Saturday, April 30, 2011


Saint Paul wrote:

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good”.
(Romans, 12:21)

And “Too Young In Las Vegas” did what Saint Paul
said to do:

October 6, 1999

I am 18 years old, married and seven months pregnant with our first child.

Recently, my husband and I got into a fight about my 3-year-old son. He was the result of a rape. I put him up for adoption, and I keep in contact with his parents through the agency.

The first Christmas after my son's birth, his parents sent me a locket and a picture to put in it. Since then, I have never taken this locket off, because it is the only thing I have with his picture that I can keep close to my heart.

My husband thinks I shouldn't wear the locket because he feels that when our daughter gets older, she may resent my wearing it. He also thinks I will be unable to love our child as much as I love my son. I fear that I may fail to be a good mother to our daughter because I couldn't be to my son.

I also worry about the future. How will my daughter react when she learns I gave her half-brother up for adoption three years before she was born?

Abby, how can I make my husband understand about the locket? Also, how can I overcome my fears?

It was my Mother who came across that letter to Dear Abby printed in the newspaper in 1999 and who showed it to me. I was so immediately captivated by it that I clipped it out of the paper and have saved it to this day. I can’t imagine a better example of someone following Saint Paul’s exhortation to “overcome evil with good”. Reading this again now, in April of 2011, my eyes well up a little bit with tears.

Over the years I have often thought of ‘Too Young In Las Vegas’ and her situation and I am no less enamored of her today than I was twelve years ago. Had I been a younger man and if she was not already married, I would have been willing to marry that woman sight unseen. What a lovely, Godly heart she possesses! I can only hope most sincerely that her husband eventually came to realize what a beautiful and rare female gem he had found and I also hope that she has experienced lasting peace and happiness!

I still love “Too Young In Las Vegas” – whoever she is - as much as I have ever loved anyone in my life, never mind the fact that I never met her and don’t even know her name.

Although I have never been Catholic, over the years I have donated a fair amount of money to the Catholic Pro-Life organization AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE (A.L.L.). And years ago I purchased from them the t-shirt pictured above, with the words “Former Embryo” emblazoned across the front of it.

The shirt is old and grungy now, so it has been relegated to sleeping or working out in, but back when I still wore it in public, I always got more comments about that shirt than any other I owned. Invariably, people would laugh out loud and many people over the years would remark to me how much they liked it.

I very often got the sense, however, that a majority of the people who commented on the t-shirt or laughed about it, did not actually realize it was expressing an Anti-Abortion/Pro-Life message. I figured there were plenty of times when recollecting those words “Former Embryo” sometime later, a good number of those people who had been amused by it suddenly had that proverbial “light bulb” go on above their heads and then thought: Hey, wait a minute! I’ll bet that guy was making an anti-abortion statement!

You got it, Bucko!


Abortion is murder. I have known this unequivocally from the day I was old enough to understand what the word “abortion” meant. Here’s the simple truth of it made plain: When conception takes place - barring any unfortunate biological/medical complications – the end result will be the birth of a new human being provided that you do one thing and one thing only: . . . leave it alone!

If an adult human being does not interfere with the development of the embryo from the initial point of conception, a human baby will enter the world. At no point is that embryo anything less than a human being in its earliest stages. There are many stages of a human being’s life, from infant, to young child, to adolescent, to young adult, to adult, to geriatric (or “generics” as my Pa sometimes referred to them). But tracking back from infant to the earliest point of this development, you have a human zygote that proceeds through various embryonic stages leading to the time of birth. At the moment of conception, just one strand of DNA contains as much information as 33 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Just don’t mess with the natural order of things and the human zygote will develop into a human baby. All that is necessary for this to happen is already present.

Proponents of abortion often resort to the specious “viability” argument to justify the taking of this most defenseless person’s life prior to its separation from its mother (or at least until its final stages of development within the womb). They claim that until the person has achieved viability – that is the capability to live on its own apart from its mother’s body – it more closely resembles a parasite than a person. This is bullshit.

Really? It is more “viable” once it has separated from its mother? Take a newborn, place it in a corner and pay no more attention to it for a few days and see just how “viable” it is! In fact, to be literal, a better argument could be made that the infant is actually more viable in its mother’s womb, because there it doesn’t require all the tending to keep it alive that it does from the moment it has separated from its mother’s body.

It boggles my mind how people can rationalize killing an embryo and deceive themselves into believing that it is anything less than “murder”. For an embryo is nothing less than a human being “happening” and working its way toward the almost certain goal of independence.


There is probably nothing I hate more than abortion. I’ve never been married, never had children – never even wanted to have children – and yet there is little that I find as repulsive as abortion and nothing that I despise more. Evidently I came into this life with this visceral hatred of the form of murder that we call abortion. But this disgust I feel toward abortion does not remain solely in the realm of my gut, for it is an intellectually understood hatred as well; I feel it instinctively, but I can also express it logically, rationally.

I haven’t always agreed with Ann Coulter, although usually I do. I also find her to be delightfully, humorously offensive. Yes, she’s gone too far on a couple of occasions, but anyone who can write chainsaw politics and simultaneously make me laugh is certainly a personality I will treasure.

Oddly, however, probably the one opinion that Ann Coulter has expressed that I concur with with most of all and which, for me, is the most memorable of the most memorable Coulter quotes ever, is what she said to a Time magazine interviewer pertaining to partial-birth abortion, which contained not a trace of her trademark humor and which was published in the April 25, 2005 edition:

They're terrible people, liberals... This can really summarize it all - these are people who believe you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and PRONOUNCE THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS JUST BEEN EXERCISED. That really says it all. You don't want such people to like you!
~ Ann Coulter

Boy Howdy! I couldn’t have said it any better! She expressed my own position as well as I myself could have. I agree completely! If you are not willing to publicly denounce abortion – and not just partial-birth abortion (although that’s the most revolting form of all) but every form of abortion, then I really, seriously, DO NOT want YOUR friendship. I have no desire to form a friendship with anyone who is Pro-Choice. That’s how strongly I feel about this subject!

