Chapter 2 – Public Opinion vs. The Federal Government

The Federal government is not a hereditary monarchy, possessing the crown, as a patrimony descendible to heirs but is a vast array of public officers that as you have seen are elected by a populous vote.  The only branch of government that is elected through an electoral college of representative votes from each state is the Presidency.  The reason for this is to uphold the less populated states rights to be heard in the voting process.  If it were left to a populous vote or a majority rule favors or bribery would be more prevalent for the vote. 

Hamilton wrote in essay 9:

“It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.”

Words like “party rage” creep into the voice that speaks through “Public Opinion”.  Although, no political government is without fallibility, the U S Constitution binds our federal government to the “Bill of Rights” contained in the document.  The new discoveries in politics have shown the means by which ”Republican Government” may be retained and its interpretations lessened or avoided. 

The voice of public opinion is of course a subject of the Constitution.  The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees “Free Speech” of the people, But to what end?  That one group has a louder voice over the other is to say that through bullying we’re the majority.  What about the silent “less aggressive” majority?  Where did the sleeping giant lay his weary head?  The federal government as a whole from the parts involves the louder or lesser majority, the minority, the rich, and the poor, as Hamilton pens in essay 9:

”… as Constituent parts the national sovereignty, by allowing then a direct representation in the Senate and the House of Representatives and Presidency, and power.”

The Federal government is there to quench the thirst of the thirsty, but not to fill the pool.  Our early fathers on the matters of usurption of power, insurrection, and domestic faction that have undermined many of the societies in ancient and their recent history foresaw many abuses by the people.  Thus, in the checks and balances, which was unheard of and a new device in the political arena lends its hands to Public Opinion versus the federal government.

The largest of these confrontations was the Civil War, which ripped the country in two.  Without getting into the history and analysis of the Civil War, One such problem that hindered the confederate Side were the very outlined messages that were laid out by our early leaders (Federalist essays 15-22), when a single member usurps the Supreme authority in confederacy a domino effect can happen.  Under a Federal Republic that is more united by self-defense and revenue it will protect itself to all means.

Through public opinion which in itself leads to a democracy or people ruled government sight is given to jealousy, tumultuous comities, breeding grounds of unceasing discord, and the miserable objects of universal pity or contempt.  Public opinion is good for the empowerment and betterment of the people, but to what direction?  The Federal government is set up to filter the issues, to decipher the best result for the well being of the people, but not to injudiciously abandon the voice of the people or to issue a decree that is deemed Unconstitutional or reprobate.  Any competition is good for the betterment of the policy or product, however Members of the union (state not federal legislature) should have a more weighty political voice than a special interest group or business that has a political agenda and obligations to the betterment of a few.

Special interest can sometimes be viewed as a type of “Domestic Faction” that may give rise to a political agenda that is far more important for a handful of constituents that the betterment as a whole.  The costs and obligation to such a special interest that it can slight business at hand the federal government may already be involved in.  Activist and liberal Public opinion screams a need without asserting a cost.  The federal government asks, “At what cost?”  The end has to justify the means when special interests are involved.  The legislative branch has to pursue to keep within its budget.  It becomes a dangerous road that activist groups can lead by virtue of emotional outcry, generally affecting the decisions the representatives in order to appease the constituents and the vote block that they control.  To what end are the means justified?

When people refer to warts and all, it’s supposed to mean faults and all.  The politically correct want to hush up the faults by lying about them.  We apparently are supposed not to hear about our fortitude, guts.  Our early founders were not cowardly or spineless.  They were men of valor and patriotism.  They showed us the way to provide prosperity for the masses, more than any other country on the face of the earth, maybe in all history of the earth.

We have tried to deal with race problems, not with much success, but we have tried.  We have tenaciously refused to tread the trail that leads to Socialism.  We have made heroic sacrifices, not only for our own country, and our loved ones, but other people’s countries, other people’s loved ones.  We are known as a super power.

Now unabsorbable minorities and malcontents want to show not only warts but also cold sores, postulating pimples, herpes of history.  Blind socialists, the parlor pinkos will have you believe that one group of individuals can only get on at the expense of another.

