If you read my post, I pointed only to the commonality between the English Common Law and the laws of our nation, not its Constitution (the two are related but not the same). While I think it is likely that the Iroquois Federation influenced the Founding Fathers, one must also realize that they were educated men of the Enlightenment; they would've had a firm grounding in the Roman Republic and its construction, as well.

I do no think that everyone, everywhere, deserves to partake of America. We are a country, we do have borders, and we do have laws. Those who do not respect our laws with regards to immigration and resident aliens should be asked, the forced, to leave. However, we do have established methods for becoming a citizen. While I think some of them are a bad idea (I do not believe that merely being born in this country, regardless of the status of your parents, should make you a citizen), once they become a citizen then they should have the full rights and responsibilities of a citizen, regardless of whether their ancestors cross the Bering Strait on a land bridge, the Atlantic on the Mayflower, or they themselves came over with a permit for immigration. They are citizens, and should be treated as such.

Are there certain values that should unite us as citizens? Yes, of course there are. However, I think they are more properly found in the Constitution than in the Bible. That is because, no matter what inspirations the Founders had for forming our government, the fact remains that they did not set up the Iroquois Federation, the Roman Republic, or New Jerusalem: they set up a system which would unite people of several states, each with its own culture, and protect the rights of citizens. It is in education, in teaching people to honor the values which make America great, that we will find our nationhood. In choosing a religious source for those values, however, we betray the ideals of America... the ideal wherein every citizen, regardless of their religion, has equal rights and equal responsibility.

On the separate topic of Gods, however, I realize that your education on this is more formal and extensive than mine. It does not change the fact, however, that there are no unbiased sources claiming the God of the Hebrews to be anything other than one of multiple beings that have been worshipped throughout history; one whose various cults have been more politically influential, yes, but still one of many gods who claim to have created the world. While many of my ancestors have followed him, there are others who have an older claim upon the soul of myself and my people.

So, we have some anti-Christian, anti-American themes here...well, at least it's out in the open. And I don't mean this anti-stuff literally...

When referencing "gods," I think it's important to be accurate, that's all. If someone is going to refer to the God of the Bible, I will respond with all the accuracy available to me through years of study. Just an old habit, defending what I've read for myself, when having to hear professional scholars pervert the same words...

I think the issue here is defining American citizenship, as I mentioned. Is America owned by the world? Does just being born, anywhere, give that human being a right to all America is and has? Sounds like to me you're coming from this direction. This is where I think we disagree.

America makes big boasts about what it "offers" as a nation. But, in practical terms, this is unreasonable, improprietous, and impossible. It is also dangerous, and self-destructive. Liberals have perverted the meanings of our freedoms into a social autolysis. To counteract this, with medicinal thought, it seems we have to say radical, imbalanced things, like, No, not just anyone can be an American citizen. This is medicinal. Don't forget that.

And before I forget, I don't attribute the constitution to common law, at least not the impetus. I attribute it to the Iroquois Federation. There's a lot of controversy over this, but, some scholars believe that the Indian example, before the very eyes of America's founders, inspired them to create a similar union of smaller parts, a government of diverse entities.

But this doesn't really mean much. Who OWNS America? Everyone wants to claim at least part of the glory. I say, those that bled to build, these are the owners. I speak of the founders.
There has to be some common sense here. There was a body of people who specifically paid the prices. America is not a Haitian voodoo country. America is not a Muslim country. These other races and religions simply had no part in the building of America. There is a sense that they can be here only by privilege, not by right.

The issue here is WHAT IS A NATION? When I teach humanities courses, particularly ancient humanities, I make a great issue out of this question. It has to be dealt with. How does a nation come about? Why? What keeps it together? What makes it strong? etc.

Mark Hall,
amen brother.

I refer to him as "the desert god" because my people do not come from the desert; we come from mountains, forests, and shores of Northern Europe. Christianity was forced upon my people in most cases. While you refer to him as "The God of Creation", I know of many other deities from around the world who would make the same claim. The claims made by his followers, in their own holy book, don't particularly impress me.