Oh, you might be a Pro-Choice “acquaintance” of mine, and if the crew from work is going to gather for dinner at a local restaurant after hours, I’m not going to refuse to go simply because you will be there. But if you asked me afterwards if I wanted to accompany you to the nearby movie theatre to see ‘Tippy The Wonder Dog’ - the new comedy movie everybody’s been raving about - my answer is going to be “No, thank you”. And don’t ask me “Why not?” unless you really want to hear my answer.

Babe, you could look like Gene Tierney in a black leather skirt cut up to *here!* but if I know you’re Pro-Choice, I won’t even momentarily consider trying to put a move on you. Well, truth is, I don’t date at all anymore, but if my attitude toward dating should suddenly change, I can assure you I would determine a woman’s position on the abortion issue before I would even entertain the idea of asking her out. No point in wasting my time or hers.

At different times I was once considering regularly attending the Sunday services of two non-mainstream Christian churces. So I approached each minister of these churches privately and inquired about whether or not the church takes an official, public stance against abortion. Neither of them did. One minister told me that while they “hope that people will make the correct decision in regard to this problem, the church does not have an official position on it.”

Wow! Two churches, both using the word “Christian” in their names, unwilling to publicly proclaim that abortion is wrong. The real question might be: “What has gone wrong with Christianity?” Needless to say, that was the last time I ever attended services at either of those two “Christian” churches.

Yes, when it comes to the question of murder (aka “abortion”), it is an entirely black and white issue for me. It’s the very first thing I want to know about any candidate in any political election. “Are you Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion?” That’s the first test that every political candidate must pass before I even begin to examine their views on other issues such as economics, regard for Constitutional restraints on government, immigration policies, et al. If the candidate can’t pass my Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion test, then I ask no more questions and move on, looking for another candidate to cast my vote for.

In 1990, I began writing my one and only (unproduced) screenplay titled ‘Billy & Billie’. The story began as an interracial urban romance between White Billy and Black Billie – two young people trying to survive in the mean streets of Los Angeles.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the romance. Because of my strong anti-abortion feelings, the story kind of wrenched itself away from my premeditated direction and took on a life of its own. Relying on my subconscious Pro-Life affinity, the screenplay just sort of naturally developed into an anti-abortion statement. This was not my intent in the beginning; I thought it was just an interracial romance, but it seems an interracial romance just wasn’t controversial enough for me and I somewhat absentmindedly guided the story into an even greater hot-button topic: abortion. Abortion - I hate it, I dislike people who support it, and I needed to write something about that.

I suppose just in writing an interracial romance I was stacking the deck against this movie being made, but when it became a Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion statement, I had pretty much slammed the door on any possibility that my screenplay would ever be purchased. Can you imagine shopping an Anti-Abortion movie in Hollywood?! Oh yeah, good luck with THAT! Nevertheless, I’m still pleased that I wrote the screenplay, and although it could use a rewrite and some minor adjustments, I still feel that it’s a pretty good bit of writing.


What do you suppose my opinion is? Is it that we should declare all abortion murder and we should arrest and charge with murder anyone who performs an abortion? Isn’t that exactly what you’d expect me to say, based upon what I wrote above?

Well, not so fast. You see, as much as I detest abortion, as much as I’m convinced it’s never anything less than murder, I’m also intellectually honest enough to admit that there are some extenuating circumstances that make abortion not quite the easily remedied problem that I wish it were.

First of all, I want you to know that I am consistent in my world-view when it comes to life and murder. I surely do not condone the killing of abortionists. Murder is murder. And I’m not one of those persons who feels that killing the unborn is wrong but putting to death a convicted murderer is right. I not only oppose abortion, but I oppose capital punishment, too!

Anyone who knows me knows that I am generally for the smallest government possible; for the most part, I want government to protect us from foreign invasion and to facilitate international trade and (Constitutionally-valid) treaties and otherwise to basically just leave us the hell alone! Like Henry David Thoreau, “I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’.” Which is not to say I believe in anarchy – I do not believe that government is best which governs not at all. But generally, the less government you have the more liberty you possess, and I want government kept at the bare minimum necessary, particularly at the national level.

I hate unnecessary and/or Constitutionally-illegal taxation. And there is nothing about my country – NOTHING! – that pisses me off more than having my tax dollars supporting abortion! And if you don’t believe that’s the case, you need to bone up on the subject of Title X of the Public Health Service Act.

One of only a handful of uses for my tax dollars that I would never object to is for the housing, clothing, and feeding of prison inmates. I am willing to be taxed to keep alive until natural death occurs even those convicted prisoners whose crimes were so heinous that they are actually deserving of a death sentence. I don’t deny that there are some criminals for whom death would represent justice, but there have been too many instances of convicted criminals being found later to have actually been innocent, and if you believe that no one currently on Death Row or serving a lifetime prison sentence is in fact innocent, you are incorrect. The number may be quite small, but mistakenly putting to death an innocent man is something we ought not unnecessarily risk.

Furthermore, putting a man to death prematurely ends any chance he had of accepting the Sacrifice of Jesus for the atonement of his sins before he meets his Maker. Some Christians believe that his acceptance of the Sacrifice – if sincere – would save him from an eternity in Hell. I am not a mainstream Christian, and thus I do not concur with that opinion, however, believing in reincarnation as I do, I think that a prisoner’s sincere acceptance of the free gift of Christ – the Atonement – would indeed initially have a positive effect on any future lifetime he might enter into.