Can you really believe that American affluence that the United States standard of living, the United States acceptance in the world, only came about because we made somebody else suffer, because we subjected the black people to slavery, exploited the workers, turning our back on the rest of the world, not sending money to starving nations?  Have we really become what we are at the expense of others?  Do you really believe that we wiped out intelligent societies that existed before we came hear in order that we could take over?  Don’t allow these depressing, dull ideologies to unravel the tapestry of life and believe me, that’s what they are trying to do.  There is little doubt that there are stain patches on the tapestry of life and there are blots on the history of America.  We have “done wrong” in our treatment of Native American people and to people that have come to us from other parts of the world, our inability to accept what we once called foreigners and I imagine many other injustices.  However, never forget that this country is considered by those who ought to know, the greatest country in the world, the freest country in the world, the most secure country in the world and potentially the richest.  We have a constitution that is fair and equitable.  We have brave, honest, hard working people in the most remote places and we never give up.  We perhaps have the most extraordinary, natural endowment, not only financially, but also visually; The United States is a beautiful country The United States has a history worthy of celebration, not denigration.  

During William Jefferson Clinton’s presidency socialistic views and opinions were flying all around the House of Congress, I thank God that our foundation is the U S Constitution with its resolute constrain that hinders the legislature inhibited from impeding on the voice of the people when the government is prejudiced.  No other country in this world has our form nor has reached our heights, or our aptitude as a nation to keep our elected leaders on a set of scales.  Empires, monarchies, democracies, dictatorships, regimes, and confederacies were all taken into account during the Constitutional conventions debates, in order that a better structure of government be established to facilitate coexistences and equality be observed and upheld.  As such, the United States can escape the snares that earlier forms of government fell prey to.  Truth has become such a rarity in modern times that when you tell it you are accused immediately of cynicism.  Truth is unquestionably the most worthwhile of things.  It has taken more beltings than every single prizefighter of the world combined.  It has been pounded more heavily than any front line in any war, in any time, and it survives.  It survives in the form of fact.  It is manipulated, it is twisted, it is nagged at by pettiness but in the end it stands absolutely resolute.  This solid rock: truth.

In my lifetime, like in many others previous to mine, public opinion has swayed to and fro, but none has done more damage to Americans than the schemes and lies that spew from the halls of our Countries Capitol, the latter is more relevant to any case.  Propaganda is used commonly to influence public opinion under false pretences and if you repeat something that is an untruth over and over enough times to enough people it may trump history and become a truth. 

During the Convention of representatives that formed the Declaration of Independence in 1774 the media took this occasion to go against what the early patriotic congress had relegated through imminent danger.  The congress was true to the interests of the people and their, soon to be countries, liberty and prosperity.  There was a rise of the press and with their influence and ambitions that did not coincide with that of the congress and as such the publics good persuaded through their editorials and pamphlets many people to reject the advice of that patriotic congress.  If that patriotic congress hadn’t been filled with such determination to get a greater amount of public opinion and rationale that what the congress was trying to accomplish was for the better, America would not have even been a discussion on this matter.  I might have well written about Hitler the Great, but as it happened over 200 years ago, America has changed history and the tyrannical leaders of the world have never had an answer since.

Hence, Our Federal Republic will coexist with public opinion, on the grounds that, America is a country that is made up of many diversities and cultures that will tend to arrive at their conclusions whether they are morally, socially, or economically partisan, but should not end in a result that neither denies, deprives, nor empowers one above another.  Why would we let any person from a country into the United States that does not like or has abhorrence for this country, just because we have something to offer?  Not everybody that applies to get in should.  It is naïve to think that we could, there are those that would incite a revolt if left unchecked and allowed to do as they please in America.  Remember the self-righteous, morally anointed are more concerned with the imposing of their vision than with the maintaining of your rights.

James Madison in Essay 10 of the Federalist papers:

“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.  A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.”

