Quiz: The Bill of Rights

From The Wall Builders, an organization dedicated to preserving the real American history that is so often glossed over in favor of more popular viewpoints. Take this quiz on our Bill of Rights, and see how much you know!

1)  Which Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?

2)  How does the Tenth Amendment limit the federal government?

 

3)  On the day that the language for the Bill of Rights was finished in September 1789, what did Congress ask President Washington to do?

 

4)  When was the Bill of Rights ratified?

 

5)  Who is called the "Father of the Bill of Rights," and why?

 

6)  In which Amendment in the Bill of Rights does the phrase "separation of Church and state" appear?

 

 

 

 

How did you do?

 

(Answers are below...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answers:

 

1)  The Second Amendment. (For additional information, see "The Founders on the Second Amendment" and The Second Amendment by David Barton.)

 

2)  By stating that all powers not delegated to the federal government through the Constitution are reserved for the states and the people. (See David's article on "Limiting an Overreaching Federal Government: Is State Nullification the Solution? A Constitutional Analysis" for more information.) 

 

3)  To recommend a day of thanksgiving. (See this Congressional action in the Annals of Congress.)​ (Read Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation online.)  

 

4)  December 15, 1791. Virginia was the last state to ratify the Bill of Rights, officially adding these ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (For more information, check out the Bill of Rights Institute.)

 

 

5)  George Mason from Virginia.

​ Because he advocated for a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution.​

(To learn more, see "James Madison and Religion in Public" or to learn more about George Mason, purchase George Mason: His Life, Correspondence & Speeches).

 

6)  NONE!  IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS of The United States of America! (For additional information see Separation of Church and State and The Truth About Thomas Jefferson & the First Amendment. See also, "Church in the Capitol.")​   

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I hope this quiz has opened your eyes to the real history behind the founding of our great country. To learn more, visit TheWallBuilders.com. They have tons of free info, and loads of books and other materials to purchase.

A Voice of Reason Amidst the Anti-Religion Storm

Today, a voice of reason amidst the storm of Anti-Religion rhetoric!

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in remarks to students at Colorado Christian University, laid out the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the role of religion in the United States, as stipulated in the Constitution.

Justice Scalia's remarks leave absolutely no room for the misinterpretation of the so-called "Separation Clause" (a non-existent clause thrown about by those pushing to eliminate any religion from public life.) Let's read his remarks...

"The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times.
Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.

“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”
Earlier this year, Scalia joined the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway, which held that the New York town could continue opening legislative sessions with sectarian prayers.

Scalia has since used the case to press for the approval of public prayers in schools, legislatures and courtrooms.

In June, Scalia criticized the Supreme Court for declining to review Elmbrook School District v. John Doe, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that a public school district's decision to conduct graduation ceremonies in a church violated the Establishment Clause.

In a dissent joined by Justice Thomas, Scalia argued that “at a minimum,” the Supreme Court should remand the case for reconsideration, noting that “the First Amendment explicitly favors religion.”
On Wednesday, Scalia also criticized members of the Court who champion a more evolving, “living” view of the Constitution -- a judicial philosophy he has previously said only an “idiot” could believe. 
 
“Our [the Supreme Court’s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Scalia said on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”
If Americans want a more secular political system that guarantees those distinctions, they can “enact that by statute,” Scalia said, “but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”

In another public appearance on Wednesday at the University of Colorado Boulder Law School's annual John Paul Stevens lecture, Scalia compared his efforts to restore constitutional originalism to the challenges faced by "Lord of the Rings" protagonist Frodo Baggins.

“It’s a long, uphill fight to get back to original orthodoxy. We have two ‘originalists’ on the Supreme Court,” Scalia said, referencing Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “That’s something. But I feel like Frodo … We’ll get clobbered in the end, but it’s worth it.”

Justice Scalia's remarks reflect what I have been advocating regarding the First Amendment and Freedom OF Religion. People who twist and shape the Freedom of Religion clause to adhere to their own interpretations are only damaging (or eliminating) the intent of the clause as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

By adhering to what the Constitution actually says, rather than interpreting what they (the Founding Fathers) may have meant, we have a clear path to follow, and any unexpected twists and turns of that path are eliminated. Everyone still gets to have their opinions, but the whole issue of religion in the public sphere becomes moot, and those who rail against religion are silenced in their vain attempts to rewrite history.

I applaud Justice Scalia for his insight, and for his determination to right a very serious wrong that is being perpetrated on all Americans by those behind the secularist movement to remove religion from our country, and rewrite its history, and supplant it with the interpretations and whims of man.

I have read that the Constitution of the United States is a near perfect document that guides an entire nation towards peace and prosperity. If the Founding Fathers regarded religion with such reverence and necessity, we need to understand why, then implement their wisdom into our daily lives. In this day and age of technological leaps and growing immorality, we should be looking back to the founding of this country, and find the guidance to continue moving forward as the greatest nation on the earth.

