We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
– John Adams
There shall be a separation of church and state. This single line is a nexus of disputation in our country. A nation that most people, I think, have forgotten is a union of sovereign states. True, this union established a government that was to oversee its federation, a federal government, as it is known, but that institution was never intended to become the absolute rule of the land. And there was quite a spate of disputation going on about whether to establish that federal government just a few years after the American Revolutionary War had been concluded. This line proclaiming a separation of church and state is nowhere in the Constitution of the United States. The article has been misinterpreted, intentionally so, in my opinion, by those who would twist its intended protection of religious freedom into a retraction of religious freedom. Those are the people who are enemies of the Creator.
A large number of writings were published in argument for the federal government, known as the Federalist Papers, which constitutes one of the most important collective of documents in our nation’s history. There are two other collations of abundant importance to our nation, not only to its history, which are the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States. The former was the initial delineation of confederacy between the thirteen colonies, and the latter was the instrument for establishing a federal government.
There is a critical distinction between an alliance and a central government established to supervise that alliance. During the two world wars, there were two main alliances engaged in battailous contention. However, in these two wars neither one of these alliances were operating under a central government. They were a confederation, but not a single country. The majority of wars and armed conflicts in world history have been prosecuted by two or more alliances, plus accounting for the hire of conscripts. All of these alliances were a confederation of some sort, however temporal in nature.
A union, a confederacy, and a federation, all have similarities to such a degree that they might be used synonymously. Still and all, there remain some connotations within any one of them which may distinguish each one from the others. A union is a group of individuals who have united for some purpose, such as bargaining with an employer, or bullying an employer into capitulation. The union of the thirteen colonies, later recognizing themselves as states (a state being a sovereign entity), was for the purpose of extracting their states from the political bands that held them under the rule of the throne of England. This union was referred to as a confederation, hence the Articles of Confederation. But a union implies something that is a grade beyond a confederation, it implies a firmer bond.
The confederated states remained sovereign in all ways, though, each one retaining absolute self determination. This is the condition in an alliance of states engaged in warfare toward a common goal. The so called Axis powers conjoined their resources in order to achieve the subjugation of continents, and ultimately, the world entire. But not one of them was prepared to concede power to a central government that would impose conformity to ubiquitous rule. The same condition existed for the so called Allied powers. Their goals differed critically from those of the Axis powers, mainly that world subjugation was not one of them, and liberating the world from such intent was one of them, but neither were any of these nations willing to concede powers to a central government.
The conservation of absolute sovereignty was a major part of the concern that conceived the notion of a federal government. If each state continued in such a degree of sovereignty, there could never be a significant enough bond between them to ensure the security of them all. Strength in numbers, and all that. Their confederacy was based on a common interest that had been achieved by defeating the British armies. But the historical nature of nations has been to fling expeditionary forces upon weaker nations in order to conquer and arrogate territory, mostly for resources nutritious to the empire, but sometimes to assimilate other states into the victor state’s culture. So how do thirteen states, or any other number of states, create mutual security? By establishing a stronger bond.
This is the reason a federal government was strenuously advocated. There was also an equally pressing concern about possible tyranny perpetrated on the states if a federal government were to glut itself on power. A high tax rate would accomplish it, and that was the very thing their confederation was motored to make extinct. They’d bled and died to eradicate it. They’d bled and died for Liberty, calling themselves the Sons of Liberty, and they weren’t about to hand over their self determination to another gluttonous government. They intended to cherish their Liberty. It had cost them plenty, after all. So there ensued great contention over the matter of a federal government.
The advocates won out, and a federal government was approved. It was a good idea at the time, but doesn’t seem so prudent looking at the United States of today. It might have turned out different, if we’d honored essential principles as much as those men did. So what needed doing after an accord on the subject of a federal government was made, was to declare what it was that constituted their new federation. What were the United States, anyway? What constituted their union? So began the Constitution of the United States. The written list of ingredients that constitute the union of the states. The document that delineates what the United States are.