Through public opinion many have asserted that ones lifestyle is private.  The New Edition Oxford dictionary defines “Lifestyle” as, “just the way that a person or group lives.”  Which in free country we are free to do.  Now the politically correct are trying to tell us that we can’t have men’s clubs, boy scouts, or any male-gender exclusive organization at all.  This is a touchy subject for our Federal Republic that must determine the views of individual rights as well as those of the states.  For lifestyle can include rich or poor, priest or layperson, athlete or invalid, gay or straight.  Freedom is guaranteed to all that live in the United States, but to equate lifestyle with race, color, or creed is vanity and illogical, not to mention unconscionable.  The New York Times, which obviously spends a considerable amount of its waking hours taking polls (like many other newspapers these days), conducted a survey and reported that 38% of the men questioned identified that they loved their motor car more than they loved women.  What does this mean?  Those men get more satisfaction out of their automobile?  Maybe.  Sadly it proves the damage done by the, what Rush Limbough loves to deem, feminazis, the rabid feminists who want to create division between men and women, by inciting hatred for men in eminently hateable women.  These are sadly the tactics used by the feminazis, these public opinion mongers.  Aggressions, contempt, surliness, criticism, are all designed to devastate the male sense of self or lifestyle.  These grass roots women’s groups are really starting to raise a populous public opinion that is gaining ground.  These are belligerent times, and a successful operation to compromise 38% of a group of men in a poll say they prefer their auto to women.  You can’t be a little bit free.  A man isn’t free when he has one foot in the bear trap.

In a scenario, we have a person that in endangering others by his/her lifestyle.  This lifestyle gives people much trepidation and the federal government frowns upon the lifestyle.  The federal government is not tolerant in this person endangering others.  For the publics well being and the well being of law and order the federal government or local government extract this person from society so that the menace is quelled.  While on the other hand there is, at the same instant, another person whose lifestyle is not looked on favorably in the public eye.  This lifestyle is seen as an endangerment by public opinion, but the government has a vested interest and even some of our politicians follow this same lifestyle so are not interested in extracting this member of society no matter how loud the outcry of the public is.  Consequently, the division of public opinion versus federal government rages on.  These days if you want to win the support of public opinion you need to classify yourself as the victim, preferably a victim in need of protection.  Then watch all the weak people in society; having been given as opportunity to appear strong, rush to your support (Weak people love being seen as the great protectors.) along with our great enablers, our government, to start a focus group on how to throw money towards the victim.  Thus, creating a swell of public opinion to change a point of view, cast doubts, and eventually changes a law or take away another freedom that we used to have in order to include this one measly lifestyle.

    

As has been seen, public opinions can be formed by a grass roots campaign to effectively challenge the force that is our government, catching it off guard to serve an agenda.  Sometimes the majority side of public opinion looses because, although intelligent and moving at a more gentle pace, stupidity shouts louder.   Impious logic frees the manacles of the mind of those people who have been bound to conventional wisdom.  Not because it was prudent, mind you, but simply because it was acceptable thought.

Public opinion doesn’t bother me.  Personal opinion does, if the person offering the opinion has some worth.  A worthy critic can be respected, while insults and affronts mean nothing when the men and women who put them forward are nothing.  Public opinion manufacturing happens all the time either through the media Television, newspapers, etc. (including the advertisements) or through an agenda minded group that is out of someones garage.  However, with all of these, you have to consider the source.  There are too much unsolicited advice and Internet myths that people runaway with.  It’s like Henny Penny and the sky is falling, while you’re running around collecting all of your supporters and convincing them of your fallacious opinion the fox is lying in wait to get you.  Remember the secret to propaganda is sincerity.  Once you learn to fake it, you’re an expert and you might be able to trick the fox.

Our federal government is supposed to have sound judgment and integrity, “for and by the people”.  What if for some unknown reason the people are lulled or confused and become a confederation of comfort?  All the while, dealings of impropriety were afoot in the House of Representatives (a convention if you will, of able bodied representatives) that, “for the will of the people” (more likely their own will) coerce the rules and tug at the sinew of the bones of freedom, all for democracies sake?  How could the public sway back the vitriol of cause and subdue the unfortunate law that would damn the nation as a whole?  There is just cause for insurrection that is appeased in our constitution.  Our forefathers gave the people the ability to be relinquished.  Is this through political or judicial means?  No, but through revolt.  The early leaders of the new America were so close to the memory of the revolution with Great Britain that they could not avoid an inclusion of civil unrest or petition.  (James Madison produces an extensive argument in essay 10 of the Federalist Papers)  Congress, Presidents, and the Judicially Supreme are to be wise and experience.  However, public opinion through an established revolt can, if successful, bring back what once was.  But if, as in, an elitist movement where one representative is traded for another, but the agendas are the same or even more sinister that the previous, How can the Republic stand?     

Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.  On the other hand, the effect may be inverted.  Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

Madison Essay 10

The United States of America is predominately a two (2) political party system.  With only these two parties running the show, with very little that is distinguishable about their politics.  When one party’s representative is elected over the other and the people get the same representation or worse, where do you go?

Our Constitution is the great equalizer in the scheme of our government.  As a people the United States Constitution protects us against rouge government officials.  As a form of government our Constitution protects from rouge deviate politicians that would bring the dreams of our founders to ruin.  Our Constitution was always to look after the people as a total, because our leaders are supposed to come from the people.  It is the responsibility of every decent American to see that we never allow the politically correct to force upon us historical amnesia.

In the great scheme of things, in all that is political, even those that choose not to decide still have made a choice (Those of us citizens that would stand outside the fray).  You see, only idiots think alike and public opinion; no matter how grossly misconstrued, miscomprehended, uneducated, undemocratic, petty, diabolical, irrelevant, undiplomatic, selfish, discriminatory, blasphemous, generic, embittered, vengeful, derogatory, devious, charismatic, zealous, obstructing, enthusiastic, fervent, passionate, poisoned, cynical, disillusioned, common, basic, egotistical, deceitful, conniving, obstructing, etc. is still just public opinion and shouldn’t change how the law of the land, Our United States Constitution, should be seen  or rendered.  Nevertheless, when the law is subverted or not accounted for, this is a dangerous thing.  The federal government, through he Supreme Court, is to “Interpret” the Constitution with its rights and laws that repel civil unrest and domestic disputes among the states.  Issues that cannot stand the examination of the constitution are deemed “Unconstitutional”.

A lot has been said lately of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court.  the sages of the constitution have seemed to be writing their own version as of late.  It gives the impression that deciphering the Constitution is an easy thing to do, the letter of the law is in black and white with slim or no room (slim is out f town) for gray interpretation.  So, with that, what of the latest Church and state, Freedom of speech, and civil rights debates?  (Debates – there is no debate, remember the law is black and white, with no give for circumstantial deviations.)  There seems to be this, diversion from the plan.  Is public opinion swaying the votes?  Is there an agenda here? It’s not inequality that’s the major problem; it’s dependence.

Of freedom of speech and separation of church and state:  I would like to know in which Constitutional amendment, or for that matter, which Constitution of ours renders the term, “Separation of Church and State”, because it doesn’t occur in the United States Constitution.

Differences and difficulties in interpretation have characterized much of the recent history of the first amendment.  Since religion and freedom of speech are part of the first amendment, I would like to expose the fraudulent interpretation of a Secular Supreme Court and the dangers of that powerful High Court, that wields its convictions, or lack there of, in a lukewarm temperate to ratify their own agenda.  On freedom of speech and of the press the Supreme Court has allowed vast and vague interpretation to disallow one instead of making a stance on what the framers of the U S Constitution held as truth and fairness.  The Supreme Court has viciously attacked the ability for Americans to be heard and protected.  Issues like the Smith Act and McCarren Act as well as others that have not yet made the vote in congress or yet been ruled on by the Supreme Court now have taken a shot at the dismemberment of the first Amendment.  Little by little, chipping away at our rights to perform our legal and political obligations as a people.

The United States Constitution’s First amendment rightly states in its first words, directing what were of the utmost importance to the constitutional convention of 1778.  The first of the “Bill of Rights” that were ratified in 1791, some of the framers had argued that the “Bill of Rights” was not necessary since the national government did not in any case have the power to do what was expressly forbidden in the proposed amendments.  How wrong they were, and how right the others were to provide the protection of the ”Bill of Rights”. 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

There is no clause that mentions Separation of church, just that there shall be no law to establish a religion, not to mention, that there is also to be no law made by congress to prohibit the “free” (key word here) exercise thereof.  Free meaning unabridged, undaunted, and even in public, at a public event, even at school or in Congress itself.  This if any has been the most misinterpreted and most intently bastardized of all the rights and laws that were given to the people of the United States.  This one part of the first amendment in the past few years has become such a hot topic for public opinion polls, was vastly influenced by the federal governments involvement into the interpretation of the U S Constitution.

If any one person would take the time to understand the framers intentions of the first amendment with great investigative honesty, setting aside all prejudice.  It would quickly be understood that our framers of the government relied heavily on the foundation of Judeo-Christian principles.  The framers made no intention to hide the fact that they had an inestimable belief in a supreme creator, namely Jehovah God and that the foundation in this belief is executed in their unequivocal reliance on the privacy and liberty of the people of the United States.