COHS and the "Player Millionaires Sympathy" Fund

An article on todays FoxSports.net highlights a tongue in cheek look at the whining and entitlement that is so very glaringly evident amongst the sports stars of today. Here is the article, followed by my comment. Enjoy!

"They’re models of fitness and perseverance, but top-tier collegiate and professional athletes are still susceptible to suffering the most contagious modern-day disease in sports.

On Sunday in Philadelphia, speedy Washington receiver DeSean Jackson returned to Lincoln Financial Field to face his former team in an NFC East showdown . . . with a chip on his shoulder.

After a 81-yard touchdown catch from quarterback Kirk Cousins, Jackson seized the opportunity to taunt the team that cut him two years after signing him to a lucrative five-year deal.

Jackson's Rockettes-style celebration kicks in the end zone made it clear that he was not looking to get chummy.Jackson is but one of thousands of athletes across the sports world with a chip on his shoulder — a ubiquitous and frequently diagnosed, but little-understood condition.

DEFINITION

“Chip on his shoulder” disease (COHS) refers to an emotional disorder afflicting athletes with the feeling that he or she has been overlooked, underestimated, slighted, marginalized, unduly criticized or even underappreciated.
Doctors and researchers do not know whether environmental or genetic factors — both established causes of COHS — have triggered the recent outbreak of chips.
While thousands of athletes indeed suffer from COHS, writers, reporters and analysts misdiagnose thousands more during the course of their work.
COHS causes an array of symptoms. Each athlete experiences and displays the affliction differently. Some symptoms result in improved play. Other players with a chip may spin into a warped sense of reality and perceive slights where they do not exist, allowing the chip to drag down their performance.
Common symptoms include:

• Feeling diminished, marginalized, disrespected

• Holding a grudge

• Enhanced energy beyond what a reasonable athlete not afflicted with COHS would possess

• Increased motivation and focus

• Desire for revenge

• Anger and resentment

• Playing harder

• Sense of entitlement

• Overinflated sense of value and grandiose visions of greatness

• Scrappiness

• Desire for increased playing time or higher salary

• Feeling a need to “prove” oneself

CAUSES OF COHS

Most commonly, the COHS sufferer holds a grudge against the perpetrator(s) who caused the chip, although many athletes report simply being born with a chip on their shoulder.
The most common causes:
•  Falling in the draft beyond where player thinks a team should have selected him. An estimated 73 percent of COHS cases in the NBA occur when players get drafted lower — even a couple picks lower — than they believe or their agents advise a team will draft them.

• Getting released by a team. Particularly when the player anticipated a lucrative contract (re-negotiated or otherwise) from the team that originally drafted him.

•  Getting traded.

•  Criticisms about consistency.

•  Speculation that the player can no longer perform at a high level.

•  Being undersized. "He plays with that chip on his shoulder . . . in practice, in games," UCLA head football coach Jim Mora said of 5-foot-8 cornerback Ishmael Adams. "He's a fighter, a scrapper."

•  Getting overlooked during recruiting, or during a draft, often the result of playing at a smaller school.

•  Losing or failing to win a starting job, getting benched or demoted, falling into a back-up role.

• Not getting selected for an All-Star game

 

RISK FACTORS

Leading scientists believe that certain athletes are genetically predisposed to developing a chip. Some athletes believe they are just born that way

Some coaches actually encourage player to develop a chip on his shoulder. It follows that a person may actually have the mental faciility to cultivate a chip until it manifests in a full-blown shoulder chip.

COMPLICATIONS

The size and impact of the chip may vary, sometimes causing adverse consequences. Dangerous chip growth may pose a problem for the athlete and/or his opponents, depending on how a chip's enlargement impacts his mental composition. But doctors have yet to determine what causes abnormally large rock-sized chips.

Shoulder chips may come and go, only manifesting during certain games or competitions when facing an opponent that causes or contributed to the chip.

“I’ve seen a little article today where [Bill Belichick], I think he said he didn’t want me,” Vikings receiver and returner Cordarrelle Patterson told the Pioneer Press about the Patriots passing on him in the 2013 NFL Draft. “So that’s the kind of things that stick in the back of a player’s head. And you get out there, you just want to beat the defense up since people say things like that.”

TESTS AND DIAGNOSIS

Introspection usually works. If a player perceives a chip, it’s probably there.
Writers and analysts will let athletes and readers know if they believe a player has a chip.

TREATMENTS, COPING AND RECOVERY

Unfortunately, there is no vaccine or cure for COHS.
Keys to recovery are positive reinforcement and acceptance. Early detection can often give sufferers time to adapt and overcome.
Faux-chips misattributed to players can often be rooted out by asking the athlete if he has a chip on his shoulder, and listening to what he says.