Yes, I am willing to be taxed for the upkeep of prisoners if only to ensure that none are wrongly put to death for crimes they may be innocent of, and in order to give them every opportunity to come to Christ prior to natural death. I do not believe in the killing of human beings excepting extreme situations of genuine self-defense; you have a right to protect your own life and the lives of other innocent individuals.

But when it comes to the act of murder that we call abortion, unfortunately, there is a monkey wrench in the works. As black and white as I personally view it, I must admit that the question of pregnancy from rape is a question that must be addressed. Like most Pro-Lifers, I do not want to see ANY baby aborted for ANY reason. It is my most sincere wish that every woman who was raped and became pregnant as a result, had as big and beautiful a heart as does “Too Young In Las Vegas” and would bring the baby to term (and then give it up for adoption if necessary). But I know that precious few people have the heart of “Too Young In Las Vegas” – she is a rare and supremely loving human being, and there is no way any one of us could EXPECT that kind of reaction from people in general.

The question of pregnancy from rape (and to a lesser degree, pregnancy from incest) kept me contemplating the controversy about abortion for many years despite my strong anti-abortion outlook. I knew that there was some grey area, some serious questions that needed to be wrestled with, even though my personal belief will ALWAYS be that every act of abortion is an act of murder.

According to the excellent ‘Life Guide Series’ booklet “The Facts About Abortion; Volume 3” published by Judie Brown’s American Life League (A.L.L.) but now “sadly out of print due to lack of interest”, “only one half of one percent – or one in 200 cases – of women who are raped become pregnant as a result”. So what we are talking about is an issue that arises only 0.50% of the time. But even so, it does occur and thus it must be factored into the way we remedy the abortion problem. I do not at all feel that I am in a position to demand that a woman who has been raped and become pregnant as a result, bring the child to term. I certainly hope she would, but how can I demand that she find within herself a heart as big as “Too Young’s”? I simply can’t. I have no right to demand that a person who has suffered rape through no fault of her own must endure future suffering because of the initial horrible crime that was perpetrated against her.

And then there is the question of pregnancy from incest. This too is a very rare occurrence. According to that same A.L.L. booklet, “the probability of pregnancy due to incest (per girl, not per case of intercourse) is 16 out of 2,500 cases – 1 out of 156 (0.64%)”. Some studies “have shown serious birth defects in up to one fourth of all children who were conceived through bloodline incest”.

I don’t have quite the same sympathy for the person involved in an incestuous relationship that I do for the woman who has been raped, and I personally do not believe that birth defects constitutes a valid reason for abortion (i.e., You should be able to legally murder a handicapped individual who is handicapped through no fault of their own? I think NOT!) Nevertheless, I do have some degree of sympathy for an emotionally and intellectually undeveloped young girl who has been taken advantage of by an older male in her family, and I do concede that some people have a far less rigid outlook than I do when it comes to such an unfortunate situation. Still, approximately 75% of the babies born from an incestuous relationship will be healthy and could be put up for adoption.

It literally took me years of contemplating all of these facets of the abortion problem before I was able to formulate the plan that I would ideally like to see the United States of America adopt; a plan that I felt was fair to all in all situations.

Here is what I came up with after much mental wrestling:

#1: At the National level, abortion MUST be declared “Illegal at all times” in the United States. This is important for two reasons: 1) to reestablish in our own eyes and in the eyes of the rest of the world a moral sense and a respect for life that this country cast away long ago, and 2) to ensure that no American citizen will ever again have tax dollars extracted from him or her and spent in the support of an act (abortion) that he or she considers to be nothing less than murder. Only by proclaiming abortion “Illegal at all times” can we be certain that the Federal government will never again be able to fund this form of murder and financially support clinics that perform abortions from the wallets and purses of objecting citizens.

As a result of this, while some clinics that perform abortions might still be operating, they will have to operate solely on the money collected from customers, individual donors, or non-governmental organizations. No funding will come from any government agency at any level.

#2: Any clinics that perform abortions will be required to maintain files indicating that the women who purchased abortions (or who had an abortion paid for by someone else on their behalf) signed an affidavit stating that she is pregnant as a result of a rape that has been previously reported to law enforcement authorities. (We might even be able to set up a program where the clinic can confirm beforehand that a rape has been reported to the authorities. Something along the lines of the E-Verify employment program.)

Any clinic that performs an abortion on a woman who has not reported a rape to the authorities would be brought up on charges, just as a woman who lied about a rape in order to obtain an abortion would be.

So, in a sense, we would have a law on the books that was sort of a combination of Teeth and Gums. All abortions would be considered illegal – an act of homicide – but under certain circumstances, the act would be classified as something else (“Justifiable Homicide” or some newly invented classification?) and the law would “look the other way”.

As for the question of pregnancy from incest, personally, I would prefer that these abortions too were a chargeable offense, but I am able to consider other viewpoints. Obviously, there are a lot of details that would need to be worked out in my proposed solution, but I believe that this basic approach would be fair to all concerned.


“No other country in the industrialized West imposes so few restrictions on abortion” as does the United States of America.

The Centers for Disease Control attributed 39 women’s deaths in 1972 to illegal abortions – but also attributed 24 women’s deaths that year to legal abortions. (So much for this argument that we must have legalized abortion in order to save us from some back alley abortion holocaust.)

“Roughly half the public thinks abortion is murder.”

“There is a reason that pro-choicers have invested so heavily in keeping this issue in the courtroom. Outside it, they can only lose ground.”

