Enemies of the State

From the Rush in a hurry e-mail:

******
Obama said today that the government will bundle payments to doctors based on how well the doctors are doing their job. Who is he to "reward" doctors? They work and they get paid!

"In whose polluted mind are doctors the enemy? They sure appear to be with this man. He wants people to think greedy doctors and super-greedy insurance companies are the problem." -Rush

"The State-Run Media is already on board with the whole notion that the obese are villains who are damaging the rest of us, and have to be dealt with by taxing their food. Here's how the obese will beat the fat tax: the fat guy will find a skinny kid to go in and buy his Big Mac, McNuggets, and fries. In exchange, the fat guy will go to the liquor store and buy the kid's booze." -Rush

"Obama says we have to rush and do health care right now 'cause he's getting letters. Of course, he never got a letter telling him to leave it alone. He only gets demands for government-run health care. My question is when does Obama have time to read all this fan mail?" -Rush
(Rush Limbaugh, 7/28/2009)

******

Liberals Set on Life Reduction Policies

Bryan Alexander over at his "Right Thinking" blog, posted an excellent write up about Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent comment: "“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

"Populations that we don't want to have too many of?" What is that all about? Ah, yes, those huggable, loveable liberals and their life reduction policies. Read it all at "A Look Behind Ginsburg's Words."

Poor Trudeau

Since cartoonist Garry Trudeau refuses to treat the Obama administration like he did the Bush administration, his "Doonesbury" comic strips have been rather dull and boring lately. Poor Garry Trudeau. So sad.

Speaking of Arrested

I don't seem to recall any charges of racism, racial profiling, or any other sort of racial travesty being raised by press or president when this black man was led away in handcuffs.

******

Former Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes and 21 other protesters were arrested this morning when they refused to leave the Notre Dame campus during a protest of President Obama's upcoming commencement address there, authorities said.Keyes and the others were arrested on trespassing charges when they refused to leave campus, a university spokesman said. All 22 were being held in the St. Joseph County Jail on misdemeanor criminal trespass charges, in lieu of $250 bond each, said St. Joseph County Sheriff's Sgt. Bill Redman.
Keyes was among a group of 26 protesters, some of them pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood, who entered the campus and were greeted by Notre Dame police, said university spokesman Dennis Brown. (ChicagoBreakingNews, 5/8/09)

******

(Photo: the arrest of Alan Keyes)

Living the Dream

“[President Obama] doesn't know the facts, he wasn't there, he pops off, just exactly as he would back in Chicago in the community organizing days. He goes off about racial profiling, all the rest. Based on what? A limited amount of information about a single incident where he's quick to condemn the cop, the whole police department, and white America. Mr. President, you are not a victim. You are, in fact, the president of the United States. You went to private school. You went to Ivy League schools. You are a millionaire. You have a charmed life. Congratulations. You're living the American dream. Stop pretending otherwise. If anybody behaved stupidly yesterday it was the president, in even taking the question.” -- Rush Limbaugh, 7/23/09

Well, Mr. Obama is living the American dream. I wish that he would stop racing to take away that opportunity from the vast majority of America's citizens.

Racism Charges Bogus

The issue surrounding the arrest of Dr. Louis Gates, Jr., has escalated beyond reason. Big Media get to report the story any way they want, and they want to make sure that virtually everything points to racist profiling by police brutes. Except CNN's report yesterday already disclosed some details about the incident. I notice that tonight's photos are carefully cropped for the television audiences, showing a white police officer arresting a distressed black man. But look at the wider view taken from the CNN account. Sgt. Crowley is far from the only police officer present, and not all of them are white.

******

Gates had just returned from a trip to China when a police officer responded to a call about a potential break-in at his home that was phoned in by a white woman. According to the police report, Gates was in the foyer when the officer arrived.

The officer asked Gates to "step out onto the porch and speak with me," the report says. "[Gates] replied, 'No, I will not.' He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was 'Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police' and that I was 'investigating a report of a break in progress' at the residence.

"While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, 'Why, because I'm a black man in America?' "

According to the report, Gates initially refused to show the officer his identification, instead asking for the officer's ID. But Gates eventually did show the officer his identification that included his home address.