The proof is shown in the earliest of our leaders works and penned convictions.  Early America had just separated from Great Britain.  A country that is held bound with the Church of England, a spin-off from the Catholic religion that occurred for the reason that the King of England found himself at the mercy of an outside force.  The framers understood, from their own experience that a government religion was not in the best interest of the people, for the discrimination that could come from a person not being a part of such a religion and being disallowed in socially activity in a climate of those not holding the same beliefs. 

The U S Constitution provides the entitlement of its citizens to his or her beliefs and the fact that we are not made to worship a state run religion.  However, the Constitution to not allow teachings from the Bible, most notably the Ten Commandments, or prayer in or on government property is ludicrous.

Other distinguished people have given their opinion on the matter, both in support of and in opposition to this topic and even the Chief Justice of the state of Alabama Supreme Court couldn’t argue with reason or properly; or was not allowed to explain his position on the Ten Commandments monument at the Alabama state courthouse because of media censorships.  All the while the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Americans United for separation of church and state were calling for the removal because of the supposed threat of a churches influence on a government.

A state run church does not technically cause a theocracy.  In a state run church every government post must have some crest or emblem to denote the union of the state and church.  In the United States there aren’t any such emblems or crests, other than the Seals of a state or federal seals designated to their respective departments.  but what is not known are the actual meanings behind the seals throughout the United States.  Whether many of the anti-religious groups know it or not, many of the seals contain Judeo-Christian symbols of strength and justice.  One of these ironies is the fact that during the dispute in the Alabama Courthouse, where a monument adorning the Ten Commandments, also known as “God’s Laws”, was placed.  The Ten Commandments are the basic Hebrew laws that were given to Moses by Jehovah God at Mt. Sinai to instruct Israel the statutes and judgments so that they perform them in the land that they are to possess.  The Ten Commandments were only part of the instructions that were given to Moses on Mt. Sinai.  Other laws, which are described in detail, can be read in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy; especially Exodus chapters 20-30, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy these laws cover concerning people and their social structure (Including marriage), laws about property, and instructions regarding enemies, as well as instructions for building a Tabernacle as a center of worship. 

Now the Ten Commandments, which are only part of the laws given to Moses, they are a summation of the total of “God’s Laws”; Recite like this:

Exodus Chapter 20 verses 3-17:

Commandment I:  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Commandment II: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor service them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity if the fathers upon the children unto the third and forth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Commandment III:  Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Commandment IV:  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:  But the seventh day is the sabbath if the LORD thy GOD:  In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, not thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Commandment V:  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy GOD giveth thee.

Commandment VI:  Thou shalt not kill.

Commandment VII: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Commandment VIII: Thou shalt not steal.

Commandment IX:  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Commandment X:  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

God thought these commandments so important that He gave them twice.  (see Exodus chapter 34 verses 1-4)

Now, I see no reason why a person would have a problem with these simple social rules, they seem to be rules that are necessary for longevity of a civilized culture and social respect.  All of the rules I suppose would make a person dispute them only if they see them as a quilt provider.  God’s Laws certainly help to expose sin, and they give standards for righteous living; with responsibility comes accountability.

We are only human, and as such are prone to fallibility and are not perfect, we sin everyday.  For those of you who have ever been late to a meeting, regardless of traffic conditions, you have committed a sin.  I hate to be judgmental, but I do it myself all the time.  About the Ten Commandments foundation in our judicial system today, of the ten only 3 (three) carry any jail sentence if convicted by a court of law:  1)     Thou shalt not kill (murder), 2)  Thou shalt not steal, and 3) Thou shalt not bear false witness.  Of these 3 bearing false witness is giving false evidence in court “perjury” – How about that one, Bill.  We cannot survive unless our system of justice is incorruptible, being honest in our private dealings as well as in our public statements.  We should not be deceptive, even though deception is a way of life for many people in today’s society.

The other 7 are more social by our laws today and are more of ones character and lifestyle than that of persecutory laws, going to church, envy, and honoring your elders of parents.  You don’t have to do these things by man’s laws, but God has commanded them and God knows.  Maybe this is what makes people so eager to dismiss and want to end any reference to religious standards; people don’t like to feel convicted by the standards that they live in.