But that took a bit of doing, as well. Which is a good thing, I think, elsewise we wouldn’t have the written guarantee of Rights that we have. Rights that a presently out of control, gluttonous federal government is hammering away at, steadily manufacturing a pile of rubble. Thanks to the state of Virginia, we have the bill of rights. This group of amendments exists because Virginia refused to ratify the influential document unless these amendments, or corrections, were made to it. Virginia was the state a man named Patrick Henry resided in, and which delegated him to represent their interests. Remember the precious phrase, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me death!” Yeah. That Patrick Henry. An irrefutably important fellow.
The purpose of government, as declared in the United States Declaration of Independence, is to secure the Rights of the people. Its purpose is not primarily to govern, and certainly not to exert control, but to secure our rights. The Declaration asserts that, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…” The purpose of the federal government is threefold. To secure the Rights of the people, to provide for the common defense, and to provide for the general welfare of the people. This does not refer to a “welfare state.”
So what’s happened to the union of the states, that the federal government has declared itself an institution empowered to rule over the states, and is not the progeny of a union of the states? Gross misinterpretation of the Constitution of these states. In doing this, the federal government has separated itself from the union of the states and asserted that it, in and of itself, is the United States, and that the states have little to do with it thereafter. But that which constitutes the union of the states says otherwise.
The United States Constitution consists of seven Articles, the Bill of Rights, and Amendments eleven through twenty seven. The Bill of Rights consists of Amendments one through ten.
The Tenth Amendment reads thus : “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This Amendment clarifies that any power not delegated to the union of the states by the Constitution belongs to the states. In other words, any power vested in the union, administered by the federal government, must be restricted to those specified in the Constitution. They cannot be assumed by the federal government. In conjunction with powers specifically delegated to the union, the only other powers removed from the purview of the states are those specifically denied them by the Constitution.
Article 1, section 1, reads thus : “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.”
This initial section clarifies that legislative powers are vested in a congress of the union, not a separate governmental entity. The word congress means a gathering together, or a congregation. Each state elects and sends off their delegated representatives to congress with those of the other states, and it is this union of the states which is vested with legislative powers. This is the United States, and its various parts and their forms and function are described in the Constitution of these united states. The United States is not defined as a federal government. Rather, the federal government is defined as the union of the states, or more accurately, the congress of the united states. The federal government is not the United States, but, the united states are each represented by their elected delegates, and it is this congress of delegates which govern the union of the several sovereign states. The states govern the union, that which is known as the United States and which has been defined by the Constitution of the United States. It is the union that is governed by the states, and not the states that are governed by the federation. This is a supremely important distinction.
There are many deleterious activities being engaged by the federal government these days, derelict in its duty to the people of the union who may only be governed by their consent, as the Declaration of Independence declares. One such blatant violation perpetrated by the federal government is their action against the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment reads : “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
How is this Amendment trampled upon by the federal government? By its use of the United States Coast Guard to board and search U.S. vessels without warrant or due process of law for any purpose that extends beyond that of examining a vessel for cargo and its manifests in order to exact tariffs, for purposes of general law enforcement, and for imposing matters of safety.
“Well, the law grants them powers to do so. You know, the Revenue Service Act of 1790.”
No, it does not. And even if it did, the Constitution supersedes any law that contradicts it. Any law to the contrary notwithstanding (U.S Constitution, Article 6). In other words, it is void. It cannot be legally enforced, and those who enforce it are criminals, by definition. The courts that have consistently upheld these egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment are criminal courts, by definition. The Constitution is clear, and the Revenue Service Act of 1790 is just as clear. (This Act of the first congress of the United States is in chapter 35 of session 2. The entirety of the statutes at large enacted by this first congress can be read in the law library of the Library of Congress.) The Act was always intended “for the collection of the duties imposed by law on goods, wares and merchandise imported into the United States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels…” From section one of the Act, on page 145.