I do not see America as a free-for-all. I see Americans as having some very clearly defined rights, but also balanced by clearly defined responsibilities. We are responsible for making sure our government represents all the people of the United States; for making sure that the rights of individuals are not trampled, simply because we happen to be in the majority; we watch out for their rights because we share them... if their rights are lost, ours are in danger. We have to hold our government accountable for its actions, because its actions reflect upon us. We do this through voting, through contact with our officials, and by exercising our free speech.

You are correct that I did not know all of the facts regarding the Treaty of Tripoli; thank you for enlightening me. However, I would like for you to point to where, in the Constitution, it states that White Anglo-Saxon Protestants have more of a right to the protections of the Constitution than other ethnic/religious groups. I do not deny that those who wrote the document were, to a man, white, largely (if not entirely) Anglo-Saxon, and a sizable chunk were Protestant... but the laws of our nation are based upon English Common Law, which was based on the law codes of the heathen Anglo-Saxons; the form of our government closely follows that of the Republican Rome, even down to a close corollary between elections in the Tribes and the electoral college. If White Anglo-Saxon Protestants developed the system, it is only because they were prepared for it by almost two millenia of non-Christians specifying the rights of a citizen.

I do not want a peace treaty with Islamic terrorists, and I think tightening our borders is an excellent idea. However, those individuals who are citizens, many of us born and bred, deserve the protections of the Constitution, no matter their race, ethnicity, or religion. I think that to suggest otherwise is to deny what it means to be an American.

And furthermore....! (I'm terribly agitated by this series of posts...)

April 20, 1796 was the year the first three frigates were ordered constructed by Congress. America had essentially no navy. We were in no position to deal with the North African coast, or with any other pirate infested area. Yet, we needed to be able to do world trade.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/SVMCJROTC/naval.html

American merchant ships were easy targets for all the murderous pirates (terrorists)whom roamed the seas (and who hung out in never-never land: Moslem North Africa. Careful reading will reveal that our commerce and economy were gravely threatened by the Moslem murderers, and America was in NO POSITION to make any demands. We bowed the neck, even denying the God of Our Fathers, in a "peace" deal, written in Arabic, to appease the Moslems.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com/old_editions/12_16_02/feature.htm

It wasn't until we built up a strong navy that we could go over their and straighten out what the Moslems had done to our trade in the Mediterranean. America had been robbed, extorted, slaughtered, etc., until we were strong enough to do something about it.

Instead of looking at the Tripoli Treaty (there was a treaty with each Barbary state) as an example and justification of America having no God, it should be looked at as an example of a weak and blasphemous moment, created under the pressure of the Moslem threat. It is a precedent both of the violent, lawless nature of the Moslem on the loose (i.e., not religious), and how bent on humiliating others they really are. This was THEIR wording, which THEY DEMANDED. They spared no means then to humiliate. Today, the likes of Bin Laden show the same nature.

Do you want to see more "peace treaties" with this "religion of peace" we call Islam (on the loose)?

I think it might be a lot safer to make American citizenship much more carefully defined, while were at it redefining our pledge.

Mark, either you don't know all the facts, or you have drifted far, far LEFT. I'm concerned now.
Remember the Marine battle hymn, "...we will fight our country's battles from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."

Mark, fascinating post, but we must be objective about Tripoli, the coast of notorious, cut-throat pirates, a menace to the seas. The Barbary Coast was the Syria of a different age. Every sub-human on the planet hung out there, constantly threatening the economy of the world.

This Tripoli thing was an agreement with Muslim pirates, written in Arabic. Article 11 is clearly a concession, nothing more. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, ideologically.

Imagine signing a "peace and friendship" treaty with Osama Bin Laden, or any other murderous Muslim group. Do you think the wording would include "Our Country is Christian, and we are required by our Judeo-Christian God to be nice to you, despite your murderous, unworthy existence"?

Of course not. You're making a political ideology out of a circumstancial emergency, it seems to me.

Also, I have the Yale edition of the Vinland Map and Tatar Relation. That's a different subject.

You may be right about the business of being required to swear an oath in the name of a God you don't believe in, and requiring others to do so.

But, America DOES NOT BELONG TO everyone else in the same way it belongs to the White Anglo Saxon Protestant. You are very, very wrong on this point, it seems to me, and this is the whole point of BadEagle.com, really. America is not a free-for-all place. It was created a certain way, with certain values. As an Indian, if I do not see those clearly, and value them, then I am inevitably fallen, as are many of my brothers. Fallen in abject protest and hopeless discontent.