Also, just being oneself has worked for some players.

PREVENTION

For athletes: not being so sensitive.
For writers, reporters and analysts: coming up with different words to describe the state of feeling slighted."

 

 

 

 

You know a player--who was previously undiagnosed--has a very bad case of COHS when he is making millions of dollars per year, then begins complaining to the press that he can't afford to feed his family. Poor guy; you gotta feel for him. After all, how is a player supposed to get by in life when he is making a paltry eight or ten million per year? Unfortunately, such cases of COHS rarely end up with the player receiving help for his condition. Instead, the team owners unwittingly make his COHS even worse by actually feeling sorry for the guy, and upping the total per year payout, thereby intensifying the signs and symptoms of this terrible condition. Please, help these poor athletes by donating to the COHS "Player Millionaires Sympathy" fund; or, PMS for short. Let's all band together to get these players the help they deserve. Contribute today!
Call 800-WWA-AAAH, and give generously!

Democrats Attacking Freedom of Speech in the Political Arena

In his weekly newsletter, UT Senator Orrin Hatch published an address he made on the Senate floor (on 09 Sept 2014) that outlines the push by Democrats to stifle freedom of speech in the political process.
Please read the text in its entirety to really understand the issue he is warning his fellow Senators about; as well as educating his constituency on the issue.
If after reading this you feel the need to speak up, then write a letter or email your Senators and express your opinion. Anytime one of our basic Constitutional Rights is under attack, we must all stand up a tell the Government and emphatic, "NO!"

"Speaking on the Senate Floor today, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and longtime defender of First Amendment rights, pushed back against Senate Democrats’ latest attempt to stifle free speech. Hatch outlined several specific ways in which S.J.Res.19, which all Senate Democrats support, empowers government to control what Americans say and do in the political process. 

S.J.Res.19 “would allow the government to control raising and spending of money by anyone doing anything at any time to influence elections,” Hatch said. “We should prohibit rather than empower government to control how Americans participate in the political process.” 
“Supporters of this radical proposal apparently believe that freedom itself is the problem,” Hatch added. “That view is contrary to the most fundamental principles of this republic, and incompatible with a free society.  Freedom is not the problem, it is the solution.” 

More than 40 years ago, in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan described “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”  The measure now before the Senate shows that this commitment is in serious jeopardy. 

Mdme. President, next week marks the 227th anniversary of the drafting of the United States Constitution.  Those who participated in that process agreed that individual liberty requires limits on government power, but they differed on how explicit and extensive those limits should be.  
Many thought that the simple act of delegating enumerated powers to the federal government and reserving the rest to the states would be enough.  Others were more skeptical of government power and insisted that the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights. 

Those skeptics, however, were not skeptical enough.  The measure before us today, Senate Joint Resolution 19, would allow the government to control and even prohibit what Americans say and do in the political process. 

Yesterday, a member of the majority leadership said that this measure is “narrowly tailored.”  It is possible to believe that only if you have never read Senate Joint Resolution 19 and know nothing about either the Supreme Court’s precedents or past proposals of this kind. 

This is not the first attempt at empowering government to suppress political speech, but it is the most extreme.  Four elements of this proposal are particularly troubling.  First, its purpose is to advance what it calls “political equality.”  None of the constitutional amendments previously proposed to control political speech has made such a claim.  

The irony here is astounding.  At the very time in our history when technology is naturally leveling the political playing field, this proposal would give the power to define political equality to government.  If simply suggesting that the government should have the power to enforce its own version of political equality is not enough to oppose this proposal, then our liberties are in even greater danger than I thought. 

In addition to its stated purpose, this proposal is also troubling because of the power it would give to government.  Past proposals of this kind were very specific about what government could regulate.  One measure, for example, covered expenditures made “to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office.”   More recently, proposed amendments covered expenditures made “in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate.”  

The proposal before us today, however, says that government may regulate “the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”  That’s all it says.  It would allow government to control raising and spending of money by anyone doing anything at any time to influence elections.  No proposal of this kind has ever been drafted more broadly. 

The same Democrat Senator who yesterday claimed this proposal is narrowly tailored referred to big-money campaign donors, high rollers, and for-profit corporations with unlimited budgets.  I urge not only my colleagues, but everyone listening to this debate, to read Senate Joint Resolution 19.  Just read it.  My liberal friends may want to paint certain billionaires or for-profit corporations as the Big Bad Wolf, but this proposal goes far beyond that.  

It would allow government to regulate raising and spending money not only by billionaires or corporations but by what it simply labels others.  That means everyone, everywhere.  It means individuals as well as groups, rich as well as poor, for-profits, non-profits – under this proposal, government could control them all. 