Here is the stated purpose of the Act, as it was written in the heading of the Act by the first congress of the several states. An act to provide more effectually for the collection of the duties imposed by law on goods, wares and merchandise imported into the United States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels. I cannot find anything upon the several pages of this Act to indicate that Congress granted powers to enforce the general laws of the United States, in a manner contrary to the protections of the Fourth Amendment, to any officers of the customs, which includes naval officers. No such thing is ever specified, nor is it even alluded to. USC (United States Code) Title 14 does grant such powers to the USCG (United States Coast Guard), claiming to have derived this grant from the Act of the first congress in 1790. Which isn’t possible, considering the only powers granted by the Act of 1790 were for the sole purpose of receiving revenues.
Some have argued that vessels belonging to U.S. citizenry, who are not engaged in commercial activities, are exempted from such boardings and searches. I’d carried a similar opinion until I read the entirety of the Act.
Section 9, on page 155, specifically addresses vessels that belong “in whole or in part to a citizen or citizens, inhabitant or inhabitants of the United States…”
Section 30, on page 164, provides for district inspectors to come aboard of vessels that arrive in their district, and said inspectors are required to divulge the duties that will be performed while aboard the vessel.
Section 31, on page 164, takes this further. “That it shall be lawful for all collectors, naval officers, surveyors, inspectors, and the officers of the revenue cutters herein after mentioned, to go on board of ships or vessels in any part of the United Sates, or within four leagues of the coast thereof, if bound to the United States, whether in or out of their respective districts, for the purposes of demanding the manifests of the aforesaid, and of examining or searching the said ships or vessels; and the said officers shall respectively have free access to the cabin, and every other part of a ship or vessel…”
Section 48, on page 170, increases the scope of power and authority. “That every collector, naval officer and surveyor, or other person specificially appointed by either of them for that purpose, shall have full power and authority to” search any ship or vessel if they have reason to suspect the thing is laden with concealed cargo that is subject to duty. Additionally, if they “shall have cause to suspect a concealment thereof in any particular dwelling-house, store, building or other place, they or either of them shall, upon application on oath to any justice of the peace, be entitled to a warrant to enter such house, store or other place (in the daytime only) and there to search for such goods…”
Section 64, on page 175. “And be it further enacted, that the officers of the said boats or cutters, shall be appointed by the President of the United States, and shall respectively be deemed officers of the customs, and shall have power and authority to go on board of every ship or vessel which shall arrive within the United States, or within four leagues of the coast thereof, and to demand, receive and certify the manifests herein before required to be on board of certain ships or vessels, and to affix and put proper fastenings on the hatches and other communications with the holds of ships or vessels, and to remain on board the said ships or vessels until they arrive at their places of destination.”
Section 66, on page 175, provides penalties for officers who receive bribes or other compensation for “conniving,” or for “conniving at a false entry” of either a vessel or of cargo. This setion has naught to do with the discussion at hand, but I figured it appropriate to mention the mindset of our early congress of the States, in that all public offices are honorable, and any officer holding one of these offices who brings dishonor to it ought to be duly punished. I opine that due punishments these days are not so equitably dispensed among our public servants as they are among the citizenry. I am convinced that many public servants have perpetrated actions for which they ought to have been immediately evicted from their respective office, if not having been subjected to more severe consequences, such as incarceration.
The officers of the Revenue Cutter Service, as well as naval officers, were vested with power and authority to come aboard of any vessel within the United States, with few exceptions, for the sole purpose of inspecting the targeted vessel for its manifests and for any cargo that may be stowed covertly aboard it (smuggled), in order to exact tariffs and impose whatever penalties may apply according to the conditions specified in the Act. Not one of these conditions specified the purpose of enforcing the general laws of the United States, nor did the Act grant such powers and authorities to any naval or marine service of the United States that was formed by Congress at that time, or that may have been formed by Congress since then. The concept of boarding the vessels of private citizens for purposes beyond the scope of commerce has been entirely inferred by the imagination of an out of control federal government, and supported by an equally out of control supreme court (filled by those justices who made such rulings at the respective time).
The officers vested with this authority to board vessels were to be appointed by the U.S. President, and their power and authority is to board any vessel arriving or operating within the United States for the purposes of confirming ship manifests and cargo. How many Coast Guard officers engaged in boarding vessels have been appointed by the President, or go aboard of vessels for the purposes of verifying commercial activities? I don’t know the answer to this question, but perhaps a more assiduous researcher than myself could provision that answer.