This country was never meant to be a haven for our enemies and their gods.

By the way, I'm curious at your repeated, pat academic reference to the "desert god." Which one is that? It isn't the God of Israel. Not according to the Hebrew story. He is the God of Creation. I sense a real deep seated animosity here, or perhaps I'm over-reading something. I know I certainly had a belly full of superficial, erroneous, academic BS when I was at Yale Divinity! I'm probably over-reacting to your thoughts.

I despise error when it comes to arrogant misinformation in regard to the Bible. So, beware, as well as shall I (of my own over-reactions!)

And, so, you force me to pull out the venerable and battered Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797 (my name contains a link to it).

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed while most of the Founding Fathers were alive and active in American politics, specifies that the United States "is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion". This was passed without dissension from the Senate, meaning that, before the Constitution was even 20 years old, people considered the United States to not be founded as a Christian nation... and were certain enough of this to give it the force of binding law.

Furthermore, even if some of the people do want a return to the God of the Founding Fathers, the fact remains that many in the country do not wish to have the religious convictions of the majority imposed upon them. I am not advocating that we ban private prayer on government property, that we ban voluntary prayer amongst groups of students, or that we completely remove instruction about the history of religion from the schools... to do so is to fundamentally change the nature of private and public life. However, when the government makes a clear statement of preference for a specific deity, and in fact REQUIRES that not only schoolchildren, but also the adults who teach them, swear an oath to that deity, it undermines the religious liberty of everyone.

To use an example, imagine for a moment that, instead of being founded by 18th century Englishmen, America was founded by 11th century Icelanders, who founded the Sovereign Republic of Vinland. Now, this republic was dedicated to the equality of mankind, and many of the original inhabitants were dedicated to the gods of the heathen Norsemen.*

Many centuries pass. There is now a Christian minority in the SRV, and an oath of allegiance to the country is being mandated in schools (as it is here in Texas). Would this Christian minority stand for an oath which read "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Sovereign Republic of Vinland, and to the government for which it stands; one nation, under the Aesir, with liberty, and justice, for all"?

Of course they would not. It was a refusal to swear oaths to other Gods that caused Christians problems in Rome, caused dissension between Hakon the Good and his followers in Norway, and led to the conversion of Iceland. However, in this hypothetical SRV, they would simply be acknowledging the religion of the Founding Fathers... so harmless that surely they must be unVinlandish if they object.

What options would Christians have? They aren't going to leave the country of their birth, the land that they love; this is a major point for them, but it is still their country as much as it is that of everyone else. Refusal to swear carries social penalties, and could cause problems for them professionally (if they're teachers who set "bad examples" for the students by sticking to their principles). Their only options are to convince their Congresscritter to introduce a bill to change things... or to seek redress through the courts. Because the Congresscritter has to rely on the goodwill of voters, he won't make a move that threatens his ability to get votes, so the only option is to go to the people who are not subject to re-election, and thus can act without fear of political reprisal... the courts.

An America without the desert god is an essentially different America, I agree. As I've told my students these past couple days, Christianity is arguably the single most important force in Western History. However, an America which forces people to say what amounts to a prayer to the desert god is also a fundamentally different America. Instead of recognizing and honoring its roots, it is defaming them by removing from the people their essential right to choose their own religion... a choice which must, to be meaningful, include the choice of which religion not to follow, and which gods not to pray to.

*This plays somewhat fast and loose with historical facts; the settlers of Vinland were most likely Christian and monarchists, according to the Sagas. However, it serves for a hypothetical situation.

Mark, I'm glad that you say that the "God" of the pledge is specifically the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible which is thus referenced. It is indeed not meant to mean any deity, or just any concept of deity or supreme being. It is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel. The God who created the world in six days, according the Genesis. It is this God, and no other, that was referenced by the majority of the founding fathers, and presidents, congressmen.

Their God was the God to whom they felt responsible towards, and on Whose law they built a nation.

America was indeed not built on Allah, on Thor, on Osiris, on the Atman, Kali, or any other.