"The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That's a joke," Gates told The Root. "It escalated as follows: I kept saying to him, 'What is your name, and what is your badge number?' and he refused to respond. I asked him three times, and he refused to respond. And then I said, 'You're not responding because I'm a black man, and you're a white officer.'" -- CNN, 7/22/09

******

Big Media makes a big deal out of the typical stuff: Mild-mannered black university professor & family man hounded and handcuffed by big, bad police. What they conveniently leave out are picky things like: Why should Sgt. Crowley know or recognize who Professor Gates is? No police officer knows who is going to pull out a weapon - age and location of the suspicious person does not necessarily have a bearing. Why didn't Professor Gates simply cooperate from the start? After all, the Cambridge Police were there on the basis of thwarting a crime. Is that such a terrible thing? Especially since it was Professor Gates's home they were ultimately protecting?

Maybe folks (no race attachment) who exhibit unwarranted, arrogant, provocative behavior against the police should be put on a do-not-respond list for a couple of months, during which time the local police department get to ignore any calls for assistance to that residence. They don't want to stir a riot, after all.

(Photo: the arrest of Professor L. H. Gates, Jr.)

Yet Another Creepy Lib

Today must just be the day for me to run across all those anti-death-penalty, daisy peddlin,' love everyone, tree huggin' liberals who want to kill off major segments of population. I caught some of this on Peter Heck's show last week (or week before?), but it jumped up at me again in a Fox news headline today.

Turns out our beloved president's science czar (that's creepy right there, don't you think?), John Holdren, was co-author of a 1977 science textbook in which compulsory abortions and other draconian, malthusian measures were recommended (in a science textbook) to shrink the population. That's HUMAN population, folks.

******
But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com. The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.

The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates. Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty. -- "Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions," Fox News, 7/21/2009
******

Holdren is denying that he has supported such ideas and has expressed righteous anger that sources like FrontPage, Fox News, et. al. would dare conjure up such slander based on his contributions to a science textbook published in 1977. (Quick aside: ya' know, it's funny how libs get all upset when no one takes them seriously, but are then so quick to deny everything they have ever said and written when they are taken seriously. It's all so confusing. Do they want me to help them spread their liberal ideas or don't they?)

Folks, it gets clearer and clearer that Americans have allowed the inmates to create and then run the asylum.

I have a unique idea! Why don't all these malthusian wing-nuts get themselves together and drink their own tainted kool-aid (with apologies to a fine brand name)? They would be doing that which they believe everyone else should be doing: dying for population control. It makes wonderful sense to me.

Oh, wait. Whattya mean they've got "elitist" tatooed on their foreheads?

Obama Not Familiar With House Plan

In response to my earlier blog & e-mail, "Liberal Policy-Makers & Healthcare," Raleigh sent an article from The Heritage Foundation. I include the text in its entirety below. Go to the website, if interested, by clicking here: "Obama Not Familiar with House Bill."

While looking for the article Raleigh sent me, I ran across another alarming one: "Should Government Determine the Value of Human Life?" Peter Singer, Princeton bioethics (using the term "ethics" loosely) professor & philosopher, wrote an article for New York Time's Magazine, "Why We Must Ration Health Care." (Singer also advocates infanticide, proposing that abortion be made legal for 28 days after birth, in order to allow parents to decide whether to keep an "imperfect" child.)

When I began sending various e-mails, it was for the tongue-in-cheek purpose of getting the liberal message out since they believe that that is what is holding them back from greater political success. I contend that getting the liberal message out will generate the opposite effect, so I am happy to help them out.

But it is not all fun and games. Combatting the left is not a hobby; it is a fight for life!

Keep the message going!


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: Liberal Policy-Makers & Healthcare

Chuck, What is scary is Obama of his own admission isn't aware of what is in his health bill. Ouch! SEE Below. Raleigh

Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill
With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

This is a truly disturbing admission by the President especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an “Exchange-participating health benefits plan,” all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.

President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:

Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and as a consequence about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.

About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with.

President Obama owes it to the Americans people to stop making promises about what his health plan will and will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.

Truly, Ignorance Is Bliss

Ya' know, I am actually jealous of my fellow Americans who have nothing more to be concerned about than how well President Obama tossed the ceremonial first pitch at the All-Star game or how he was attired while doing it.