What sums it up for me is in the words of Dr. Walter Martin: who writes,

 “In the course of delivering numerous lectures on the subject of non-Christian cults and their relationship to the Christian Church, one of the most frequently asked questions has been, “Why should Christians oppose and criticize the beliefs (or lack thereof) of others whether they be cults or other world religions?”  (I suppose that you can add Secular thought and Secular Humanism as world religions.)  (Bracketed mine.).  Dr. Walter Martin goes on to answer this question, “To answer this question we must first recognize that to oppose and criticize is neither unethical, bigoted, or unchristian: rather, it is the epitome of proper Christian conduct where a very vital part of the Christian witness is concerned.  There are some good people who feel that it is beneath their dignity to engage in the criticism of the belief of others, and the society in which we live has done much to foster this belief, “Live and let live” is the motto of our civilization; don’t buck the tide of uncritical tolerance or, as the saying goes, “bend with the wind or be broken”.  In addition to this type of reasoning there also has been promulgated a distinctly noncontroversial spirit mirrored in the fact that leading newspapers and periodicals, not to mention the mass media of communication, radio and Television, refuse to carry advertisements for debates on religious issues for fear of being thought un-American, Since it is now fashionable to equate criticism of another religion with an Un-American spirit.”

Today’s “Politically correct” atmosphere of tolerance as the highest virtue takes to new heights the trends that began to develop decades ago.  There was a time when “tolerance” meant a respect for others, a willingness to listen to what they had to say, and a commitment to a careful evaluation of other beliefs.  So how can we be told that we shouldn’t tolerate homophobia and if we do we won’t be tolerated.  To make matters worse as we progress tolerance seems to be read as affirmation because one is tolerant of another’s behavior.  It doesn’t make that individual a supporter of the other’s behavior.  Honest disagreement was applauded as a sure sign that two parties were seriously engaged in a discussion about objective truth.  People could agree to disagree agreeably.  However, today “tolerance” seems to mean that one must hold to no absolutes, no truths, and no convictions; instead, we are to accept the validity and authority of any and all statements without regard to reason, evidence, or truth because of fear of discrimination of an individual that has an opinion that is not of the same judgment as the others.  How can you ban Christmas carols but you can’t ban violent films?  Christmas carols are banned on the pretext that they may offend some people.  Violent films certainly offend more people.  Where is the line drawn and by whom?  What is even more amazing to me is that any one who holds the opinion that some are right while others are wrong is considered wrong – a clear case of self-contradiction, which reduces all rational thought to irrationality.  Without sounding to evangelical I would like to quote the Bible as a source of information, sometimes people see those that quote from the Bible as “fundamental extremists”, but I see it as a literary insight into what God thinks.

2 Timothy 2: 24-26

“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will”

Whether you are teaching or preaching remember to listen to people’s questions and treat them respectfully, at the same time not getting embroiled in foolish debates.  If you do this, and the person or persons that you are doing this with are rational, they will by willing to hear what you have to say.  Because the realization is that their convictions are not of their own but the realization to the truth is.

I really didn’t want to spend a lot of time on this issue, but I feel compelled to argue the issue of the so called “tolerance”, or lack thereof on the part of the aggressive secularists that jump at any chance to wave the stop sign in the air at any issue involving God.  Why have honor, self-reliance, duty, and responsibility been replaced by self-pitying, welfare-minded, whining, litigating victims.  Quick on the law and slow on the law-abiding always wallowing in excuses.  The fact that over 80% of Americans claim to be Christians or believe in God, indicates that many people in the 80% are not offended by the act of prayer or the reminder of God’s Love and His Laws.  The other remaining percentage is obviously made up of people that don’t care and people that are against the 80%.  For the sake of argument we will use the figure of 15% that are against and 5% that don’t care or are “undecided”, since the Ten Commandments states that you shall have no other gods before me we will take the whole 20% disagrees to the 80%.  The fact that the few rule the many as in this case is remarkable.  Why the 80%, obviously the majority in public opinion on the matter, must cave to the 20% that are so offended and take every avenue until exhausted to remove all that is designated as a reminder that there are people with a belief in God and forces the Supreme Court of the United States to hear and avow this “Separation of Church and State” rule is beyond reason to me.