No matter what the courts, lawyers, or any agency of government has ruled or argued through the decades, this revenue law does not contradict the fourth amendment, nor does it nullify the fourth amendment once a citizen is on the water. This law applies to vessels arriving in or operating within the United States, but only for the purposes of exacting tariffs on goods imported for the purpose of commerce. It does not in any way whatsoever, no matter how hard someone squints at it, grant powers to the USCG to board domestic vessels without due process of law, or in violation of a citizen’s fourth amendment protections, for the purposes of law enforcement or any other purpose extending beyond that of exacting tariffs on commercial goods. However, USC Title 14 does contradict the fourth amendment, and does claim it can nullify the fourth amendment once a citizen is on the water. Our out of control government has been committing this crime for decades, and our citizenry has allowed them to do it. I am convinced the citizenry has allowed this because they have generally become more affectionate with fear, and have assumed the habit of divesting themselves of their proper affection for essential Liberty.
“But what about the Constitution granting power to the congress of the states to regulate commerce between the states?”
(Granted under Article one, section eight : “The Congress shall have power to… regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”)
Now that is a legally enforceable run of laws. For the most part. This is why various vehicles employed in the transport of commodities on land are subject to searches by police, customs, and other agencies. They are involved in commerce, and not only commerce, but commerce between the states. One view holds that commerce within any state is exempted from the manipulations of the congress of the states. However, this is not the view held by the congress of the states during recent decades, whatever may have been originally intended.
“So the USCG is operating legally, as you just explained.”
No, the regulation of commerce applies strictly to activities of commerce, not to activities of private vessels that have nothing to do with commerce. This is why police cannot search your private car without lawful cause, such as legally defined probable cause, or a warrant, according to the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For some reason, the federal government has decided to ignore the Constitutional protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment when considering the traversal of waterways. They are corporately derelict in their duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and have subsequently violated their oaths of office in which they have sworn themselves, or given affirmation, to such action.
The Revenue Service Act of 1790 was enacted to generate much needed revenue for the recently victorious, but bankrupted, United States. USC Title 14 was enacted to control the citizenry of the United States, and has apparently been working very well. Despite the propaganda the government feeds to its citizenry, this law has nothing to do with security from potential terrorist threats, nor does it have anything to do with preventing illicit substances being smuggled into the United States (in my opinion). Any threat or substance could be effectively dealt with on the coast. The law has nothing to do with the safety of vessels, either, as this, too, could be dealt with at any given port of call with regular inspections of the integrity of a vessel at said ports. (Additionally, unless the safety of a vessel has any bearing upon the safety of another vessel, or upon the safety of passengers or paid crew of said vessel, the supposed safety concerns are largely irrelevant, except as it is relevant to environmental concerns) Nor does it have anything to do with the security of vessels, as that is provisioned by the Right to bear arms, and the protection of that Right from infringement as prescribed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“Yeah, well, whatever the case may be about the Fourth Amendment and USC Title 14, and so on, I don’t see what it has to do with the separation of church and state.”
I’m getting to that.
“Well, then get to it.”
I am. The separation of church and state is derived from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but has been intentionally perverted by an out of control government which is desperate to divorce itself from the authority of the Creator. This appeals to the immoral portions of the citizenry who are equally desperate to eschew God, even if it means handing over essential Liberty and adopting subjugation in its place. Many people would rather live under an oppressive government than to acknowledge God. This is beyond my ability to comprehend.
The First Amendment reads : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Nowhere does the document mention a separation of church and state. It never meant to. Its intent was to prevent a church institution established by the government, which “law respecting an establishment of religion” would consequently impose the practice of a state religion and invalidate the practice of any other religion. The church of England at that time behaved atrociously toward anyone who failed to practice its doctrines, and there were punitive results for those folks. This was the situation that the Congress of the several states wished to avoid, and not to eradicate the worship of God, or even the mention of God, from the various governmental proceedings.