******

One might have thought that the most cringy part of President Barack Obama's performance on the mound before last week's All Star game was that his delivery of the first pitch had absolutely no mustard on it. At least he didn't bounce it to the plate.
But now the controversy is not about his weak-sauce sinker, but his baseball attire. The fashion community, and by that we mean anyone wearing clothes, says the president was wearing mom jeans — high-waisted, baggy demin favored by, moms? Actually, they didn't seem that bad — no pleats or elastic waist band, anyway. But when the president felt compelled to address the pressing matter Tuesday, he issued no apologies. (Jeff Thomas, "The Star Report," Silicon Valley Mercury News, 7/21/09)

******

With economic upheavals, a government spinning & spending out of control, North Korea & Iran promising to nuke their favorite enemies, all kinds of policy-makers threatening the planet with forced abortion & euthanasia, and every other type of apocolyptic scenario imagineable unfolding, it must be nice to blissfully ignore all that and, instead, express such concern over a ceremonial pitch and clothing.

Alas, I am cursed: I am not ignorant enough.

Liberal Policy-Makers & Healthcare

I have had supporters of government healthcare criticize me and other conservatives for describing the probable negative results: higher taxes, fewer personal choices and freedoms, poorer care, rationed care, and so on. "Fear mongering exaggerations!" the libs like to respond, indicating once again how well-researched their conclusions usually are. So I have an idea: let's skip the conservative "fear mongering tactics" and jump right over to the liberal poicy-makers themselves...

******
Discrimination against the elderly when it comes to healthcare is not discrimination — at least not to a key member of the Barack Obama administration. Ezekiel Emanuel is director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and an architect of Obama's healthcare reform plan. He is also the brother of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's White House chief of staff.
Express Riders, the blog of conservative businessman and philanthropist Foster Friess, reports that Ezekiel Emanuel has written that health services should not be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." He also stated, "An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia," according to Friess' site.
Friess also points to an equally troubling article co-authored by Emanuel, which appeared in the medical journal The Lancet in January. It read in part: "Unlike allocation [of healthcare] by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. Every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
Friess asks: "Are these the values we want undergirding our healthcare system?" ("No Health Services for Dementia Patients?" Newsmax, 7/20/09)
******
Whether we want these values or not, these are the values we will get. The liberal policy-makers are telling us plainly themselves. What is there not to believe? But I'll bet that if President Obama is ever asked about this in a press conference, he would look into the cameras with his straight, "trust me" face and tell every American watching and listening that denying care to anyone will never happen.

So who are you going to believe?

Bumper Sticker Conservatism - Health Care

Source: www.PatriotDepot.com

WWSD?

What would Sotomayor do (WWSD)?

In 1844, the $7 million estate of Stepehn Girard (a French deist) was to be used to establish an orphanage and school in Philadelphia with the stipulation that no religious influence be allowed. The city rejected the proposal. Their lawyers declared, "The plan of education proposed is anti-christian, and therefore repugnant to the law... The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which man derives his faith - the Bible... There is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality."

The case went before the U.S. Supreme Court, Vidal v Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132. Unanimous decision: "Christianity... is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public... It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propogation of... Deism, or for any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country... Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? ...It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

Blows you away, doesn't it?

WWSD?

Media Favoritism

What a difference Big Media favoritism can make. It has been a long time since Big Media has offered up such glowing recommendations for a Supreme Court nominee. Perhaps if they had not already crowned Hillary Clinton with the title, Sonia Sotomayor just might be the "smartest woman in the world." Even without this accolade, however, Big Media paints their nominee as brilliant for her responses to this tough confirmation process.

Now this would be just peachyif it were not for Big Media's clear hypocrisy. Sotomayor is just glowingly brilliant for her abilities to not answer specific questions about potential future legal rulings. According to legal experts I have read, and judges I have heard, this is appropriate. How impartial can a judge be if he/she indicates predetermined judgments before hearing a case? So I can understand the nature of Sotomayor's answers and comments. (Although, I also comprehend that judges must rule on established law, so some cases are going to be pretty much predetermined anyway. And certainly Sotomayor could indicate clearly whether she is going to apply constitutional law or not, which is the point of the Supreme Court. Besides, I can probably already guess what her ruling is going to be on certain cases without her premature declarations. I doubt that her ideology is going to shift any moving from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court.)