It takes no imagination whatsoever to realize that virtually everything can influence elections.  Voter registration drives, get-out-the-vote efforts, non-partisan voter information, discussion about issues, town meetings, all of these activities and many many more influence elections.  Once again, I urge everyone to read the proposal before us.  It would give government the power to regulate anything done by anyone at any time to influence elections. 

The third troubling element of this proposal is that it would suppress the First Amendment freedom of speech for individual citizens but protect the First Amendment freedom of the press for Big Media.  Supporters of this amendment want to manipulate and control how individual citizens influence elections but are perfectly happy with how Big Media influences elections.  

This proposal would allow government to prohibit non-profit organizations from raising or spending a single dollar to influence elections, but leaves multi-billion dollar media corporations free to influence elections as much as they choose.  That set of priorities represents a twisted sense of political equality that I cannot believe most Americans share. 

Finally, this proposal would allow government to distinguish between what it calls natural persons and “corporations or other artificial entities created by law.”  Unlike other provisions of the Bill of Rights such as the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, the First Amendment does not use the word person.  It simply protects the freedom of speech, a freedom that obviously can be exercised not only individually but also collectively. 
 
Yesterday, a Democrat Senator dismissed the notion that corporations can be treated as “persons” under the law because corporations never get married, raise kids, or care for sick relatives. 
Is he kidding?  A corporation cannot care for sick relatives, but it certainly can speak and that is what this debate is about.  As the Supreme Court observed more than a century ago, corporations are “merely associations of individuals.”  And perhaps I need to remind my colleagues that the first section of the first title of the United States Code is the Dictionary Act.  It defines the word person to include “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” 

Many of what this proposal labels artificial entities such as non-profit organizations, associations, or societies exist to magnify the voices of individuals.  The Supreme Court case that sparked this debate, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was brought not by a for-profit corporation but by a non-profit organization.  

Senate Joint Resolution 19 would allow government not only to regulate but to prohibit the raising or spending of money by these non-profits, associations, and societies to influence elections.  They could be banned from speaking on behalf of what my Democrat colleagues like to refer to as ordinary, average Americans.  Suppressing the speech of organizations that speak for individuals would leave millions of those Americans with no voice at all.   

We should eliminate rather than create barriers to participation in the political process.  We should encourage rather than discourage activities by our fellow citizens to influence the election of their leaders.  We should prohibit rather than empower government to control how Americans participate in the political process.  

We should, to return to Justice Brennan's words, strengthen rather than dismantle our national commitment to uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues.  Making Senate Joint Resolution 19 part of the Constitution would instead make that debate inhibited, weak, and closed. 
As the Supreme Court has recognized, the First Amendment is premised on a mistrust of government power.  Neither the nature of government power nor its impact on individual liberty has changed.  Senate Joint Resolution 19, therefore, proves three things.  It proves that the government’s temptation to control what Americans say and do in the political process is as strong as ever.  It proves that the majority believes it can retain power only by suppressing the liberties of our fellow Americans.  And it proves that the profound national consensus that Justice Brennan described may no longer exist. 
Another irony here is that the majority in what we often call the Senate the world’s greatest deliberative body is trying to stifle the free speech of citizens with whom they disagree.  This is nothing more than election-year misdirection, an attempt to distract attention from the majority’s complete failure to address the real problems facing our nation. 

We should heed the advice of our late colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy.  In March 1997, this body was debating another proposed constitutional amendment to control political speech.  That measure, I want my colleagues to know, was more narrowly drawn than the one before us today.  It was limited to expenditures supporting or opposing candidates and did not exempt Big Media.

Yet Senator Kennedy rose to oppose it and said: “In the entire history of the Constitution, we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is no time to start.  It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment.  Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.”  The Senate voted 38-61 against that proposal and Senator Kennedy’ words apply with even more force today.

The real purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 19 is exactly what America's founders ratified the First Amendment to prevent.  Supporters of this radical proposal apparently believe that freedom itself is the problem.  That view is contrary to the most fundamental principles of this republic, and incompatible with a free society.  Freedom is not the problem, it is the solution.

Embattled Religious Freedom is Assaulted Again

I received the following newsletter in my email, and I am posting it here because I agree with it 100%! People have GOT to make a stand, raise their voices and demand the guarantee of our Freedom of Religion as stipulated in the Bill of Rights.
Here's the newsletter...


"Advocates of same-sex marriage will stop at nothing to make an example of you if you speak out for biblical marriage. Help stop their plan to intimidate Christians and steal your religious freedom.