The concept of a separation of church and state comes from a letter to some Connecticut Baptists, written by Thomas Jefferson, then President, in reply to their request that a national day of fasting be required of the people, by law. He stated that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution built “a wall of separation between church and state.” This opinion contradicts the Thanksgiving Day Proclamation written by George Washington, then President, and which was written at the behest of the congress of the several states. Said proclamation, however, did not require participation of the people. It was a proclamation, not a law.
Mr. Washington began his declaration so : “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor…” He stated that the motor for his declaration was a request from the joint committee of both houses of Congress. A government sponsored day to worship God. Mr. Washington further stated that it is the duty of the citizenry of the United States, “…whether in public or private stations… To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue…”
That proclamation was written in 1789, and the Bill of Rights was ratified by the congress of states in 1791, so there is no conflict in technical terms. There is a conflict in practical terms, though, since the interest of immoral persons in this country is to utilize the wall of separation as a platform for prohibiting even the mention of God within the various government proceedings, including courts and government operated schools. Such a pursuit violates the First Amendment, however, because the intent of their pursuit is to prohibit speech about God, and the freedom of speech is protected by this same amendment. The Amendment states there is to be “no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but neither does it provide for the establishment of any law that prohibits speech about God, even in a “publicly owned” building or within a government proceeding. Such speech is protected by this amendment.
Even so, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged God in his 1777 bill promoting religious freedom in the state of Virginia. As with the Constitutional amendment, this state bill was meant to protect a person from compulsive membership in, or being compelled to practice the doctrines of, a church institution that was established by law, a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” The intent was never to eradicate God from the various government proceedings, and certainly not to prohibit speech about God even from government operated schools, as has been done today.
Even more compelling is that proclamation delivered by Abraham Lincoln, then president of the Congress of the several states, on October 3, 1863. In his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, which established that day as a national holiday, he spoke of the benefits enjoyed by the United States, and that “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”
Having declared the influence and sovereignty of the Creator over the Union and Congress of the several states, Mr. Lincoln went on to say, “It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People… to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens… and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and restore it as soon as may be consistent with the divine purposes… In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.”
This was written seventy two years after the ratification of the First Amendment, thus presenting a conflict in both technical and practical terms with the “wall of separation between church and state,” as it has been misinterpreted by those who desire to establish an atheistic state. While the observation of Thanksgiving Day is not made compulsory by a “law respecting an establishment of religion,” it is a day dedicated to the worship of God, and it is sponsored by the United States government, demonstrating that there is no foundation for an argument to eradicate the Creator from official government proceedings.
The use of public funds to promote equality in the school system does not violate the First Amendment. Using public funds to promote theories such as the evolution of organic beings on this planet from an inanimate rock into animate humanity, to the exclusion of any concept that contradicts it, is a violation. The school system ought to be privatized, if it is to be publicly funded. This would not violate the First Amendment, as it would not enact a “law respecting an establishment of religion”, but would respect the right of the people to choose their beliefs and how their children are educated. The current public school system does not do so, since it occludes everything that does not align with an atheistic agenda. Privatizing the publicly funded school system would not violate the First Amendment, because it would not give priority to religion over individual objection to religion. It would not force a particular and biased educational environment upon anyone, as the current system does, it would merely give us all a choice of schools.
The problem with instituting actual equality regarding such issues, is that those who cite the separation of church and state are not simply expressing concern over being forcibly proselytized. Their goal is to eradicate religion from the nation. Those who proclaim a separation of church and state are determined to nullify that part of the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion. They demand an absolute freedom from religion, meaning that no one should be allowed the Liberty to worship the Creator. There should be no churches, no religious publications, no religious utterances of any kind in the public spaces, and ultimately, I opine, driving toward the goal of entering residences to search for and destroy any material pertinent to religion, and to imprison any who are deemed practitioners of it.
It is the same goal as the eradication of private gun ownership. Regulation is a start. Expunge the concept from the corporate mindset of the populace that our rights are endowed by our Creator, and the populace is compelled to rely on the government for morsels of freedom. That is the reasoning behind the current demand for a separation of church and state. Convince the citizenry that their rights are meted to them by the government, and the government can control the citizenry.