The real name of Jane Roe of “Roe V. Wade” fame is Norma McCorvey. Did you know that Norma McCorvey has since become a strong Anti-Abortion/Pro-Life advocate who now regrets her part in the Roe V. Wade decision and is attempting to have that court ruling reversed?

You’ll never believe what first got McCorvey reconsidering her Pro-Choice position. She was working at an abortion clinic in Dallas in 1995, when she stepped outside to smoke a cigarette and spoke to Flip Benham, of Operation Rescue, who was outside protesting against abortion. McCorvey writes:

I goaded Flip. “What you need is to go to a good Beach Boys concert”. Flip answered, “Miss Norma, I haven’t been to a Beach Boys concert since 1976”. The seemingly innocuous response shook me to the core.

To learn why the mention of a Beach Boys concert was the starting point in changing Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life, you should read the outstanding book “THE PARTY OF DEATH: The Democrats, The Media, The Courts, And The Disregard For Human Life” by Ramesh Ponnuru. It’s one of the best works pertaining to abortion that I have ever read.

A November 2004 poll found that 55% of the public thought abortion should either be illegal altogether or illegal with only rape, incest, and for saving-the-life-of-the-mother exceptions. 31% thought it should be legal for any reason but only during the first trimester. Only 9% felt that abortion should be legal for any reason at any time. So, why has the federal government agreed to enforce a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a social issue that only 9% of the population concurs with?

As for that saving-the-life-of-the-mother exception goes, in the ‘Life Guide Series’ booklet “The Facts About Abortion” Doctor John F. Brennan states:

I have delivered babies for over 50 years. I have never encountered a pregnancy where an abortion would have “saved the life of the mother”.

Therefore, if there really is any validity to this “saving the mother” argument at all (which is highly questionable based on Doctor Brennan’s statement), it is so minuscule as to be hardly worth considering. It must certainly be an occurrence even more rare than pregnancies due to either rape or incest.

The 24th chapter of Matthew in The Holy Bible gives an account of the things Jesus Christ said we should watch for as indications that the End-Times are coming upon us:

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."

I don’t believe I could imagine any better example of the love of many growing cold than when you have a large number of would-be mothers murdering their own children in their wombs and doing so LEGALLY, as a supposed Constitutional right! Really, could there possibly be any more dramatic example of “love growing cold”?

~ Stephen T. McCarthy


American Life League (A.L.L.)

To Let Be, Or Not To Let Be: That Is The Question

A.L.L. Anti-Abortion Clothing

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Friday, April 29, 2011



According to World Net Daily, Tim Adams, who was senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu during the 2008 campaign claimed that his superiors at the elections office in Honolulu checked with the state health department and local hospitals, only to find out that none had Obama's long-form birth certificate, a document specifying the hospital where he was born and the attending physician.

And then, of course, newly elected Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie promised to put an end to all this silly “Birther” talk about Obama’s birth certificate by getting it and showing it.

Interestingly, like Tim Adams, he also appeared to be unable to locate the long-form birth certificate.

World Net Daily said:
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview … that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president's chances of re-election in 2012.

But now, suddenly, inexplicably, USAP’s birth certificate is nonchalantly produced and shown to the American public. So, where was it? Supposedly it was found right where it should have been: sequentially bound in a document book in the possession of the Hawaii Department of Health.

So… why then was Tim Adams and Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie unable to locate the damned thing? Are we expected to assume that they just weren’t smart enough to look in the place where it SHOULD have been located?

Only one word can explain this: BULLSHIT!

David A. Sinclair, the doctor who supposedly delivered Barack “USAP” Obama at the Hawaiian hospital in 1961, died on August 20, 2003, at the age of 81.

Also according to World Net Daily, the widow of Dr. Sinclair works on a state task force that advises the agency that released the document, Hawaii's Department of Health. Yup. Ivalee Mae Sinclair, 82, works for the state of Hawaii's legislature.

World Net Daily continues:
In January, she was elected chairman of the Special Education Task Force of the Department of Education, a panel she has been on since its founding by the state legislature in 2007.

According to its founding documents, the task force advises the legislature on issues of special education to be developed and implemented jointly by the Departments of Health and Education.

Like Obama's mother, Stanley Anne Dunham, Ivalee Sinclair was born in Kansas. She reportedly came to Hawaii in 1945 on the first ship to allow civilians after the war.

A profile on her in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin from May 2008 says she met her late husband in a pre-med class at the University of Hawaii. In 1947, the couple departed for the University of California-Berkeley then returned to Hawaii in 1960.

Berkeley, eh? Uh-huh. Hmmm...

Now surely I’m not the only person who sees red flags popping up all over the place when he reads that, am I? Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist or anything, and not that I'm accusing the good doctor's widow of entering into a conspiracy with Team Obama or anything, but... I'm just sayin'.

What am I just sayin'? I'm just sayin' . . . BULLSHIT!

World Net Daily says:
Why would two long-form birth certificates from Hawaii, filled out at the same hospital within 24 hours of each other be so different? Why would one form include information about birth weight and length of the infants and one would not? [Note: I have not been able to locate this discrepancy between the Nordyke & USAP birth certificates. ~STMcC]

No explanation was provided by Team Obama, and, of course, none was requested by the media watchdogs who were in a hurry to show they didn't miss the biggest political fraud of the 21st century.

Sadly, if what is represented on this new "birth certificate" is an accurate representation of Obama's actual birth, it does not prove he is eligible to be president, but just the opposite.

To get the full story, click the link below...

It's Settled! Obama's Ineligible

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011


Well, Hokey-Smoke and Git Along Little Dogies, Git Along! After about three years of controversy, Barack “USAP” Obama-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong has FINALLY released his (supposed) authentic long-form birth certificate (presumably) proving that he really was born in Hawaii.