Now, either we've come to believe that it was built on some other god, or we've come to believe that there is no such God.

If you're willing to talk about an America that has changed, whose Court must keep up with the times, then you must also be willing to acknowlege that the people may indeed want something different today, like, a return to that original God that the fathers believed in.

America without that God is an essentially different America, it seems to me.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said:

"We have [required] a vote of two-thirds in one of the Houses for removing a judge; a vote so impossible where any defense is made before men of ordinary prejudices and passions, that our judges are effectually independent of the nation. ... Having found from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scarecrow, [the Judiciary] consider themselves secure for life. ... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. ... Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years and removable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct at regular periods under revision and probation...."

We need to hold the judiciary accountable for their actions.

David,

Actually, I was still referring to David Ross, rebutting his claim that Congress was not allowed to add "under God" to the Pledge.

Mike

(By way of introduction, this was my initial, private e-mail to Mr. Yeagley on his blog entry. I would've posted it publicly, as he has now given me permission to do, but I did not realize, at the time, that there was a commenting section on his blog.)

I am afraid I must disagree with you on the Pledge of Allegiance issue, Mr. Yeagley. As I am a history teacher, I am going to use a historical argument. While it is tempting to return to the treaty of Tripoli, that predates me by 180 years, so I will instead go with something more recent: the adoption of the Pledge itself, and its alteration by Congress.

As you know, the Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress in 1942, without the phrase "under God". In 1954, Congress altered the Pledge of Allegiance to contain the phrase "under God", in order to differentiate us from the "Godless Communists". It wasn't something the American people were clamoring for; it was a move by our elected officials taken without consulting their constituency.

Now, it is arguable that the people of the time would have embraced the change had they been asked. But this is not fifty years ago. There are many people in the United States who have no problem pledging allegiance to our flag and our country, but will not pledge allegiance to the desert god and his bastard son. It has been argued in the past that the term "God", as used in the Pledge and on our currency, is non-specific... but do you honestly doubt that those who arranged for those phrases to appear had a non-specific use in mind? That they would be just as happy if people were swearing to one nation under Allah, or Eris, or Thor, or Coyote? In a modern context, the use of the term "God", capitalized and singular, has only a Judaeo-Christian meaning. By making it an integral part of a pledge of allegiance, the government is effectively marginalizing its own citizens, which is the antithesis of a republic such as ours.

Personally, I would prefer that we instead revert to the American's Creed (http://www.ushistory.org/documents/creed.htm), instead of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath to defend a piece of cloth; a powerful symbol, but a piece of cloth. The American Creed, however, is a statement of principle, a statement of what our nation stands for.

As a teacher in the state of Texas, I am required, by law, to stand and recite the Pledge each day, but I recite it in the form first accepted by Congress. I recite it in the form that my Grandfather swore to in World War II. While the current version may exist as a matter of law, it is the place of the Supreme Court to overturn laws which do not reflect the Constitution of the United States. Given that there can be no reasonable question about which God is intended by the creators of the Pledge of Allegiance, a Supreme Court ruling removing the Pledge as a requirement would stop the forced swearing of oaths to one whom many regard as a foreign, non-existent, or simply not their, God.

They're considering it now because it has been brought before them. The Supreme Court cannot unilaterally declare a law unconstitutional; they require someone to bring a suit to their attention. Similar cases have come before the Supreme Court previously; specifically dealing with "In God We Trust" on the national currency (another bit of "Americana" enforced since the 1950s). At that time, the Court ruled that it was not an entanglement of Church and State, using the same "vagueness and non-specifity" I referenced in my e-mail to you. My bet is that the Court will do the same thing again; its conservative bloc will definitely vote that way, and I think enough moderate-to-liberal justices will go along to keep the Pledge as-is and enforced in school.

You do, however, have a good point about the power of the clerks; I think some review of their function and an audit of their actions would definitely be good for the cause of the Republic.

Michael Raney,
I think you may have me mixed up with another site on the Limbaugh matter. I've never said anything about listenin or not listening to his show.