An Associated Press article from 7/15/09 reads, "The appeals court judge, 55, avoided weighing in on any major issue that could come before her as a justice, instead using legal doctrine, carefully worded deflections and even humor to ward off efforts to pin her down." Brilliant! Remarkable! Applaudable! What a judicial heroine we have on our hands.

Except - and here is where just a wee, tiny bit of hypocrisy creeps in - every Supreme Court justice nominee has necessarily done the same thing! As indicated by those in the system, it is the proper thing to do. Yet, when the most recent nominees have done it, Big Media has gone ballistic. "They're not qualified! They can't render legal decisions! They are incompetent! They won't answer a straight question!" Ad nauseum. But not this time. This time, the nominee is just brilliant as she deflects those specifics that should not be declared without a real case.

Amazing! Simply amazing!

Need to Choose Sides

"America was founded by people who believed that God was their rock of safety. I recognize we must be cautious in claiming that God is on our side, but I think it's all right to keep asking if we're on His side." - Ronald Reagan, Second Inaugural Address, 1/25/1984

National Emergencies

Except for a brief period following September 11, 2001, liberals and Democrats (if there is any real distinction) combined to protest about every action proposed to defend the nation against further attack. Remember how the obvious reality that America faced a national emergency was derided, and reasonable steps taken to safeguard our shores were challenged every step of the way? Not even a national emergency of 9/11 magnitude warranted "threats" to what the liberal-Democrat establishment perceived as constitutional freedom.

That was then, this is now.

National emergencies are now in style and responding to them as such is the current fashion. Government cannot do enough to stare down our national emergencies, and every policy enacted is welcomed with open arms by the left. Case in point... After listing how the BHO administration is standing up to every special interest group - owners, stockholders, bondholders, Wall Street "vultures," car dealers, suppliers, pensioners, environmentalists, and labor - Tom Walsh of the Detroit Free Press applauds the actions that have been taken to save the auto industry. Why? Well, in his own words...

*****
So Obama's auto rescue commandos have proven to be pragmatic, tough, nonideological. God figure. And if at times they seem callous and a bit pushy, think of this as a national emergency, equivalent to a major war. During World War II, U.S. citizens put up with things we'd never tolerate in peacetime. Today, in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we can tolerate a lot, too - assuming things revert to "normal." (Tom Walsh is an auto columnist for the Detroit Free Press)
*****

And then there is Professor Al Gore comparing the fight to stop the global warming threat to World War II. National emergency.

Economy: national emergency. Global warming: national emergency. Government must do anything and everything, irrespective of Constitutional boundaries, to face these national emergencies head on. Islamic terrorist threats capable of massacring thousands of American citizens in one stroke? Naw, no national emergency there. Not even a war; just a series of legal actions to be handled in some court rooms.

Fascinating.

Health Care Flow Chart

Here it is... the liberal Democrat health care plan explained*. Aren't you glad that our federal government is fixing our ["broken"] health care system? I just cannot wait for its implementation in the USSA.

Click here for a PDF version. At least the graphic will be clearer.

* Flow chart provided by the ranking House Republican, Rep. Kevin Brady.

Corporate Green

This has been - and still is - my suspicion about all the "green" talk coming from most corporations. I certainly do not mind businesses responding to customer wants & needs, nor do I mind businesses that try to be the best stewards possible, but I do hate to see everyone merely steamrolled by the dangerous political nonsense called global warming.

The Logic of Dems

Great observation from my brother, Douglas. So sadly true.


******
Mind boggling. :-)

Here is a quote from the *mayor* of Boston with regards to the *governor* cutting funds for the *Boston* zoo."This is just another bad decision on budget cuts,” Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino told the Globe. “It's a great resource for the community. The zoo is an inexpensive place to spend a day in tough economic times."

So, let me rephrase what he is saying to make it crystal clear how he thinks..."This is just another bad decision on state budget cuts made by the governor of the state," Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino told the Globe. "The Boston zoo is a great resource for the Boston community (and not necessarily for the other residents of our state). The zoo (with state wide funds provided by the other residents of our fine state who never get the chance to enjoy our zoo) is an inexpensive place for Bostonians to spend a day in tough economic times (as long as it is paid for by the rest of the citizens of Mass. in these tough economic times, they don't deserve a break)."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531650,00.html?test=latestnews

******

Mind boggling, indeed. Thanks, Douglas!