GIVE NOW                                                     You can probably imagine Barronelle Stutzman’s shock when she opened a letter from the Washington State attorney general. It threatened her with legal action and fines . . . if she didn’t conform to a government mandate. Shortly thereafter, the ACLU also threatened Barronelle with legal action. Facing fines and legal fees from battling the combined forces of the ACLU and the state could threaten to shut down her family business. So what had this gentle grandmother done to be treated like Public Enemy No. 1? The answer is simple. Barronelle made a simple decision to follow her conscience, to live out her faith in her work as a floral design artist. When asked to create floral arrangements for a longtime client’s same-sex ceremony, Barronelle lovingly and respectfully declined. She decided that she could not use her God-given gifts to approve of and celebrate a ceremony that violates God’s plan for marriage. Now, she finds herself at the center of the storm resulting from the movement to redefine marriage in this country. It is now clear that for advocates of homosexual behavior, this is not about “tolerance.”  Their goal is to compel you to endorse and celebrate homosexual behavior even if it requires you to sin against God. That’s why we must defend Barronelle. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because attacks on her religious freedom are also attacks on the religious freedom of you and all Americans. Alliance Defending Freedom will defend Barronelle’s religious freedom — all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. But we need your help. We must stand with Barronelle. Not only so she will have justice, but also for all Christians who want to freely live out their faith. If the government and the ACLU can come after Barronelle . . . if they can punish this kind and gentle woman . . . then there is no one who remains faithful to the Gospel whose religious freedom is safe. We are in a time when people who oppose the homosexual agenda are vilified. Barronelle has received an onslaught of hate-filled calls and letters — and even death threats. Ask yourself, “How far am I willing to let this go?” Because one day soon, it could be your livelihood . . . or your freedom that is on the line. Alliance Defending Freedom can only take on cases as we have the resources to do so. We depend on God to move in the hearts of His people to provide these vital gifts. (Apart from Christ we can do nothing, John 15:5) Please give now to defend Barronelle and protect religious freedom for you and your loved ones. Thank you for taking action today to preserve religious freedom."

Francis Scott Key and the Battle of Baltimore

(The latest newsletter from 'The Wall Builders' focuses on Francis Scott Key during the War of 1812, and his penning of the poem that was adopted as our beloved National Anthem.  It is fascinating stuff!)

The Battle of Baltimore   200 years ago, the Battle of Baltimore was fought in the War of 1812 as a part of the British's attempt to reclaim America. Having just burned the U. S. Capitol and the White House, the British boldly advanced on Baltimore and Fort McHenry. The Americans there defended against two land attacks, only to have the British begin bombarding Fort McHenry from their ships at sea.   Fort McHenry had been named for Constitution signer James McHenry, who was Secretary of War under both President George Washington and President John Adams.  Interestingly, McHenry’s own son John fought as a volunteer in that battle  -- a battle best known for birthing America's national anthem: "The Star Spangled Banner." Before the battle began, Francis Scott Key, local attorney on a mission from President James Madison, boarded a British ship to secure the release of a prisoner taken by the British. Although successful in his mission, the British held Key aboard the ship until the attack was finished.   Anxiously watching as the fleet fired round after round into the fort, darkness fell, but the fierce bombardment continued throughout the night. When the guns finally fell silent, Key worried that the Fort had fallen. But when the sun arose, he spied the American flag still flying over the fort, unconquered!   Still aboard the ship, on the back of an envelope he began jotting down lines recording what he saw and felt. Later that day after arriving ashore, he finished the poem. Originally called “The Defense of Ft. McHenry,” it would eventually become the national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner.” It was printed shortly after the battle in the 1814 Analectic Magazine (shown below from our WallBuilders Library).   Francis Scott Key, a committed Christian, contemplated giving up his profession to become a minister, but decided to continue in law. He befriended John Randolph (a U.S. Congressman who openly expressed a preference for the Muslim faith and an opposition to Christianity) and persuaded him to embrace Christianity, after which Randolph became a strong advocate for his new-found faith. Key wrote Randolph: [M]ay I always hear that you are following the guidance of that blessed Spirit that will 'lead you into all truth,' leaning on that Almighty arm that has been extended to deliver you, trusting only in the only Savior, and 'going on' in your way to Him 'rejoicing.' Key served on the board of the American Bible Society and also the American Sunday School Union. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is REAL history, folks, and it needs to be studied and understood by all Americans in this day and age so far removed from these key historical events.   As the country ages, many of these once known histories are being lost--or changed-- and much of what once was considered necessary knowledge is being whitewashed to exclude any religious references in regards to the founding of this great country, in favor of secularist beliefs and interpretations.   Learn for yourself the REAL history of this country. Maybe...just maybe, you will have your eyes opened, and understand what the United States has lost due to progressive reforms that blithely explain religious influence away as coincidental, unintended or who purposely change the facts [of history] altogether.

President Obama's Ambivelence on Foreign Policy

An article by Charles Krauthammer (of the Washington Post) in today's Provo Daily Herald expounds on the lousy job President Obama is doing regarding the invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces.  Here's the article:

"At his first press briefing after the beheading of American James Foley, President Obama stunned the assembled when he admitted that he had no strategy for confronting ISIS, a.k.a. the Islamic State, in Syria. Yet it was not nearly the most egregious, or consequential, thing he said.

