was obviously written by a strong advocate of spending as much taxpayer money as possible on this program. You would think from reading it that child abuse can not possibly be prevented except by a large financial commitment from the community as a whole. For instance "child maltreatment occurs when parents find themselves in stressful situations without community resources and unable to cope." I dare say that kids get slapped around without the offender even thinking about seeking community resources. And the proclamation itself asks several community groups and organization to increase their participation in our (the Board of Commissioner's) efforts to prevent child maltreatment. I think the word "our" should have been struck and hoped a commissioner would suggest that, but none did.

The Tax Administrator, Mr. Ronnie Antry asked the Board to credit back almost $12,000 of taxpayer money. One item was $3,259 to one taxpayer for personal property taxes on a boat. Mr. Antry said they had assessed the boat too high. Commissioner Dacey asked if they thought it was the Queen Mary. The tax man sure wants to hit us hard. He seems determined that if he errs it will be on the side of too high.

A public hearing has been set for the James City Community Development Block Grant program again. This time at the next meeting which is at 8:30 AM on Monday, 20 February 12. I thought most public hearings were set for the evening meetings when more people can attend. Anyway, some good changes have been made in this program. Taxpayers will no longer pick up the tab and just hand someone the keys to a new house. Instead, taxpayer money will buy lots in the James City area, and a group of citizens such as Habitat for Humanity will build a house on it. The anticipated owner will have to either help build the house or have volunteers who do. Then there will be an affordable mortgage on the house. Most taxpayer money will be expended on the infrastructure such as drainage, public water and sewer, streets, lighting, etc. All appropriate functions of government. Personally, I wish the federal government would just get out of that business and leave local communities alone, but this is a step toward eliminating the total rip off of the taxpayer by this program.

The Department of Social Services found another $252,708 of State taxpayer money lying around, and the Board voted to spend it in Craven County as it has been offered up to us. Aren't we lucky? And, oh yeah, Health Family Planning got another $25,000 to spend on Contraception to include birth control pills, depo-provera (a birth control shot). I wonder how many kids get this stuff so they can have sex without fear of pregnancy. I'm glad I was born 50 years before kids had the freedom to screw their lives up like this. Aren't we taxpayer lucky to be able to pay for this?


Last, but not least, was the appropriate calling of the Sheriff on the carpet (in absence) for the terrible safety record of his department, poor accident investigation, and his refusal to do anything about it. It seems Commissioner Taylor is leading the charge on this with some help from Commissioner Dacey and others. There seems to have been seven wrecks involving deputies lately causing one death and the destruction of at least two vehicles belonging to the taxpayer and the Sheriff says "well, they drive a lot of miles and stuff happens." Well, that is not good enough. I was there when the Sheriff did appear before the Board and gave a toe tap around instead of really presenting a driver training program. Now he is just defying the Board. I hope he sees the light when the Board reviews his budget in the coming months. It also came to light that the Sheriff's department is short about $10,000 of funds in an account set up so that prisoners could make purchases at the prison canteen. Prisoners put money into the account and spend it somehow at the canteen. The account is now empty and, as I said, should have about $10,000 in it. Someone obviously absconded with the funds. It is being investigated.

I'm sure I missed a few transgressions, but I guess that will do for now.

Hal James
Watchdog and Issues Chairman
CCTA

CCTA AT THE NEW BERN ALDERMAN MEETING

SUN JOURNAL NEW BERN
by Eddie Fitzgerald    (Lynn's comments in blue!)
November 9, 2011
In a split decision Tuesday night, New Bern aldermen approved a resolution limiting time for citizens to express their concerns to the board.

Mayor Lee Bettis and aldermen Bernard White and Dana Outlaw voted against the proposed four-minute time limitation that will be imposed during the public-comment period of the first regular board meeting each month. (YEAH and THANKS!)

The resolution passed 4-3. Alderman Victor Taylor made a motion to adopt the resolution; it was seconded by Alderman Dennis Bucher.

Alderman Sabrina Bengel said it was important for her as a citizen and alderman that people have the right to speak on issues, but there needed to be more order during the public meetings.

“You have the right to call any of us and I encourage you to do it,” Bengel said.

When groups speak during the public-comment periods, it delays the meetings if everyone is saying the same thing. One person needs to be appointed to speak for the group, Bengel said.
(Freedom of Speech squashed again!)
Bengel said she supported the resolution.

White didn’t. He said when he ran for aldermen he told people sitting in the audience they were sitting in a living room and he wanted them to feel comfortable and be able to express themselves.