Within hours of its release, there were many voices howling about a “layering effect” found on the file version of the certificate displayed on the White House website.

I’m not even going to discuss this “layering” because, although I understand what is being said about it, I am not at all sufficiently knowledgeable about computer effects and photoshopping and all that stuff(s) to offer an opinion on just how suspicious this “layering” effect may or may not be. (Are "they" really so dumb as to take years to forge a document and yet present an end result that would cause any average computer user to cry “fake!” immediately? Probably not . . . but then again, I know I ought never underestimate the stupidity of Liberals.)

If this “layering” business is really highly questionable, people far more knowledgeable about it than I am will be discussing it in great detail very soon.

However, I do question one thing right out of the chute:

According to the long-form birth certificate finally released by Barack “USAP” Obama, he was born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, and his certificate registration number is 151 – 61 – 10641. His birth was registered by the Hawaii registrar on August 8, 1961.

Susan Nordyke was born to Eleanor Nordyke at the same Hawaiian hospital the following day, August 5, 1961, and yet she was assigned birth certificate number 151 – 61 – 10637, which was registered by the Hawaii registrar on August 11, 1961.

Why is Susan’s number lower than USAP’s? Did they count backwards at Kapi’olani Hospital? Is USAP’s birth certificate a fake? Or are we to accept the other explanation offered in the story found HERE?

Sorry, but I ain’t satisfied. Now that it has been suddenly “found” and been brought out into the light of day, I want unbiased, qualified document "forensic" experts to examine USAP’s birth certificate, to hold it in their hands and then afterwards to give it a “clean bill of health” before I make the giant leap in accepting that everything about this is on the up and up.

Call me paranoid if you want, call me overly suspicious, but you see, historically there has been this massive disconnect between Marxists and the truth, so . . . yeah, you can color me skeptical. No, not “skeptical” but “Skeptical” – with a capital S. I ain’t prepared to assume that ANYTHING is "right" about USAP.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Sunday, April 24, 2011


Aww, gee, I can't even remember when I bought it, but I've had it for a lot of years now. I purchased it through the mail from some bloke I'd heard about from a Constitutionalist organization.

It's become old and raggedy, but I still wear it like a good Patriot should.

I wish I knew who I got it from because I would certainly get me another, as this one I own has become dog-tired and it's barking to be left on the front porch and replaced by a new pup.

Anyhow, no one ever expressed our current political circumstances as accurately or more ironically than did the maker of this T-shirt:


  * Void Where Prohibited by Law  

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
'Loyal American Underground'

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Monday, April 18, 2011


So, here I am - when I should be composing a blog bit about Abortion – just lyin’ about and sweating (it’s gettin’ hot here in Phoenix already, and I’m refusin’ to turn on the A/C unit this early in the year in order to save $) and I’m reminiscing. Thinkin’ about that video I recently posted here at ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ pertaining to my good ol’ friend TORCH and how he got The OC Weekly’s award for ‘2008 Father Of The Year’ for knocking unconscious some pedophile cop and uncovering some child porn ring or something.

And, of course, that gets me thinking about not just Torch but ALL of us in the ‘LEAGUE OF SOUL CRUSADERS’ – the whole drinking-buddy gang! (As I was telling my friend Toddfan Discman a couple of days ago, there’s a “romance” associated with our carefree past and our daze of free-flowin’ booze. And I don’t give a damn what Tom Waits says or how much he thinks he’s “matured”.)

But ya wanna know what got me started reminiscing? Doesn’t matter, ‘cause I’m a-bound to tell ya anyway:

Earlier today, I happened to mention Wally George to Brother Napoleon and I reminded him of Wally’s infamous saying, “You’re OUTTA HERE!” Next thing you know, Nappy and I were going through the house singing that old theme song: “Wally-Wally, WAL-LY!”

Shortly afterwards, damned Nappy went to YouTube to see if he could find any old Wally George clips (in the same way he happened to stumble upon that 2007 video interview with Torch a few weeks ago).

Sure enough, there’s a whole bunch of old Wally at YouTube, and I got hooked on watching them, jus’ like it was 1982 all over again!

So tonight, I started doing some YouTube searches and was AMAZED to find what’s available at that site! I’m always a day late and a brain cell short, which is why I’m only just now, in 2011, discovering this astounding stuffs that y’all have known about for like 15 years.

Anyway, back in 1982, the drinking gang I was in - the ‘League Of Soul Crusaders’ – we totally ruled the world. Er… well, we ruled Los Angele— we ruled the WEST side of Los Ang— In 1982, the ‘League Of Soul Crusaders’ ruled Santa Monica. That is to say, we ruled all of Santa Monica that was West of Seventeenth Stre-- Well, we ruled BAY STREET in Santa Monica, and I ain’t backin’ down from THAT!

At any time in 1982/'83, if you entered the house at 824 Bay Street in Santa Monica, California, and if we were home – which is to say, if we weren’t at Jolly Jack’s bar or terrorizing someone else’s neighborhood – it’s pretty much a sure bet that one of three things would have been on the always-turned-on television set.

We would have been drinking and watching either . . .

MTV . . .

. . . or Deputy Dog Dawg cartoons.

But if we weren’t watching either MTV or Deputy Dawg cartoons, then it’s easy money that we were watching "the father of Combat TV", Wally George, whose show struck us as being hysterically funny. Sure, it was sort of the political equivalent of an Andy Kaufman stunt, which is why we loved it. It was never a question of IF but a question of WHEN Wally George would shout at his liberal guest, “You’re OUTTA HERE!”

Ahh, man, good times gone by!

How did I get old? And where in hell did this grey hair come from? - damn it!