Idiotic, yes. You’re the leader of the free world. Even if you don’t have a strategy — indeed, especially if you don’t — you never admit it publicly.

However, if Obama is indeed building a larger strategy, an air campaign coordinated with allies on the ground, this does take time. George W. Bush wisely took a month to respond to 9/11, preparing an unusual special ops-Northern Alliance battle plan that brought down Taliban rule in a hundred days.

We’ll see whether Obama comes up with an ISIS strategy. But he already has one for Ukraine: Write it off. Hence the more shocking statement in that Aug. 28 briefing: Obama declaring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — columns of tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery and a thousand troops brazenly crossing the border — to be nothing new, just “a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now.”

And just to reaffirm his indifference and inaction, Obama mindlessly repeated his refrain that the Ukraine problem has no military solution. Yes, but does he not understand that diplomatic solutions are largely dictated by the military balance on the ground?
Vladimir Putin’s invasion may be nothing new to Obama. For Ukraine, it changed everything. Russia was on the verge of defeat. Now Ukraine is. That’s why Ukraine is welcoming a cease-fire that amounts to capitulation.

A month ago, Putin’s separatist proxies were besieged and desperate. His invasion to the southeast saved them. It diverted the Ukrainian military from Luhansk and Donetsk, allowing the rebels to recover, while Russian armor rolled over Ukrainian forces, jeopardizing their control of the entire southeast. Putin even boasted that he could take Kiev in two weeks.
Why bother? He’s already fracturing and subjugating Ukraine, re-creating Novorossiya (“New Russia”), statehood for which is one of the issues that will be up for, yes, diplomacy.
Which makes incomprehensible Obama’s denial to Ukraine of even defensive weapons — small arms, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. Indeed, his stunning passivity in the face of a dictionary-definition invasion has not just confounded the Ukrainians. It has unnerved the East Europeans. Hence Obama’s reassurances on his trip to the NATO summit in Wales.
First up, Estonia. It seems to be Obama’s new “red line.” I’m sure they sleep well tonight in Tallinn now that Obama has promised to stand with them. (Remember the State Department hashtag #UnitedforUkraine?)

To back up Obama’s words, NATO is touting a promised rapid-reaction force of about 4,000 to be dispatched to pre-provisioned bases in the Baltics and Poland within 48 hours of an emergency. (Read: Russian invasion.)

First, we’ve been hearing about European rapid-reaction forces for decades. They’ve amounted to nothing.

Second, even if this one comes into being, it is a feeble half-measure. Not only will troops have to be assembled, dispatched, transported and armed as the fire bell is ringing, but the very sending will require some affirmative and immediate decision by NATO. Try getting that done. The alliance is famous for its reluctant, slow and fractured decision-making. (See: Ukraine.) By the time the Rapid Reactors arrive, Russia will have long overrun their yet-to-be-manned bases.
The real news from Wales is what NATO did not do. It did not create the only serious deterrent to Russia: permanent bases in the Baltics and eastern Poland that would act as a tripwire. Tripwires produce automaticity. A Russian leader would know that any invading force would immediately encounter NATO troops, guaranteeing war with the West.

Which is how we kept the peace in Europe through a half-century of Cold War. U.S. troops in West Germany could never have stopped a Russian invasion. But a Russian attack would have instantly brought America into a war — a war Russia could not countenance.

It’s what keeps the peace in Korea today. Even the reckless North Korean leadership dares not cross the DMZ, because it would kill U.S. troops on its way to Seoul, triggering war with America.
That’s what deterrence means. And what any rapid-reaction force cannot provide. In Wales, it will nonetheless be proclaimed a triumph. In Estonia, in Poland, as today in Ukraine, it will be seen for what it is — a loud declaration of reluctance by an alliance led by a man who is the very embodiment of ambivalence."

I absolutely has to respond...

"I was worried about Obama even before the 2008 election. He had no clear strategy for anything; let alone specifics on resolving any issues at all. He is a terrific orator; which got him elected. But it was easy to see that he was an empty-suited talking head who was more interested in the position, than in doing anything that would strengthen the country and move us all forward, while taking care of our commitments overseas.

As we have seen, President Obama (and his Cabinet) STILL has no plans to do anything constructive on any issue facing this country. His Foreign Policy is completely missing, and under his "Leadership" the US is crumbling under mountains of added debt, Foreign Policy miscues, scandals that were promised to have accountability but for which no one has been held accountable, and his constantly passing the buck on any criticism that comes his way. 