A Church has nothing to do with a building (see the book of Acts); the church is the make up of believers and is the body of people that are of a religious persuasion (Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.).  There also has not been any law promoting a mandatory high church.  So which church is the state separate from?  If it were the body of people then the separation should be between state and people, the separation of “people and state”.  However the state is “the people” as we have seen in the U S Constitution.  Therefore, what the 20% are saying is that they want the “Separation of People and People”, well they have succeeded to a degree: 80%(that believe) to 20% (that don’t).  If the secular world is going to base their argument on a fallacy, they should make sure that it’s not the wrong fallacy and if there is one distinguishing feature about secular extremists, it’s certainly not clear thinking.  They spend their lives spinning from falsehood to falsehood, while being hostile to almost everything, particularly the facts.

Therefore, who is discriminatory; the people that believe in God or the secular world? 

It seems as though the secular are the separatist discriminators that are hiding behind a “Separation of people and people” clause.  The fact that people – ordinary citizens want laws that dictate a civilized social and judicial structure should be the normal act of a civil form of government.  I believe that this is what the early founders meant, that no matter which sect of religion; Catholic, Baptist, Episcopal, Methodist, Quaker, etc., (see the phonebook for the nearest church to you) that in order for our civilization as a new country and form of government to work the foundation must be on a code of laws that depicts the protection of all and the posterity of a nation, hence, the Ten Commandments.

I am sorry that there are people that feel guilty just by the reminder that, although there are only 3 three commandments that our judicial system deems prosecutable, but the other 7 seven are what really strike at the heart of conviction.  Honor is what these 7 seven shout aloud.

Where there are not these ten, there is no civilization and definitely no freedom, like most countries in the middle of Africa and South America.  Also remember that there is a judgment prophesied in the Bible where every one must make a defense for their lives in front of the Almighty, and just because the 7 seven are not seen as truly important by man’s standards, God still sees each and every one as important as the other.  Thus, adultery is as murder in the eyes of God.  In both a person has killed a relationship, either with God’s plan or man/woman, each removes a person from society.  Murder just as adultery a social circle is removed, the adulterer must create a new social circle while the other social life is left for dead.

Do you see how it works?  We are always warned not to mix religion with politics, however you can’t have one without the other.  God gives us the leaders that we deserve to serve his plan and purpose (Romans 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.).  Also see the book of Daniel chapter 2: 20-22.

Even though God allows us to choose, God is the standard of justice.  The Secular- Skin for skin all that a man has he will give for his life.

Just the fact that there are Christians around make some people uncomfortable in their own guilt and the absence thereof does not mean that you’re doing right.  The people that generally argue the Bible don’t understand the chronology of the Bible and what came first; Pawning the Bible off as a fairy tale book; instead, of a detailed history of a civilization that is a book of books written over a period spanning 1500 years by numerous authors in many different regions, some having no idea of each other.  Like it or not, the historical can chronological history of the “Holy Bible” has never been found unreliable or wanting.  Ask your local Christian church minister.  It’s Okay.  He won’t bite, and he’ll probably give you an answer worth thinking about.  It’s part of that tolerance thing.

Public opinion, as you can see can be influenced for or against Federal government regulations.  The average American will swallow any line thrown by anybody, so long as at the end of it they believe that there is money in it for them, plus safety.  A recent example of public opinion driving the government was seen rampantly during the former president Clinton’s presidency (I never get tired of saying those words  “former president Clinton”).  Nothing, it seemed, was done or started without a focus group or a public opinion poll first done on the matter.  From the economy to military actions the decisions made by the Clinton Administration were influenced by public opinion polls as they waited for the results to pour in to finalize a position for their decision.  This was not leadership, but a French influenced, “don’t want to upset the people” cowardly position form of government directed by the administration; even though, public opinion drove the decision; influence was strong armed by the Clinton Administration.  Both the media and opportunistic photo opportunities propelled the biased and uneducated polls without looking at the consequences to be considered for the posterity of America.  These were the dangers that our founding fathers wrote about over 200 years ago.

Madison, Hamilton, Jay, et al had defined the rule of law and the dangers of those that are like wolves in sheep’s clothing, calling out to protect the public from the dangers, but have special interests at devouring the lambs under false protection.  In doing their best to rely on instinct, that the best and most honorable of men would be selected to rule and govern and protect the constituents of their state and the United States, How they would feel if they were propelled into this day and age to see the misrepresentation and the scandalous environment that our political leaders have become.

