Available at Amazon.com 
Movement Started by iOwnTheWorld
Contact EIWS
The Path Toward Destruction
Jan 27th, 2013 by TMH
By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings
Being an American requires considerably more than a piece of paper saying you were born here; it means you understand and accept the responsibilities placed upon you and the moral obligation to maintain your liberties. To know where you’re going you have to know where you came from.
Zig Ziglar used to tell a story about his brother, a brother who’d been struggling to be successful. His brother said, “This year’s going to be the best year ever,” where upon Zig asked him, “So how much did you do last year?” There was a long silence before his brother stuttered out, “…well, I’m going to have the best year ever,” without as much enthusiasm; he didn’t actually know how well he’d done the year before.
Zig suggested his brother keep a record of all he did, write down everything; how many people he talked to, how many liked his presentation, how many purchased, how many came back again; in other words, keep good records, so you’ll know what you’ve done in order to improve.
The same holds true for being an American; except the records on our history have been kept already; where we came from, what we believed in back in the beginning, why we chose to separate, how our founding documents were formed and placed into action, defending our nation and everything up until yesterday’s headlines are all written down. It’s our responsibility to learn why being an American is important; our core values and why they are not up for compromise.
Part of our history isn’t taught, at least not in our public schools as it’s tied so closely to our religious beliefs. That wall called separation of church and state, a deception intended to bring down a righteous nation, permits only the teaching of dates and names while leaving out the core beliefs of those involved because those core beliefs involve a solemn dedication to our Savior, Jesus Christ’s teachings.
At one time a goodly portion of our populous considered our nation as having been founded on Christian principles. If you happen to fall toward the secular side then substitute man’s ability to discern good from evil and disregard how such discernment is a gift from a loving Heavenly Father unto all His children.
There are many who believe our founding documents were divinely inspired, that our Creator sought to have his children live in a country prepared for them wherein they might enjoy their individual agency to the fullest extent, that ability to choose for themselves which was not available under any other government. The agency of man which has been fought for all the way back to the War in Heaven and which is under continual attack from those who follow the Great Deceiver, even Satan himself.
“The adversary,” said Brigham Young, “presents his principles and arguments in the most approved style, and in the most winning tone, attended with the most graceful attitudes; and he is very careful to ingratiate himself into the favour of the powerful and influential of mankind, uniting himself with popular parties, floating into offices of trust and emolument by pandering to popular feeling, though it should seriously wrong and oppress the innocent. Such characters put on the manners of an angel, appearing as nigh like angels of light as they possibly can, to deceive the innocent and the unwary. The good which they do, they do it to bring to pass an evil purpose upon the good and honest followers of Jesus Christ.” (JD 11, 238-239.) Ezra Taft Benson in his talk, Be Not Deceived.
Deceptions only work if we permit ourselves to be led down the garden path with our eyes and hearts closed to righteousness… and yet, so many are easily deceived through their desire to cruise through mortality in the lap of luxury, never having to face the struggles which will improve their metal and refine them.
Take for example recent attempts to marginalize the 2nd Amendment, an individual’s God given right to own and bear arms in defense of property and/or life from anyone who would place that property and/or life in jeopardy, to include his/her own government.
Senator Feinstein recently submitted a bill that would seriously limit the ability of individuals to own and purchase certain types of weapons which have arbitrarily been designated “assault weapons.” The claim, which is without merit, is that by limiting the ability to own and purchase dangerous looking weapons, those which look similar to weapons used by the military and yet do not function in the same manner, that such a mandate would lead to the safety and well being of our nation. (a well known talk show host would at this time blurt out, “Barbara Streisand!”; perhaps the initials BS are involved)
If you looked for a definitive answer to, “What is an Assault Weapon,” it might take quite some time to find one; you see, the term is made up in order to facilitate political agendas. Quoting from that article:
“As flawed as the AWB definition of assault weapons may be, the wording has found its way into many state codes, including that of Connecticut, site of the December Newtown school shootings. “The AR-15 that [shooter] Adam Lanza used was a legal weapon under Connecticut law,” wrote Sweeney.”
(It should be noted with great interest, reports Lanza used an AR-15 were incorrect. The left leaning new media, either by neglect or willful intent reported this as if it were true except that Lanza didn’t use an AR-15 as reported; he used a variety of pistols to murder his victims.)
Using this tragedy to advance their agenda, to remove firearms from the average citizen, politicians on the left immediately called for a ban on anything “scary looking” that could be called an Assault Weapon or Semi-Automatic.
“Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.” Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record for 1/24/2013 page S291.
On face value it appears Senator Feinstein is concerned for the children; again, Barbara Streisand! She is correct to some extent; this is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. Our founding fathers built in provisions to protect the agency of man, the ability to choose how to defend their property and/or lives and took great effort in limiting the government from infringing on that God given right. Our founders saw the day when corrupt individuals would assume powerful positions in government and attempt to usurp powers reserved for individuals; the term is tyranny.
In an article published January 27, 2013 on the Fox News website, President Obama expressed his displeasure with those who refuse to violate the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment by not going along with his draconian attempts to curtail an individual’s ability to purchase and own certain types of personal weaponry.
“The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.”
Well isn’t that special, the president would have us believe the 2nd Amendment is all about sportsmen and hunting Bambi; what a Crock! (pardon my reference to a rather crude and demeaning term involving excrement)
“The president argued that “the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word” and that party leaders, including Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are “willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”’
That about sums it up if you’re paying attention; those in favor of scrapping our constitutional republic in favor of a more Utopian totalitarian form of government are more than willing to toss out our God given rights and hand powers over to the government. This is tyranny under the guise of protectionism; it’s all about saving the children. (Barbara Streisand in bold block letters.)
Getting back to Ezra Taft Benson’s talk, Be Not Deceived; he quoted yet another leader in the Church, Elder Marion G. Romney (hummmm… take a guess…), “…Free agency is the principle against which Satan waged his war in heaven. It is still the front on which he makes his most furious, devious, and persistent attacks. That this would be the case was foreshadowed by the Lord…”
Free agency must be of great importance to mankind; why else has it been at the forefront of our conflicts throughout history?
‘“You see, at the time he was cast out of heaven, his objective was (and still is) to deceive and to blind men and to lead them captive at his will.’ This he effectively does to as many as will not hearken unto the voice of God. His main attack is still on free agency. When he can get men to yield their agency, he has them well on the way to captivity.”
Obama has already expressed a desire to “get around” Congress, a Congress that’s too slow to get behind his transformation of America via the use of Executive Orders. Isn’t that the same as saying he has no desire to follow his oath of office, to support the constitution, the divinely inspired form of government which We The People have as our protection against corruption at the highest levels?
Those we call progressives or the liberal left, which would include most Democrats and quite a few Republicans, have thrown in with the Great Deceiver to eliminate one of our most sacred gifts from on high, our free agency. They do this a little here, a little there so as not to alarm us to the point of action. Their strategy has worked very well and continues to erode our liberties. We are being led down the garden path, all in the name of our safety and security, toward the destruction of a nation founded with God’s own blessing.
This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”
NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...
Please help keep NoisyRoom on the web by donating today.
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another and held views such as you note regarding religion. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.
Lest there be any doubt on this score, note that shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.