 Just recently he abjured on yet another issue...Immigration. Rather than taking action, he passes on anything until the mid-term, effectively telling everyone that he doesn't even want to really fix anything. Add in his dictator-like proclamation that he will universally do what Congress will not, and basically making law over the objections of the American people, and you cannot objectively look at everything and then tell me that he has the best interest of the United States in mind, or that he even "Supports and Upholds the Constitution of the United States, and will defend it from all enemies...", as stipulated in the Presidential Oath of Office.

The guy is a joke as President. In my opinion, he is even worse that Gee! W. Bushie as President--as if that were remotely possible.

As far as the Ukraine is concerned, they are an ally of the United States, yet Obama sees no need for any action that would guarantee our ally continued sovereignty over an oppressive regime that is openly flaunting its military might and [basically] telling the world they will do whatever they want; international opposition be damned. I full understand that the US really has no business making themselves the international police force they have become; but when we start neglecting our allies in their darkest hour, we are setting a precedent that tells everyone that they are on their own, and our commitments are worthless, and our treaties are lies. And many Americans fail to comprehend why our standing in the international community has become pretty much worthless.

Thanks, President Obama, for your empty promises, your lack of strategy on everything, and your obvious lack of caring about anything happening in the world. Good thing we elected that bozo, or the US might be a country to actually look up to..."

Atlanta Hawks Owner Sells Over Perceived Racial Comments

(This one really ticks me off because people overreact over perceptions...)

It recently came to light that NBA Atlanta Hawks majority owner is voluntarily selling his stake in the franchise due to an email that he wrote more than two years ago in which he was attempting to discuss with other team owners how to increase game attendance and team revenues, while overcoming the racial divide that exists in the Atlanta market.

To quote, "In July, Levenson self-reported an email he wrote to the team's co-owners and general manager Danny Ferry in August 2012 that he called "inappropriate and offensive." The league commenced an independent investigation after being made aware of the comments.
Levenson writes in a statement that the racially offensive comments came as he pondered ways to bridge Atlanta's racial sports divide and increase fan attendance at Hawks' games.
"In trying to address those issues, I wrote an e-mail two years ago that was inappropriate and offensive," he said. "I trivialized our fans by making clichéd assumptions about their interests (i.e. hip hop vs. country, white vs. black cheerleaders, etc.) and by stereotyping their perceptions of one another (i.e. that white fans might be afraid of our black fans). By focusing on race, I also sent the unintentional and hurtful message that our white fans are more valuable than our black fans."
"If you're angry about what I wrote, you should be," Levenson continued in the statement. "I'm angry at myself, too. It was inflammatory nonsense. We all may have subtle biases and preconceptions when it comes to race, but my role as a leader is to challenge them, not to validate or accommodate those who might hold them."
 I immediately wrote the following response:

"No one else is saying this, so I will...

So this guy, in addressing ways to increase revenues, and looking for ways to diversify game attendance amongst the various socio-economic groups, iterates things that are true, but which people don’t want to hear; so now he has to sell his interest in his team? Why…Because people are offended?

I’ve spent considerable time in Atlanta, and there IS a huge divide between whites and blacks, open mistrust between the poor and the wealthy, and definite perception issues that may or may not be based in fact and everyday living.
Levenson voices real and tangible issues that exist in the area, and now he’s a bad guy? If he was black, this would be a non-issue altogether. But because he’s white, then the email is viewed as racist. What a load of poo. Truth is truth—even when it is inconvenient to hear, or even acknowledge.

This man should not have to sell his interest in the team. People need to accept the truth and work towards eliminating such perceptions and mistrust. They need to stop being so sensitive to this discussion and instead, put their energies towards resolving these issues to mutual agreement and understanding. Only then can this entire discussion be put to rest.

In the meantime, folks just need to grow a pair and engage in meaningful discussion, rather than feigning offense at the least of racial references, whether warranted or not."

The comments Lenvenson made do not seem to be hateful towards anyone; rather, he is pointing out the issues that are real, and which must be overcome. His words were not even close to the Donald Sterling diatribe which was overflowing with disgust and hate towards anyone of African descent. (If you'll remember, Sterling is the now former, and infamous owner of the LA Clippers)

 These comments only spoke truth; and because people these days are complete wimps, they scream racism and demand satisfaction, or there will be hell to pay. What a joke!

This one smacks of the hypocritical double standards put forth by those who claim to want equality between the blacks and whites, but whom in reality, seek only to promote continued racial tensions in order to line their own pockets at the expense of any real movement towards true equality. After all, racism is big business to the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their ilk. Why bridge the racial divide when there is money to be made from the poor folks these race baiters claim to care about?

Levenson should hold onto his majority stake in the Atlanta Hawks, and continue to look for ways to truly bring in the diverse fan base that exists in that market. After all, isn't that the ultimate goal of the equality movement...Bringing people together and eliminate the mistrust and age old perceptions that only seek to divide us?