“Our job is to listen to the people,” White said.  (CHEERS FOR YOU ALDERMAN WHITE!)

Bucher said although he “totally agreed with this free-speech concept,” he also agreed with Bengel and welcomed emails and telephones comments from citizens.  (YES, BUT YOU DID NOT DEFEND IT!)

If people could not express their concerns in four minutes, Bucher said they could return and speak at the next meeting. (LIKE, AFTER THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED?)

Alderman Johnnie Kinsey said he supported the four-minute rule.  “We are trying to conduct a meeting as well as serve the people,” he said.




  TSK, TSK, Aldermen Bucher, Kinsey and Taylor!  Shame, shame Alderwoman Bengel!
Don't you believe in the First Amendment?

Bettis said he really didn’t know how to respond. Constitutionally, it was “a really important” issue, he said.  “But how do you balance that,” Bettis said. (YOU FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, PERIOD!)

At least one citizen has taken advantage of the public-comment period and had to be escorted from the podium several times, he said, later adding he didn’t know what to do when a person “doesn’t respect the city’s living room.”

Hal James, a member of the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association, said the First Amendment of the Constitution not only gives people freedom of speech but also the right to address government.

James said although he did not have a problem with the four-minute rule he was concerned that the resolution also says the Board of Aldermen has the right to adopt “additional, reasonable rules to govern the conduct of the public-comment period.”

“I don’t think that is right,” James said. “And I think citizens concerned with tax burdens should be allowed to talk longer than four minutes.”

Scott Davis, city attorney, said the resolution would only regulate the regular board meetings, not public meetings like budget hearings.

Eddie Fitzgerald can be reached at 252-635-5675 or at efitzgerald@freedomenc.com

© Copyright 2011 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/alderman-101922-resolution-aldermen.html

CANADA FREE PRESS: Separation of Powers: Responsibilities/Misuse of…

Open letter to our legislators…


By Online Bill Shimukonas, Sr. Wednesday, November 2, 2011


Dear Sirs, Mesdames,

Given the fact that many of you have not been upholding the promise you took when you were sworn into office, I thought I would remind you of your duties as a United States Congressman/woman and/or Senator. This country is going to the dogs and many of you, regardless of political party, are aiding and abetting that demise because you are not fulfilling your end of your work contract.

Because you, collectively, have conceded many of your sworn duties to the executive branch and therefore to a President who obviously and presumptuously misuses his executive privileges, and because you remain silent when he sanctions his perceived authority with pen and paper with no apparent regard for legitimacy of constitutional protocol, there are some among us who consider you guilty of conspiracy in what appears to be a blatant attempt to defraud this nation of its Constitutionally-bound sovereignty. This President and his administration have made it clear about where they wish to take this country. It does not include a destination where the Constitution is used as a road map. And for those representatives who are far too casual in their motives or otherwise own motives that are specific to the malicious intent of voiding America‘s bedrock foundation, our Constitution, the word conspiracy is just a little too mellow.

Remember, too, that we are still a Republic. Until we become something else, and we are obviously on the way to doing so, the mathematical formula for our basic form of democracy is still based on the concept of one person, one vote. That mathematical equation has changed dramatically, most particularly over the past number of decades. The electorate is now being subsidized more by the influence of lobby and, of course, profligate legislators who cater to self-serving interests rather than submitting to the favor of continuing liberty and underlying freedoms for all Americans. It’s time to get back to the basic dynamics of rule as fostered in our Constitution. Forget the political correctness crap. Put the special interests in their rightful place. Some issues of those groups are legitimate and do indeed deserve consideration in the appropriate forum; most, I submit, belong in the trash bin. Bottom line: Deal with reality head-on. And for those of you with conscience, keep in mind that there are legislators without conscience among you who will continue in their attempts to deflect the course of our history. I encourage you to Stand To. For those of you who legislate with forbearance and intellectual curiosity within the context of our form of Constitutional governance, no offense intended. I wish you well.

However, insofar as the warm bodies who simply take up space in the halls of Congress for reasons other than those that command allegiance to our Constitution, and then raise their hands to affirm linkage to issues that directly countermand the weight of traditional America’s historical sense of individualism or for personal gain, yes, I do hope you are offended. Thus, for you, for those committed to desecrating the vehicle through which so many American Dreams have been born, there is but one way to put it. You are undeserving of occupying chairs where once so many men and women dedicated to the preservation of our truly unique American identity once sat. The stink of your vicious, hateful anti traditional American values diatribes and your votes that endorse a Socialist agenda cling to you as does the pungent, hold-your-breath-as-you-pee, overused, sloppy, wet, paper-strewn floored outhouse. Your lack of respect for and your obvious ignorance of our history scream for redress. Were those of you who I collectively accuse of disrespect, disloyalty and, let us not forget incompetence, were you officers of the state in the Dumas of Josif Djugashvili’s Soviet Russia, you would be sent to Siberia for re-education…if he liked you. And you complain about water boarding. Give us a break.