Here are some interesting blogs on Rush from Richard Poe:

http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=317

http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=316

True, I'm greatly disappointed in Rush, and have said as much.

http://www.badeagle.com/journal/archives/2003_10.html#000357

I think he missed all his chances for being moral and upright. All his confessional talk since the ESPN resignation and the drug problem is all damage control. He missed his opportunity the first pill he took outside the prescription. He missed he chance to stand for free speech when he resigned from ESPN.

Men are only men. Usually, enormous success, like his, just makes them temporarily forget their place in the line of faulty humanity.

Interesting discussion, indeed. Perhaps I was melodramatic in the post, but, I have to ask, Why is the Supreme Court considering the "under God" clause NOW? Why not in 1954? If no citizens made a case out of it, why didn't they? If it's wrong now, it was wrong then. Who's being "unstable" now? Who's catering to the people now? The Supreme Court.

I agree about the stability theory, but, it isn't working out that way. The Court is wholly politicized, and unworthy of the ideology which founded it.

Furthermore, it is the legal system underneath it that assures its politicization. The clerks, who decide what cases are going to be put before judges, are the real problem. They can be bought off, and no one knows about it. They can be persuaded that this or that case must be in the pile to be considered. How is THAT matter decided?

Much of this nonsense is inevitable, granted. But America cannot be something it never was, nor ever intended to be. It is no longer America. That is what is happening. Powers that be are trying to make America into something other than it was designed to be. This can be only a backward step, a destructive step, and maybe even a final step.

I predict the court will prove unworthy of its calling. I hope I am wrong.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Bodvarr. While I can see the attraction of a limited term on the federal bench, I believe that it was set to an unlimited term for a very good reason: to provide a relatively stable core to American government.

In theory, the House of Representatives changes every 2 years, and the Senate has a 1/3 turn-over in that same time. The Presidency is up for grabs every 4 years, and completely loose every 8. The Supreme Court, however, was designed to provide a stable core, a relatively unchanging bedrock of American Republicanism. While the rest of the government might radically change every few years, the static nature of the Supreme Court means that actions put in place by previous administrations could not be easily swept aside by a change in the political tide. The Supreme Court provides a core of protection for the American people.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court should not stand for constant re-election for the very reason most people are angry with them: if they stand for re-election, their decisions are no longer a matter of sober deliberation, but of politics. "I'm standing for re-election next year... I better not give a response which will annoy the powers that be, or I will lose my job." If their decisions become political, rather than based on the law and the Constitution, then our nation loses a direction.

Currently, the primary check on the power of the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court. Their own decisions are open to reinterpretation, and each Justice having his or her own views of the Constitution means that no single view can become dominant without the consent of Congress (through approving only those who hold a particular view). If you must limit the terms of Supreme Court justices, I would suggest that 4-8 years is a bad idea; it provides, too easily, for a new Congress, Senate, and President to rewrite the Supreme Court (imagine, for a moment, if George Bush had entered office with a sympathetic Congress and Supreme Court; far from aristocracy, we would have an oligarchy). I would instead submit that terms, if they are shortened from "the pleasure and good behavior of the justice" to be limited to a single 7-year term. With seven years, it will only infrequently happen that Presidential, Congressional, and Judicial elections happen in the same year. Without the possibility for re-election, members of the Supreme Court could be unfettered by politics in their decisions.

I still believe that a lifetime appointment is preferable, as it does serve as a check against the politics of the Executive and Legislative branches, but a seven-year term at least guarentees that our nation cannot be overthrown in a single election. The American system is inefficient; it is designed to be, so we do not have to fear a tyranny brought about by efficiency.

With a federally constituted "independent" judiciary, with inmates therein serving FOR LIFE, what does one expect. Sounds like aristocracy to me, which ITSELF is anathema to democracy, which is a concept over which the parsers of words cannot argue, as the sometimes do over "establisment of religion" or "well-regulated militia". That one is pretty clear. We needs no aristocrats 'round here.

I recently saw a recent work of fiction, Richard Dreyfuss giving a "history" of Washington DC, on "nothing else on TV", where he stated that the Supremes aren't accountable not to politics or the voters -- meaning, they're unaccountable for their actions to ANYONE -- but are instead accountable "to the Constitution"...which they've had a dandy time shredding since Mr. Lincoln's day.

As one writer puts it (in his best junior high school-cum-Hallmark card prose): "The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since."