Airline Rage over Seat Space

There has recently been a spate of air rage incidents on commercial airliners over the issue of personal space. These have all involved passengers easing their seats back into a semi-reclined position. However, doing so is increasingly impinging on the space of the passengers behind you. Why? Because air carriers are demanding putting more passengers within the same space, and are accomplishing this by reducing seat width (now a mere 16 inches), leg room (now just 20 inches from seat back to seat back), reducing restroom size (as if that's possible!) and decreasing the average width of the aisles.

In short, the airlines are greedy, and any way they can increase profit, they gladly do; in spite of growing discontent amongst rank and file passengers. As paying customers, the airlines demand more money, and give less and less in return. While airfares are currently midline, all the carriers are adding baggage fees, port fees, preferred seating fees, charging for pillows and blankets, eliminating food service on long flights (aside from the 1st Class passengers, of course), even charging you to have the audacity of using a check-in person at the airport (!) and pretty much anything else the pencil heads can think of to gouge the customers even more.

It's really nothing more than GREED. Last year the airlines had a collective net profit of some $7.00B dollars; largely due to the plethora of fees they impose on their cash strapped customers. So, with those kinds of profits, why exactly are passengers being treated like cattle on their way to slaughter?
It's disgusting what is happening in the name of 'profit.' You would think with $7B income that air carriers would give passengers a few perks back. Instead of looking at customers as bodies that fill seats, how about giving them some respect...and space?

That will never happen because airlines, like the oil companies, have become addicted to record profits and will fight their customers tooth and nail to keep those dollars rolling in; while passengers have less and less space to sit in, and are denied the most basic of services, as well as respect.

The only way this will change is if the paying public start writing airlines and demand a change towards customer service and comfort. If that doesn't work, start driving instead and deny the airlines your travel budget. After all, money speaks louder than words; and if enough people stop flying, I guarantee you that the airlines will listen.

From The Wall Builders: A Shield of Righteousness

This week represents the 75th Anniversary of the start of World War II. I received the following from The Wall Builders that contains yet another significant piece of forgotten history--or, purposely omitted by revisionists--that this country rallied around at the behest of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The article...

A Shield of Righteousness Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness. (Ephesians 6:14)   This week, (September 1) marks the 75th anniversary of the official beginning of WWII. On September 3, 1939, President Roosevelt addressed the nation with one of his famous "Fireside Chats" stating his resolve to remain a neutral nation in the war, which culminated in an American Proclamation of Neutrality declared on September 5th. However, all of that changed with the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. In his famous "date which will live in infamy" message to Congress requesting that the United States officially declare war on Japan, President Roosevelt stated, "With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounding determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God." This confidence in God and our military (along with his concern for individual American soldiers) was later evident in what is now known as The Heart-Shield Bible. These Bibles (used during World War II) were designed to fit securely into the chest pocket of a soldier’s uniform. The metal plates were securely attached to the front cover of the Bible to stop a bullet from reaching the soldier's heart (which they did on several occasions). In our library at WallBuilders we have several of these World War II Bibles. In the back is a section of psalms and hymns, including “My Country ‘Tis of Thee,”  “America the Beautiful,” and “The Star Spangled Banner.”  In the front, there is a note to the soldiers directly from President Franklin D. Roosevelt.   "As Commander-in-Chief I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a foundation of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul." Well before America joined World War II, on the 400th anniversary of the English Bible in 1935, President Roosevelt reminded the nation of the Bible's importance in America's formation and continuance:     "We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a Nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. . . . Where we have been truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity; where it has been to us as the words of a book that is sealed, we have faltered in our way, lost our range finders, and found our progress checked. It is well that we observe this anniversary of the first publishing of our English Bible. The time is propitious to place a fresh emphasis upon its place and worth in the economy of our life as a people." Many other presidents encouraged Americans to read the Bible -- including President John Quincy Adams. Interestingly, before becoming president and while serving as a diplomat to Russia under President James Madison, Adams wrote his ten-year-old son nine letters on the importance of reading the Bible, how to read through the Bible once a year, and how to get the most application form what he read. Immediately after Adams' death in 1847, these letters were published as a book to make his wise counsel on the Bible available to all Americans. Called John Quincy Adams Letters to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings, WallBuilders recently reprinted this work in ebook format. Visit our website to get your copy and enjoy the remarkable spiritual insight of this great President of the United States.       The people who revise our history and seek to eliminate religion from our past, continue to ignore the very precepts that made The United States of America the great and shining example that it was. Instead, they tell us that religion is bad, and played no role in the creation of this country, and that anyone supporting religion is ignorant or uneducated. Never be afraid to stand up and voice your opinion on the matter. The less we say, the more the real history of this country is white washed from  religion--and its key role in our history-- to secularist interpretations that remove any references to Christianity and its influence over Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Congress and everyday Americans.