However, since you live in this once great country where such things as the First Amendment still apply, paid for in blood lest you had forgotten, you are given a pass regardless of the venial rhetoric and your disaffected voting records. And, for whatever it may be worth, every time you do so, you spit on the graves of all the men and women who passed onto us a gift, one already paid for, bundled, packaged and delivered. For the uninformed or in the case of so many of our belligerent so-called leaders in Washington as well as others who occupy lesser seats at the state and local levels of government, it’s called freedom. Imagine that? Yes, comrades of Alinsky/Lenin doctrinal values, and it implies a form of governance that was founded on (wow, now get this), free will. And we don’t have to do squat other than manage it. That’s why you were elected. That is your job.

I urge you, all of you, to review the tasks that clearly define your responsibilities as noted at the end of this text. That is just a small part of the package, our gift from Americans past. Don’t throw it away for convivial concepts of often false ceremonious writs of mutated doctrine that history without exception defines, at best, as mediocre governance that suppresses, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, “the spirit of man.” It really is quite simple. It’s all about the Constitution, the root of our laws, and your oath to preserve that document. You need only follow the guidelines and then stand up vigorously, angrily if you must, to those who violate the same. You do that and a whole bunch of us will, as we say in the military, watch your back. It’s an honor thing. We’ve also taken the oath. But, I daresay, unlike many who simply put voice to the words, that oath is coded in our blood; and for many throughout the entirety of our short history, it was left on the battlefield. Therein lay the true worth of that document. No treasure, no intrusive or insidious argument contrary to the stated intent of those words in our Constitution can justify the cost of prohibitive change. And your oath, your conviction as to its worth, as is ours, is the key to preserving that treasure for all who follow.

Congress has General Powers of Legislation:

•To provide for the raising and disbursement of revenue.
•To borrow money; to coin money and to regulate its value; and to fix the standard of weights and measures.
•To regulate foreign and interstate commerce.
•To declare war, and to maintain an army and a navy.
•To establish post offices and post roads.
•To enact patent and copyright laws.
•To enact uniform naturalization and bankruptcy laws.
•To provide for the punishment of crimes against the United States.
•To establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
•To provide for organizing and calling out the militia.
•To admit new States into the Union.
•To provide for the government of the Territories.
•To exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, public lands, public buildings, forts and navy yards. (Granted, some legitimate amendments here).
•To enact all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States.

Powers and Duties of the President:

•Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.
•Communicates with Congress by message.
•Approves or disapproves Acts of Congress.
•Makes treaties with advice and consent of the Senate.
•Commissions Public Officers of the United States.
•Grants reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.

Spes sibi quisque . . . Let each man’s hope be in himself; let him trust to his own resources.

Have a nice day,
Bill Shimukonas, Sr.
De oppresso liber

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/41982

Pastors Unite Against IRS Restrictions on Political Speech in the Pulpit

September 25, 2011

A regulation added to the IRS code back in 1954 (The Johnson Amendment) has muddied the waters for pastors, creating a scenario in which some leaders are too fearful of federal consequences to exercise their right to free speech from the pulpit.

The Speak Up campaign (launched by the Alliance Defense Fund) addresses this important issue, while working to “protect and promote” the rights of American churches. In addition to making faith leaders aware of their constitutional right to free speech, the movement encourages pastors to stop self-censoring and to start making their political voices heard.

But in addition to legal help, pastors can also join in on Pulpit Freedom Sunday, an annual event the coalition has launched to encourage pastors to preach sermons that to examine candidates’ stances. Aside from exploring candidate opinion, churches are encouraged to look at what Scripture says about each issue. Then, they will make specific recommendations about whether or not the congregation should vote for or against specific candidates.

Following the event, each pastor lets the IRS know about his or her sermon. The hope is that making the government aware of the code violation will spark an audit. Then, the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment can be hashed out once and for all.