Using Public Transportation

I just submitted my latest thoughts on saving the planet to some of my local newspapers. Maybe my readers here can use the idea...

******

Dear Editor,

As a new school year rapidly approaches, I have been thinking of sacrifices we must make in order to save the planet. What better places to begin than in our schools? Advocates of policies that reduce global warming have been calling for mandatory use of public transportation for some time now. We have a lack of this in our smaller towns and communities, except in the area of public school transportation. Therefore, it logically follows that private student vehicles be prohibited on campus and that all students be required to ride the school bus provided, thus eliminating needless carbon emissions. In light of the alarms being raised by Professor Al Gore and others, it is critical that we make such sacrifices.

“Wait a minute!” I can hear readers exclaim. “They can’t tell me what to do!” I beg to differ. If we allow our Senators to pass the cap-and-trade bill that has already made it through the House, we are inviting our federal government to tell us: what cars to drive, where to set our thermostats, when to run our heat and a.c., what energy sources to use, what food to eat and how to cook it, and other areas of our lives I have yet to contemplate or that they have yet to add to this growing bill. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D - Calif.) has let Americans know that “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to combat global warming. Based on their promises, I would say that telling us what to do is exactly what our government has in mind.

By the way, area students, I doubt that any of you will be considered elitist enough to be allowed to escape the consequences of cap-and-trade and other global warming legislation. This isn’t Hollywood, you know.
******

Sacrifice is what it's all about!

The American Pied Piper

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.' -- Thomas Jefferson

What Happened to Moral Relativism?

Every informed conservative across America knew what was going to happen as soon as SC Gov. Mark Sanford admitted to an adulterous affair: every liberal across the fruited plains would be pointing out the devastation of his immorality. Well, the governor should suffer devastating consequences. His action was immoral and unconscionable.

However, when conservative-bashing columnists like Leonard Pitts, Jr., go to great pains to express moral outrage, it is little more than laughable hypocrisy. Liberals are the kings & queens of moral relativism. What basis do they have to judge Sanford? He was pursuing, after all, the course of action that seemed right to him. After all, this has been the course pursued by Clinton, Edwards, et. al.

Now, however, a politician engaging in an affair, deception, lies, and whatever other moral impropriety is a problem to liberal journalists, columnists, & bloggers who are now calling for his removal from office. We can only speculate why that would possibly be.

Nevertheless, Sanford still has potential in his political life. He can always move into the Democrat party where, as Limbaugh fondly observes, immorality becomes a resume enhancer.

Remembering Our Foundation

"Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us."

"By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects... It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published."

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty."

-- Benjamin Rush (1746-1813), physician & political leader, member of the Continental Congress, & signer of the Declaration of Idependence

Glorious Fourth!

Once again we have the joyful privilege to celebrate our nation’s heritage of independence, freedom, and liberty. Every time I study the events surrounding our nation’s founding, I grow more and more amazed at the wisdom and foresight of our Founders. Instead of establishing yet another monarchy or some such form of intrusive government, they handed the power of government to the citizens of this land. They did this with stern warnings that the government they established could be sustained only to the extent that the citizens honored the foundation upon which they built this Constitutional Republic. That foundation is the moral law of the Judeo-Christian faith. The notion of the kind of “separation of church and state” being promoted in our day was completely foreign to our wise Founders. Referring to the day that the Continental Congress approved the wording of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams wrote to his wife: “The second day of July, 1776, will be a memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to Almighty God. It ought to be solemnized with pomp, shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward forever.”

To a person, our Founders predicted what would happen to this grand republic if the foundation upon which it is laid is removed. As it is dismantled bit by bit, we see the accuracy of their predictions taking place in our own day. I do not suggest that my fellow Americans who are atheist or some form of secular humanist are inherently evil people. Most are great folks with extremely decent character. But they have no basis for moral discernment. They do make moral discernments, but when they do, they must necessarily borrow from the same moral law upon which our Founders built this republic. Even then, however, we continue to see their moral relativism side more and more with the immoralists who seek to dismantle the fabric that has kept us together as a nation that prizes the value of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Still, as long as we have a bit of our foundation left, we are able to commemorate the Fourth of July as a glorious day of deliverance. With this, I wish my fellow patriots a most Glorious Fourth!