The Biggest Myth in America

 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Seems pretty simple, right?

Let’s break it down.

 “Congress:” the legislative body that makes the laws our country follows.

“Shall make no law:” that’s pretty self-explanatory.

“Respecting an establishment of religion,” this is where it gets a bit tricky.

 This is what we refer to as the “Establishment Clause.” What it means is that we basically cannot have a national religion as established by Congress.

“Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof:” no laws can be made that infringe upon the rights of believers to exercise their beliefs.

So if the First Amendment is that simple. Why is there so much controversy surrounding it? To clarify this, one must read the amendment again and recognize that nowhere does it say anything about “separation of church and state.” In fact this phrase does not appear in an official United States Document until Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black coined it as “official policy” in the 1947 case of Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing Township. The question in debate during this case was whether state of New Jersey could pay for the transportation of students to parochial schools.

Many people cite Thomas Jefferson for the idea of “separation of church and state,” and while it is true that he wrote those words, it was in a personal letter which was sent to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that the federal government would not keep them from practicing their religion. Jefferson borrowed the phrase from a well-known sermon by Baptist minister and founder of Rhode Island Roger Williams. In this sermon, Williams depicts the church as a garden, the outside world as the wilderness and the “wall” as a mechanism used to protect the church from the encroaching wilderness. The Founding Fathers agreed with this interpretation, and that was the intent of the separation clause-to keep the government out of religion, not the other way around.

Does anyone honestly think that the Founding Fathers, most of whom were practicing Christians, meant to deny the rights of students to public prayer, the banning of the Bible from school libraries, forbid the mentioning of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, prohibit the display of the Ten Commandments (which many of our laws are based on), the outlawing of a banner that read “God Bless America” after the 9/11 attacks or not allowing a nativity scene to be put up at Christmas? How are any of these things establishing a national religion? They are not!

“The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned,” Former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist said. The commonly accepted idea of “separation of church and state” is a complete and utter myth.


(202) 224-6472 Jay Rockafeller

 (202) 224-5344 Olympia Snowe

 (202) 224-5244 Ron Wyden

(202) 224-2651 Max Baucus

202-224-2934 John Cornyn

(202) 224-3424 Mike Enzi

(202) 224-5251 Orrin Hatch

202.224.4343 Jim Bunning

(202) 224-5521 Jeff Bingaman

(202) 224-2043 Kent Conrad

202-224-6542 Chuck Schumer

(202) 224-4822 Debbie Stabenow

202.224.4744 Robert Menendez

(202) 224-3744 Chuck Grassley

202-224-4843 Blanche Lincoln

(202) 224-2742 John Kerry



Here Come The Czars

Deanna Candler

Deanna Candler

[Click to enlarge]

Sarah Palin wasn’t kidding when she said she could see Russia from her house. You can too. Just turn on the news and listen to the talking heads chatter about the “czars.”

Historically, the “czar” was the supreme ruler of Russia. The word was derived from the Latin term “Caesar.” The literal translation is “one with great power or authority.”

In American politics the term has come to represent a high ranking presidential appointee who does not always have to face Senate confirmation. Despite this, they still have an important impact on White House policy.

Reagan started this trend with the “Drug Czar,” and since then it has ballooned under Obama to consist somewhere between 24- 34 czars. Everything has a czar, from the “AIDs Czar” to the “WMD Czar.”

Since many of these czars do not have to be confirmed by the Senate, several radical left-wingers have made it onto the government payroll.

Take “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, who is a self-avowed Communist with ties to the Weather Underground, a known domestic terrorism organization. Jones also signed a petition calling for investigations into government involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. After FOX News commentator Glenn Beck brought his past to light, Jones resigned.

“Science Czar” John Holdren coauthored a textbook that suggested compulsory abortion would be permissible under the United States Constitution. Holdren also has lobbied for global taxes on green house gasses, including human emitted carbon dioxide.

And what about “Regulation Czar” Cass Sunstien, who has called for animals to be allowed the right to sue humans? Hunting is a way of life in the South, but not if Sunstien has his way. He has called for an end to all hunting. He also said in a 1993 book that the government should pay for abortions, even though many taxpayers have moral problems with the practice.

Finally, we get to the “Federal Communications Commission Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd. Aside from praising dictator Hugo Chavez, Lloyd supported government run news and regulations and taxes on private companies that would help fund their competition, for “fairness” of course. He has also stated that white radio executives should be forced to step down in favor of minorities, such as “blacks and gays.”

So have the czars gone too far? Are these the people who you want making policies that will govern your news, jobs, textbooks and life in general?

These radical liberals should be ridiculed for their ignorance of the Constitution, not offered powerful government positions with little or no oversight.

The Russians had 18 Czars over 300 years. We’ve had more czars than that in the past nine months, but history repeats itself.

A revolution freed the Russian citizens from tyranny.

I only hope we don’t have to wait 300 years. 2010 sounds good to me.

Practice What You Preach

“Do as I say, not as I do.”

 This is the attitude Congress has taken in regards to the current health care issue. They want you to be forced to enroll but want to keep their cushy Federal benefits intact. But our very own Louisiana Representative John Fleming, M.D., has introduced a resolution that would require Congress to practice what they preach.

House Resolution 615 would require congressmen and women who vote for the health care bill to enroll in the government option if it passes. Representative Fleming’s website says, “If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating…any plan that is good enough for American families is good enough for every member of Congress.”

So far more than 90 Representatives have officially signed on to support this resolution, along with 1.1 million citizens who have signed the online petition on Fleming’s website. But unsurprisingly, not a single Democrat has pledged their support.

This begs the question: If the health care “reform” they are pushing for is so great, then why do they not want it for themselves? It makes me think of the new Burger King commercials with Tony Stewart. Why would you endorse something that you have no intention of using?

Fleming’s resolution is a great way to hold Congress accountable for the reform they pass. I personally have signed the petition and am proud that my Congressman was the one to propose this. Louisiana politics has long been a joke, but Representative Fleming’s actions give me hope for the future of our state and our nation.