“Grey hair, you’re OUTTA HERE!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Saturday, April 16, 2011


[From the STMcC archive; written on April 28, 2005.]

Shortly after moving to Phoenix in 1995, I took a job in a health food store. I had not been there long when one day a gentleman approached and asked if we carried GRANULAR LECITHIN. I took him back to the refrigerated section, and in the course of conversation, he happened to mention being (as I recall) 80 years old. Well, I almost fell over! Never in my life had I met a person who looked so much younger than their age! Many people have told me that I look considerably younger than 45 (I always respond that I'm pickled from the years I spent LIQUIDATED on "Mad Dog" 20/20, Night Train, Thunderbird and other fine wines), but this guy was in a league by himself!

I called the assistant manager over and told her to guess his age. Like me, she nearly hit the floor upon learning that her estimate of 50 was 30 years shy of the truth. I wondered if it was genetic, but he said that neither his parents nor his siblings exhibited the same trait. He attributed it to LECITHIN, which was the only dietary supplement he had been using religiously for many, many years.

Not long after, I purchased Dick Quinn's book, 'LEFT FOR DEAD' which includes a chapter on Lecithin, and explains the 12-Day Flush. Lecithin is a type of water-soluble fat derived from eggs and soybeans. Experts say the choline in Lecithin liquifies cholesterol and dissolves deposits. Check the ingredients of ANY candy containing chocolate and you'll find Lecithin listed. Without Lecithin, the fat would separate from the cocoa, and coagulate. The Lecithin keeps it all in a smooth, liquified state. Supposedly it does the same thing in your bloodstream, preventing plaque buildup in the arteries which results in heart attacks and strokes. While the 12-Day Flush (3 heaping tablespoons of granular Lecithin taken once a day for 12 days) may have a mild laxative effect on some people, it is actually designed to clear clogged ARTERIES.

In 2002, my Mom suffered a small stroke. Afterwards, I remembered what I had learned in 'LEFT FOR DEAD', and - unbeknownst to her doctor - two weeks before a scheduled test to determine the degree of blockage in her carotid arteries, I convinced my Mom to go on the 12-Day Flush as an experiment. When the doctor got the test results, she was quite surprised to find that the blood flow through my Mom's arteries was similar to what she “sometimes finds in 17-year-olds”, and she was at a loss to explain how the stroke had occurred in the first place. Because we didn't have a test done PRIOR to the Flush, I can't unequivocally prove that the Lecithin was responsible for the unexpected results. You can draw your own conclusions.

In 1992, Dick Quinn wrote, "I had a double coronary bypass about 14 years ago - four times longer than a bypass is supposed to last. The comedian Jackie Gleason had his first bypass the day I had mine. He subsequently had three more. Then he died... According to 'modern medicine', I should be dead now, but I am very much alive, thanks entirely to 'ancient medicine.' My bypass was actually a failure from the very first. It closed within a week. Herbs reopened my arteries and saved my life... If I die tomorrow, that's OK. I'm already a winner, years ahead of the game."

Well, Mr. Quinn lived another 3 years, and when he did die, it wasn't from heart failure, but from an entirely unrelated ailment that had been diagnosed 17 years earlier.

If you want to regain or maintain your good health, I strongly recommend that you read his book, 'LEFT FOR DEAD.' Also read 'WORLD WITHOUT CANCER' by G. Edward Griffin; 'ALIVE AND WELL' by Dr. Philip Binzel, Jr.; and 'YOUR BODY'S MANY CRIES FOR WATER' by Dr. F. Batmanghelidj.

If you want to preserve your youthful appearance, I recommend imbibing copious amounts of cheap wine, gin, sake, and suds. But substitute Lecithin if you want to preserve your liver, too!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Saturday, April 9, 2011


While you may not find this reflected in the quality of the writing, the following 2-part blog installment was actually three years in the making.

On April 21st of 2008, I wrote and posted a humorous piece on my blog titled EDJUCATION-R-US: "We B Edjucatin' U." [Issue #1: Polatics & Soshial Studies] . In that blog bit, I held up for derision the mythical concept of “Separation Of Church And State”. This caught the attention of a very dear friend of mine whom I call “The Flying Aardvark”.

Flyin’ Aard respected the amount of time and effort I had put into studying the United States Constitution over the years, and so she asked me to elaborate on my 'anti-Separation' position. In a private Email conversation, she and I agreed that my responses to her questions and challenges would probably make for an informative blog bit, and she gave me permission to post our exchanges on my blog.

Unfortunately, I had not quite finished my response to the Flyin’ Aard's initial Email when on April 28, 2008, (aka suddenly and without warning pulled the plug on my blog and denied me the future ability to post comments on their website. (The full [i.e., "long"], true story about that incident can be found HERE.)

Nevertheless, I sent my answers to Flyin’ Aard and she later replied with a couple more questions and respectful rebuttals to some of the points I had raised. It had always been my intention to respond to her reply and then post the various exchanges here on my “new” (but since grown “old” and soon to be abandoned) blog. For a variety of reasons, none of them worth explaining in detail, it wasn’t until now – 3 years after our first exchange of ideas about this issue – that I finally completed my response to Aard’s old reply.

So, this 2-part blog bit was indeed three years in the making. If nothing else, it shows that people can discuss controversial issues without getting emotional and losing respect for one another.

So here goes . . .

Those who will not be governed by God
will be ruled by tyrants.
~ William Penn

2008, April:
Well, I’ve got my “Ron Paul For President” baseball cap on, and that All-American Pop group, Da Beach Boys, are singing in the background, and I’m now ready to tape the next episode of my Emmy award-winning program, ‘CONSTITUTION YAK WITH STEPHEN T. MCCARTHY’.