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable, rights…”
Truths, not opinions. They need no explanation or definition through law or constitution. They are self evident. We are created equal. Created, not evolved. We are endowed by our Creator with Rights, not granted Rights by government. These rights are certain, and unalienable. They cannot be rescinded, or infringed. Unless the Citizenry can be convinced to permit such actions from the government. To accomplish it, the people must be convinced there is no God, or to accept a gross misinterpretation and misapplication of the articles that were written in order to ensure God would remain enthroned over our nation, but that no church or religious institution would itself become the motor of our nation’s government. How do I know this? By reading what those authors of our Constitution wrote about it, and not merely misinterpreting the Constitution as suits the atheistic agenda of the enemies of God.
“But what if I don’t want to hear about God?”
What if I don’t want to hear about hatred toward God?
“What if I don’t want my taxes expended on objectionable things, like teaching the Bible in schools, or seeing a Bible in a courtroom, or hearing a politician mention God or religious things, or having things like Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving be federally promoted national holidays, or knowing that churches and other religious organizations are exempted from taxation?”
What if I don’t want my taxes expended on objectionable things, like killing babies, or declaring the appropriate and beneficial discipline of children to be abusive, or declaring that perversions of the marriage covenant established by the Creator are proper, or promoting various sexual iniquities as things that are virtuous, or rescinding the Rights and essential Liberty of citizens that so many patriots have expended their vital principle and lives to secure for those who would follow, in order to protect people from sustaining contusions on their feelings, or to infect the nation with socialism and absolve the citizenry of their individual responsibilities?
The degeneracy of this nation presages the end of days. The debate and disputation between the proponents of God and freedom and the advocates of immorality and subjugation will flourish until the end of days, and after that, there won’t be even half a person who does not believe in God. For most, this belief will be too late, and the second death will capture them in an eternity of anguish. This saddens me. It saddens the Creator even more, since it is his creation who will have chosen this dispensation for themselves. He loves all of his creation, but especially mankind.
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD. (Psalm 33:12) The United States has enjoyed this blessing for over two hundred years, because of its fundamental reliance on the Creator and its adherence to Biblical principles, the same principles which inform the Unites States Constitution, and which informed the nation of Israel thousands of years ago. Now we are on the crux of absconding from that blessing, of banishing our Creator from the heart of our nation, of becoming desolate and impoverished when our Creator finally acquiesces to our demand that he depart the interior of our borders.
A separation of church and state. If this occurs in this country, we’ll have demolished freedom, for it is only by God that freedom is achieved. Our Rights are endowed by God, as recognized by the Declaration of Independence, and a people that acknowledges this cannot be subjugated by the will of man. When God is banished, the only source of freedom is government, a government administrated by immoral people who are gluttonous for power and wealth. Such governments are invariably socialistic. This isn’t freedom, it’s servitude.
If you value Liberty, pray for our nation. Pray that men and women who worship the Creator will occupy public office. Pray that they will be potent in word and in deed. Pray that they will be strong and courageous. Pray that they will be successful in all that they do to promote Liberty. Pray that our nation will redirect its resources to seeking God, and to abstain from expenditures in the pursuit of eradicating God from our government. Pray that wisdom will infuse every part of our being so we may choose appropriately when we set about filling our ballots. Pray that we will bear courage into the contest against the principalities of darkness as we fulfill our duties of employment, as we converse with others, as we manage our households, as we educate our children, as we conduct ourselves generally before the scrutiny of “outsiders,” and in everything we do or say. Pray. Pray. Pray.
The Creator is able to accomplish overwhelming things with the smallest quantities of other things. Consider Gideon. Consider David. Consider Elijah. Consider Moses and Aaron. Consider the fledgling confederation of thirteen states. Consider the regeneration of the state of Israel, the Creator’s favored people, who still do not acknowledge him. Consider the transformation of your own heart, your own life, after believing in Jesus Christ, to whom, and for whom, you declared repentance. And from whom you received salvation and sanctification. So let’s be diligent in our prayers for our nation, so that we may perhaps, if God is willing, once again enjoy the surety of Liberty as one nation under God.