In 2008, only 33 pastors participated; this expanded to 80 faith leaders in 2009 and then nearly 100 in 2010. With the movement rapidly growing, even more leaders are poised to take part in this year’s
Pulpit Freedom Sunday on October 2, 2011.

http://patriotupdate.com/12556/pastors-unite-against-irs-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit

MORE ON THE BLAZE:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pastors-unite-against-irs-tax-code-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit/

Note:  LBJ said the amendment was not aimed at churches--rather it was retailiation by Johnson against two business men who had the gall to criticize him!  More info on this on GBTV.COM--September 22, 2011 episode of the Glenn Beck Show.

WALTER E. WILLIAMS: Legal Obedience

08/24/2011

What laws are we morally obligated to obey? Help with the answer can be found in "Economic Liberty and the Constitution," a 66-page pamphlet by Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Hornberger offers a hypothetical whereby Congress enacts a compulsory church attendance law that requires children to attend church service each Sunday. Parents are penalized if their children fail to comply. Would there be any moral or constitutional legitimacy to such a congressional mandate? The law would be a clear violation of one's natural, or God-given, rights to life and liberty. As to whether it would be constitutional, we have to see whether mandating church attendance is one of those enumerated powers of Congress found in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution. We'd find no such authority. Our anti-federalist Founding Fathers didn't trust Congress with religious liberty, so they sought to protect it with the First Amendment to explicitly deny Congress the power to mandate religious conduct. Suppose there's widespread popular support for a church-going mandate and the U.S. Supreme Court rules it constitutional; do Americans have a moral obligation to obey the law ?

You might say, "Williams, while there are gray areas in the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court would never brazenly rule against clear constitutional prohibitions!" That's nonsense. The first clause of Article 1, Section 10 mandates that "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." During the Great Depression, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that restricted the ability of banks to foreclose on overdue mortgages, thereby impairing contracts made between lender and borrower. To prevent this kind of contract impairment -- routinely done under the Articles of Confederation -- was precisely why the Framers added the clause.

Another, perhaps more egregious example of the Supreme Court's impairing contracts came during President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, when the government nationalized gold and made it a felony for any American to own gold. Not only was gold ownership made illegal but it nullified all "gold clauses" in private and government contracts. Writing contracts in gold was a way people protected themselves against government theft, namely inflation. The Supreme Court upheld federal nationalization of gold and nullification of gold contracts in the famous Gold Clause Cases. Today many Americans have turned to gold, driving its price to an all-time high, as a safeguard against what they see as pending inflation. Here's my question to you: If Obama and Congress enacted a law demanding that you turn in your gold, would you be morally obligated to obey such a law?

Decent people should not obey immoral laws. What's moral and immoral can be a contentious issue, but there are some broad guides for deciding what laws and government actions are immoral. Lysander S. Spooner, one of America's great 19th-century thinkers, said no person or group of people can "authorize government to destroy or take away from men their natural rights; for natural rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government -- which is but an association of individuals -- than to a single individual." French economist/philosopher Frederic Bastiat (1801-50) gave a test for immoral government acts: "See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." He added in his book "The Law," "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."

After reading Hornberger's "Economic Liberty and the Constitution," one cannot avoid the conclusion that the liberties envisioned by the nation's founders have been under siege, trivialized and nullified. Philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe explained that "no one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." That's becoming an apt description for Americans who are oblivious to -- or ignorant of -- the liberties we've lost.

Dr. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist, former chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, and author of More Liberty Means Less Government

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45711

Sun Journal New Bern--Letter to the Editor

January 20, 2011

Freedom beware

The latest attack on our freedoms started only a few hours after the tragic shooting incident in Tucson. Within an hour, CNN put on the local political cartoonist, David Fitzsimmons, who announced that the shooting was “inevitable” considering “The Right in Arizona, and I’m speaking very broadly, has been stoking the fires of a heated anger and rage successfully in this state.”

This was followed by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who insisted he wasn’t surprised this happened because he saw it coming, even though the facts in this dimension don’t support his premonitions.

Perhaps the star of the media’s liberal juggernaut was Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who rushed to the readily available media microphones to proclaim the shooting was the natural outgrowth of hot “anti-government” talkers, that “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from the people in the radio business and some people in the TV business” was to blame.

The main stream media is an interesting study. Consider this: There has not been a single act of Muslim violence in the last two years that the media was willing to identify as motivated by Islam. Each and every time they had to be dragged kicking and screaming, past their cover stories, through groundless claims that the attackers were motivated by psychological problems, bullying, imaginary medical conditions or financial problems — to some adjunct of the truth.