>> . . . Doesn't the language in Article VII (...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust...) and the language in Amendment 1 (...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...) comprise what is commonly thought to be the Constitutional Principle behind the argument for the Separation of Church and State?

Heck if I know. Next question!...

Ha! Alright, let’s look at the first part of that: The language in Article VI; Clause 3 (“...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust”)

First of all, there exists a body of historical evidence to advance the idea that what our Founding Dads really intended with this ban was to prevent any one particular Christian denomination from running roughshod over the others. They wished to avoid the sort of monopoly over political life that they had endured with Great Britain and the entrenched position of the Church Of England.

Gerard Bradley, Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School explains it this way: “In the ratification debates, the defenders of the Constitution put forward two reasons for the religious test ban. First, various Christian sects feared that, if any test were permitted, one might be designed to their disadvantage. No single sect could hope to dominate national councils. But any sect could imagine itself the victim of a combination of the others. Oliver Ellsworth noted that if a religious oath ‘were in favour of either congregationalists, presbyterians, episcopalions, baptists, or quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any publick office…’ … The limitation to federal officeholders was mooted by the Supreme Court in the 1961 case, Torcaso v. Watkins. Relying upon the First Amendment religion clauses, the Court struck down religious tests for ANY public office in the United States.” [emphasis added]

But for the sake of this discussion, let’s take the entire concept of “Christian denomination domination” off the table. So then, what happens if we address this clause according to its most basic, straightforward apparent wording?

Even then, we must concede that banning a religious test for a federal officeholder, and removing every single act or symbol with religious implication from the public sphere (even those that fall within federal jurisdiction), are two specifically different questions. It does not NECESSARILY follow that just because a religious test cannot be required of a person seeking a federal office, that “a wall of separation between church and state” exists which prevents the federal government collectively from encouraging ANY SORT OF religious ideas or activities. These are two separate questions, and I think few individuals (even the most ardent opponents of our newly “secularized society”) would argue against the advisability of a religious test ban for federal employment, while many people of faith (myself included) are terribly disturbed by the concept of completely removing every shred of religion from public life; an idea which has been advanced in the United States beginning with the Court’s “Everson v. Board Of Education” decision in 1947.

>> . . . The language in Amendment 1 (“...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...)

OK, let’s examine the far more controversial First Amendment and its severly twisted modern interpretation (with the social damage and erosion of Constitutionally protected rights which have followed it).

The first and foremost important thing to remember about the First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) is that it was intended as a restriction against the national (i.e., Federal) government, and was never meant to impact the states’ rights in self-determination when it came to the issues it addressed. This position regarding the Bill of Rights is easily and soundly defended. It is historically accurate. It should be noted that it is doubtful that the Constitution would have been ratified in the first place had promises not been made to the Anti-Federalists that a Bill of Rights would quickly be added to the document if it was passed ‘as is’ at that time. Why did the Anti-Federalists so vociferously insist on a Bill of Rights? Because they rightly suspected that the national government would eventually encroach on those states’ rights without it (even though the Federalists argued that the Constitution, as written, already protected the states in those areas).

As Constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman writes: “[T]he plain historical fact [is] that the Bill of Rights was ratified to limit the powers of the federal government ALONE.”

As with Article VI; Clause 3, it might be reasonably argued that the real intent of the First Amendment was to prevent any one Christian denomination from gaining a legal upperhand. As Professor of Law at the Paul M. Herbert Law Center, John Baker, writes: “Although these various pieces of historical evidence support the proposition that the Establishment of Religion Clause merely requires ‘no preference between denominations,’ others criticize that view on originalist grounds.” Therefore, as we did with Article VI; Clause 3, let’s just take this argument off the table and examine the First Amendment solely on it’s most essential and clear meaning:

David Barton, in his outstanding book “ORIGINAL INTENT: The Courts, The Constitution, And Religion” writes: “George Washington, in his Inaugural Address, urged Congress to consider how the Constitution might be amended. Congess did so, and the result was twelve proposed amendments specifying exactly what the FEDERAL government, and ONLY the federal government, could not do. Of those twelve amendments, ten – the Bill of Rights – were ratified by the States to preserve State autonomy over the issues listed in those amendments.”

[As a side note: In his otherwise pretty well-written book exposing the dark side of Mormonism, Ed Decker wrote: "Giving its official approval to the Church’s trampling on human rights, in 1975 the Utah Supreme Court with its Mormon majority handed down a surprising decision, that, as summarized by the Denver Post: 'The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, -- did not apply in Utah but was only a limitation on the federal government'.” For a while, I was very much tempted to write a letter to Decker explaining that this is an entirely correct interpretation of the First Amendment, but alas, there is only so much time in a day, and I found other arenas in which to spend my time instead.]

According to this view of the Bill of Rights, am I saying then that despite the Second Amendment, a state’s legislature could conceivably deny its citizens the right to bear arms? Yep, that’s exactly what I am saying. And of course, if this legislation transgresses the majority opinion of the people of said state, they could counter that by removing those officials from office and reversing the law. In essence, this is how the system is really supposed to work.

What has happened is that usurpers seeking to deny the states their autonomy and wishing to consolidate power in the Federal government have used a variety of methods to disallow the states their right to self-determination, most notably by the deliberate misinterpreting of the Constitution through the courts. A key element in this machination has been the misapplying of the 14th Amendment against the states. This has had the effect of reversing the original purpose of the Bill of Rights and using the states’ own protections from the Federal government against the states themselves. This is a complex subject and would require another Email this size to fully explain, but the small book “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS” by the late Congressman Lawrence McDonald does an excellent job of it, as does David Barton’s aforementioned book.