Some as a way to describe the U S Constitution as outdated and old has used this argument.  On the contrary, what brilliance and knowledge that those men had to develop a document that is for all ages: able to rise above the faults of men and to enable correctness and stability to be a forefront, regardless of public opinion and a scandalous government.  The United States Constitution is not a “living document” as some have offered, but a law that is foremost in the foundation of the United States.  A document that has the care of the people at heart, yet also is the reigns of the government to balance the majority of the people. 

It would be uncontrollable to have our Constitution violated and put on trial by a public opinion or a federal government that has selfish motives.

The federal government, for all of its pomp and circumstance, is not expected, because of the constitution, to be the provider for its people or to over tax its people.  Over the past 5 five years there has been a change in the public opinion as to this matter.  Starting with President Franklin Delenore Roosevelt and his “New Deal” a landslide ensued.

Although, a noble idea the “New Deal” provided the opening for what is now our Welfare system.  During the great depression there was an outcry by the people for help from the depressed state of the economy.  The federal government mad a deal with the devil.

The “New Deal” was an unprecedented federal scheme enacted to stimulate the United States recovery and to guarantee minimum living standards (welfare).  In 1935 the social security act was passed which produced an aid to the poor and out of work that was followed by great deficit spending in 1937 to 1938 in order to support the act.   Much of the “New Deal” was ruled unconstitutional, but a great democratic base was born from this act.  Those that lived off the government crumbs were content to keep receiving government help spawned by the democratic political machine.  The great burden that has evolved over the past 70 seventy years has become a way of life for many Americans, although these people have their own opinions: to allow them to be participating in political affairs is a great conflict of interest.

On the one hand you have American Citizens that are receiving a dowry from the ones that they are to vote for, and on the other, unlike slavery the welfare recipients are not asked to work, working would be to their disadvantage and many times during an election year these poor souls are told that their welfare will be stripped from them if they don’t vote for a democrat.  Yet, anytime that there is an election they are permitted to participate.  Now, who do you think that they will vote for and which party?  How much more of an incentive would one need to vote?  In this case a balance between public opinion and the federal government has been tilted in favor of the federal government.  Many of the reporting that has been done on welfare recipients is on how they will be affected by the government policies and plans, not the tragic and misfortunate life that is led while being on the government dole.  The poverty that should bother this country most is the poverty of values.  Humanity and everything that makes up humanity hasn’t changed much in the last forty -  (40) years.  People are just as envious, just as violent, just as lascivious.  Young people are just as rebellious, just as genetically driven.  So human nature didn’t change, but humanity did because society did.  Society changed all its stop signs to yield signs.  Once upon a time it was a culture of restraint.  Now it’s a culture of indulgence.  Personal responsibility watered down.  The blame factor introduced.  The re-introduction of shame is what’s needed.  It’s what too many people these days lack.  How can you feel shameful about your despicable behavior if you’re told it’s not your fault? 

In the same way the media has a way of its own at forming a public opinion.  It is called a poll.  A sample of people – generally 1000 people is asked questions and the percentage is broken down, even though the breakdown can be manipulated to say whatever the point is that the pollsters want them to say.  The media or press is as much a part of the political foundation as the people or the federal government.  We as a citizenship do not vote for the press, but we can stop purchasing the media.  Whichever the medium, be it, television, newsprint, periodicals, or the newly formed Internet has greatly encouraged forms of opinions to the like the world has never seen.  The ability for urban legends and folk stories to be printed, as fact has never been so rampant, with the blatant disregard for tact and lack of reference to write a story is forming more false public opinion than ever before.  It truly is amazing that people who believe they’re intelligent repeat things that they wouldn’t even have been stupid enough to think of in the first place.  With the ability for media to induce a panic in the population over something as simple as the weather it is no wonder that the media can plan a schema or ruse that is slanted towards one side or the other.

Consequently, as you can see public opinion though not in itself political can be used for great power and political gain, especially if presumed to be in the majority.  Through propaganda and a timely push Hitler saw how this power, above all, could be used through the fault of man.  If only we could find the man who cried back in the 1960’s, “Power to the people” he forgot to tell us that if we got the power, we lost the freedom.  We need a strong man/woman now to cry loudly and clearly, “Freedom to the people”!

Thank Me:)