At the same time over the last two years, each prominent act of violence by non-Muslims was followed by an attempt to identify the attacker or attackers with mainstream Republicans in a cynical attempt to demonize and criminalize the political opposition. If you think this is farfetched consider what just happened in the reporting of the incident in Tucson.


There can be no question that those who died and those who struggle to survive represent a tragedy — a tragedy that should not have occurred. But there is a greater tragedy that Americans need to wake up and acknowledge before Obama’s socialist agenda consumes us. I am speaking of controlling speech and expression. I am speaking of controlling the right to defend ourselves, in our homes and in our society. When we lose the right to dissent, to question authority and yes, to be emotional and even express anger, we have lost our most treasure rights protected by the First and Second amendments.

Those on the liberal left would love to divert you and me from speaking out. Consider the groundswell to repeal Obamacare. Still, I suppose we should have seen it was coming. After all Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, once said that you should never let a crisis go to waste. So, why shouldn’t these violent murders not be exploited ... and exploited they were.

I received an e-mail from a friend yesterday that expressed what happened as such. While millions of Americans prayed for those who were brutally assaulted and their families, members of the liberal media smeared themselves in the blood of the dying to score political points.

Can anything be more despicable? If you ever fear speaking out, they’ve won.

Louis Call
CCTA Legislative/Research Committee Chairman
River Bend, NC


© Copyright 2011 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.newbernsj.com/articles/shooting-94171-few-attack.html

Thomas Sowell: Forgetting the Constitution

The assurance that “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution shows our elites’ ignorance.

Politics is not the only place where some pretty brassy statements have been made and repeated so often that some people have accepted these brassy statements as being as good as gold.


One of the brassiest of the brass oldies is the notion that the Constitution creates a “wall of separation” between church and state. This false notion has been so widely accepted that people who tell the truth get laughed at and mocked.

A recent New York Times piece said that it was “a flub of the first order” when Christine O’Donnell, Republican candidate for senator in Delaware, asked a law school audience, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” According to the New York Times, “The question draw gasps and laughter” from this audience of professors and law students who are elites-in-waiting.

The New York Times writer joined in the mocking response to Ms. O’Donnell’s question, though admitting in passing that “in the strictest sense” the “actual words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear in the text of the Constitution.” Either the separation of church and state is there or it is not there. It is not a question of some “strictest” technicality.


The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a “wall of separation” between church and state, either directly or indirectly.

That phrase was used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, who was not even in the country when the Constitution was written. It was a phrase seized upon many years later, by people who wanted to restrict religious symbols, and it has been cited by judges who share that wish.

There was no mystery about what “an establishment of religion” meant when that phrase was put into the Constitution. It was not an open-ended invitation to judges to decide what role religion should play in American society or in American government.

The Church of England was an “established church.” That is, it was not only financed by the government, its members had privileges denied to members of other religions.

The people who wrote the Constitution of the United States had been British subjects most of their lives, and knew exactly what an “established church” meant. They wanted no such thing in the United States of America. End of story — or so it should have been.

For more than a century, no one thought that the First Amendment meant that religious symbols were forbidden on government property. Prayers were offered in Congress and in the Supreme Court. Chaplains served in the military and presidents took their oath of office on the Bible.

But, in our own times, judges have latched onto Jefferson’s phrase and run with it. It has been repeated so often in their decisions that it has become one of the brassiest of the brass oldies that get confused with golden oldies.

As fundamentally important as the First Amendment is, what is even more important is the question whether judges are to take it upon themselves to “interpret” the law to mean whatever they want it to mean, rather than what it plainly says.

This is part of a larger question, as to whether this country is to be a self-governing nation, controlled by “we the people,” as the Constitution put it, or whether arrogant elites shall take it upon themselves to find ways to impose what they want on the rest of us, by circumventing the Constitution.

Congress is already doing that by passing laws before anyone has time to read them and the White House is likewise circumventing the Constitution by appointing “czars” who have as much power as cabinet members, without having to go through the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet members by the Constitution.

Judges circumvent the Constitution by reading their own meaning into its words, regardless of how plain and unequivocal its words are.

The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.


— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251250/forgetting-constitution-thomas-sowell

The Father of the Bill of Rights

American Minute with Bill Federer

September 25

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Thus it is in the first of the Ten Amendments, or Bill of Rights, which were approved SEPTEMBER 25, 1789.

George Mason, known as "The Father of the Bill of Rights," wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights from which Jefferson drew to write the Declaration of Independence.