How can one be an equal when one is not accountable, while the legislative and executive branches have to stand election (forgetting for a second the rate of return of incumbents)?

Since Marbury v. Madison, Mr. Marshall's Federalist fiat, the Supremes and their emboldened Federal judicial minions have not been content with merely interpreting law as written -- Federalists many of them being "loose constructionists", as we remember from our civics and history classes -- but have used "judicial review" to unaccountably redefine America, particularly when activist jurists have taken the bench. They aren't accountable to anyone...except to their party.

I'm for a fixed term, perhaps 4 years, on the federal bench, from federal district to federal appeals to Supreme power justices. Perhaps expecting the justices to be confirmed by Congress and then reconfirmed when their term is over, to a limit of 8 years service, might tighten up their shot groups. Personally, I'd have the state legislatures of the states within their districts do the confirming for district court and appeals seats, but that's too much "states rights" for this tyranical federal system to tolerate.

The federal courts are out of control. Both the Democrats, as evidenced by the wrangles over Bork and now Estrada stand as evidence, and Republicans know the power they assume when "their guys" are confirmed. Their power has the weight of law and the power of the executive, without accountability, and is just as prone to party ideology no matter how they style their actions as "accountable to the Constitution/law/a (non-divine) higher ethic".

They pick presidents now, for instance.

I'm for muzzling the judiciary.

-- B

Actually, anyone who bothers to learn the commonly-accepted definitions of 1700s American English knows that it is not unconstitutional for public officials, even Congress, to acknowledge God. What is forbidden is the establishment of a national religion, which in general practice (look at Norway and Denmark, for example) is accompanied by funding from taxes. Do the words "under God" mean your taxes are going to the Southern Baptist Convention, American Roman Catholic Church, or American United for the Separation of Church and State (the most prominent Secularist organization)? Of course not.

BTW, I read on your site that you stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh because during one show you thought he might be a racist since he considered the basis of a particular study might be anti-Southern bias. If you hadn't considered him as racist during your years of listening to and watching him, did you think that one day he just all of a sudden became a rampant racist? That's some of the most ridiculous logic I've ever read.

Mike

It was Congress who inserted the "under God" bit in 1954. Precisely the folks Constitutionally forbidden to do so...

Now, if and when someone sues to take the religious references off the Lincoln Memorial, THEN you'll have a case.

Here's a note from Rev. Robert Schenck, on whom I've posted before:
http://www.badeagle.com/journal/archives/2003_08.html#000336

Dear Friend of Faith and Action,

Your missionary to Capitol Hill, Rob Schenck, reporting:

Is the tide turning? No news is sometimes good news when it comes the US Supreme Court. As of this morning, Tuesday, October 14, the US Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the appeal of our friend, Chief Justice Roy Moore, on whether or not government officials may acknowledge the God of the Bible. This means it was not a slam-dunk for the opponents on the High Court.

More significantly, take a look at this article in the Washington Times: (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031010-112732-6238r.htm).
It could mean that the federal courts are starting to get the message that the American people are sick and tired of the federal courts siding with secular extremists like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU.

The fact that Chief Justice Moore’s attorneys did not contest this outrageous and dishonest demand for an exorbitant fee, but that the Court rejected it anyway, makes it even more significant.

Please, keep the pressure on the courts by signing our petition and asking others to do the same at www.grassfire.net

Thanks to all who have helped fund this campaign with your online gifts! (www.faithandaction.org) I’ll keep you posted!

Your grateful missionary on Capitol Hill,

Rev. Rob Schenck
Missionary to Capitol Hill

Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital
109 Second Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002

www.faithandaction.org

The liberal activists on the Supreme court have a very simple function... that is to determine if a law conforms to the Constitution's language and intent. End of Story...

no European influence...
no 'this is how we see it right now'...

just 'does it fit'.

yet the Ginsberg led fascists won't even do that... they've decided to govern by fiat...

After lunching with Jacques Chirac.

when i was in school we alway had a pray each morning now there is no more god in the school our country was base on god ' now the supreme court say no pray because some woman ; ohara push it so there would be no more pray the people let her do it nobody try to stop her without god what does this country had [nothing] may god had mercy on our soul if we let happen.