George Mason was one of 55 founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution, but was also one of sixteen who refused to sign it because it did not abolish slavery and did not limit the power of the Federal Government.

George Mason joined with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams to prevent the Constitution from being ratified, as the abuses of King George III's concentrated power were still fresh.

It was largely through George Mason's insistence that in the first session of Congress ten limitations or amendments were put on the new Federal Government.

George Mason suggested the wording of the First Amendment be:

"All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others."

CALL TO ACTION

URGENT: VOTE ON DISCLOSE ACT TODAY, September 23, 2010


Once again, we must fight for our basic rights that the liberals want to take away from us. Today, Harry Reid is going to try and shove the DISCLOSE act through the Senate. This must be stopped.

The DISCLOSE act is the response to the Citizens United case, where the Supreme Court ruled much of the McCain Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional.

The Democrats don't have a problem with corporations spending money on political speech. They have a problem with anyone engaging in political speech that disagrees with them.

The DISCLOSE act puts restrictions on spending for political speech, but amazingly enough only for those who generally disagree with them. Certain groups, Democratic constituencies, like Unions, are exempted from the requirements of the DISCLOSE act.

The DISCLOSE act is another attack on free speech and must be stopped. Call your Senators this morning and tell them to vote against the DISCLOSE act.

Two Senators who seem to be on the fence on this one are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Call their offices and tell them to vote against this bill.

Collins numbers are: 202-225-2523 or 207-945-0416.
Snowe's numbers are: 202-225-5344 or 207-874-0883.

Call today, while we still have a First Amendment to protect!

Townhall.com

Alan Sears:  Sunrise, Sunset: Our Future is Only as Certain as Religious Freedom

As the often heated, sometimes bitter debates that characterized the Constitutional Convention roared back and forth, month after month, throughout the long summer of 1787, Benjamin Franklin found himself gazing more and more at the painted image carved on the chair used by George Washington, who was presiding over the convention.


Franklin couldn’t decide, he told those sitting around him, if the image of a shining orb was supposed to represent the dawn of a new day…or dusk, and darkness coming on the land.


“Now,” he announced with a smile, as the Constitution was finally approved and signed on September 17, “I have the happiness to know that it is a rising, not a setting sun.”

Today, 223 years later, it’s sometimes tempting to want to pull out the old chair and look again. In America, the sunrise on tomorrow is only as sure as the state of our Constitution…and today, that state is shakier than it’s been in a long, long time.

Perhaps no element of that Constitution is more endangered than the First Amendment protections of religious liberty. That cornerstone of our nation’s freedom—the dream that brought the Pilgrims and so many of the other early settlers to our Atlantic shores—is now under direct, daily assault coast to coast.

From California courtrooms to the legislative halls of Massachusetts, our First Freedom is denounced as an impediment to those who would reinvent marriage into something it’s never been, and never can be. On university campuses, it’s all but outlawed as administrative officials segregate Christian students and their activities.

In public schools, religious freedom is ignored as educators work diligently to immerse our children in an aggressively secular world view. In hospitals and clinics and pharmacies across the country, it’s a freedom often denied to those whose religious faith prohibits their participation in abortion.


For far too many Americans, their awareness of the danger is as flimsy as their knowledge of the Constitution. For most, that understanding is limited to muddled memories from high school civics classes and a carefully orchestrated falsehood fabricated years ago by the American Civil Liberties Union and pummeled relentlessly into the public consciousness ever since: “separation of church and state.”


That so-called separation, and the growing legal assault it foments against people of faith, are both so far, far removed from any intention of those who hammered out our extraordinary, unprecedented Constitution that hot Philadelphia summer of so long ago.

Of course, not even the men Thomas Jefferson (whose duties as America’s ambassador to France kept him out of the country) called “an assembly of demi-gods” were immune to the temptation to sideline the Almighty from their undertaking. So conspicuous was His absence that finally Franklin—no overtly religious man himself—asked for the floor, and, addressing Washington, offered one of the most remarkable observations in American history:



In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?


In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.

All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence, we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?


We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: we shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages.

And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

The observation—like the petty in-fighting, the global implications, and the very real danger of self-destruction—is as applicable to our nation now as it was that day.

Religious freedom is the thread by which hangs not only the document we commemorate today, Constitution Day, but the future of the nation to which that document gave birth. In our willingness to defend that freedom—through our decisions, through our votes, through our prayers—lies the answer to the ever-new mystery of that image carved on Washington’s chair.

Is it morning in America? Or is a great darkness descending?

Alan Sears:  Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.