Kevin Gutzman writes: “With the thin reed of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause as its support, the Court undertook to redefine American church-state relations… The jumping-off point was a determined (and ongoing) attempt to secularize American society, thus bringing more of it under the Court’s own purview and that of the federal government.”

[*My Pal, a detailed study into this deliberate attempt to remove God from American society will lead right into the laps of men and women who share the same mind-set as those who would impose an illegal income tax and illegal economy on individuals and support the micromanaging of the affairs of the American people as revealed in the DVD “America: Freedom To Fascism”. You recall that disturbing documentary? Well, this is just one facet of that same ongoing assault against an American’s constitutionally protected liberties. It’s all The Usual Suspects, Pal. God must be removed in order for government (a.k.a., Orwell’s “Big Brother”) to step in as the citizen’s politically correct deity. This entire concept is clearly found in the writings of Karl Marx and other notable socialists.]

Samuel Adams said that the Bill of Rights was created because the people wished “to see a line drawn as clearly as may be between the federal powers vested in Congress and distinct sovereignty of the several States upon which the private and personal rights of the citizens depend. Without such distinction there will be danger of the Constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated government over all the States.” Hmmm… sounds just like what we have in 2008, doesn’t it?

How about Thomas Jefferson (the very originator of the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state”), does he agree with this interpretation of the First Amendment? He said: “Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the general [federal] government. It must then rest with the States.”

Let’s go back to John Baker’s writing on this subject. He says “As another alternative to separationism, some Justices assert that the Establishment of Religion Clause was originally meant only to prohibit the government from coercing individuals to practice a religion or support it. … The ‘no coercion’ principle likewise is consistent with the long line of religious expressions by government, running from the Founding period to the present; government may express religious sentiments as long as it does not coerce anyone to agree with such expressions or participate in such ceremonies.”

But… [continuing to quote John Baker] “As a result of the incorporation of the Religion Clause into the 14th Amendment, almost all of the federal cases compelling “separation of church and state” have been applied against state laws. The contradictory decisions of the Supreme Court on the Establishment of Religion Clause render the area inchoate if not incoherent. A ‘moment of silence for meditation and prayer’ in school is contrary to the Constitution (only if the motive is religious), … but a paid chaplain in Congress or state legislatures is not, … Religious schools may not receive funds for maintenance expenses, … but places of worship can enjoy a tax exemption, … Prayers at high school football games are invalid, … but the bailiff’s call, ‘God Save this Honorable Court,’ may be heard within the chambers of the Supreme Court.”

Attempting to decide whether or not an action related to religion is Constitutionally valid according to our Founding Fathers’ view is actually ridiculously simple. You ask two questions and if the answer to both of them is “Yes”, then the proposed activity is Constitutionally invalid, but if both answers are “No” then our Founding Fathers would have considered it within the Constitution’s articulated limits. Let’s take the most unlikely of all scenarios and say that the mayors of San Francisco and Boston decided to declare April 6th “Jesus Christ Day” in their cities. (Crazy idea, isn’t it?) In determining whether these mayors could legally (i.e., Constitutionally) do this, you ask: #1) Is the mayor “Congress”, and #2) is declaring April 6th to be ‘Jesus Christ Day’ the establishment of a “law”? Since in both cases the answer is “No”, then this action is fully within the obvious meaning of the First Amendment.

When the Supreme Court’s bailiff calls out “God Save this Honorable Court” - although he may be speaking a falsehood in calling the court “honorable” - since neither the bailiff nor the Court is “Congress” and since urging God to Save the Court is not the establishment of any sort of “law”, this is clearly a Constitutionally valid activity.

Where then does the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” come from? It was written in a private letter by President Thomas Jefferson in reply to a letter from the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists in January, 1802. In part, Jefferson sought to assure them that their denomination could not suffer as a result of the federal government’s preference for another, since the Constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion.

But by this phrase (which of course does not appear in any of America’s founding documents), did Jefferson mean to imply that the federal government could not have any hand in religion whatsoever? Hardly! If he did, then the guy had multiple personalities because consider the fact that NOT LONG AFTERWARDS, as President of the United States, Jefferson made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, a part of which included the promise that the United States would give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a Christian priest for their tribe as well as three hundred dollars to assist the tribe in the building of a church. He later made two similar treaties with the Wyandotte and Cherokee Indians in 1806 and 1807, which included measures “for… promoting Christianity.” Pretty strange behavior for a man who supposedly believed that “a wall of separation between church and state” meant that the federal government could play no part at all in any religious endeavors, eh?

How far have we come when now the federal courts claim that even the states themselves have no right to promote anything with any religious overtones? Clearly something has changed, and that “something” is the way some people choose to reinterpret the meaning of our Founding Fathers.

Was Jefferson alone in his willingness to allow for government and Christianity to come together? I think NOT! Fisher Ames, who was primarily responsible for the very wording of the 1st Amendment stated that he believed that The Bible should be used extensively in the schools as a textbook. The Founding Father who was the first to call for free national public schools felt the same way – Benjamin Rush said: “The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.”

The vast majority of America’s Founding Fathers were members of orthodox Christian churches, and they never intended that Christianity should be removed from the public square. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the the government of any other.” Some guy named George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars. … Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

John Jay was one of the three men most responsible for the U.S. Constitution (see “THE FEDERALIST PAPERS”) and the very first Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and he said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Obviously, Article VI of the Constitution, and the 1st Amendment, prevents the federal government from imposing nothing but Christians on the country in all of the various positions of influence and power, but clearly Jay was suggesting that these are the people whom he felt should be most often elected by the people.

I could go on and on and on with quote after quote from our Founding Fathers which unquestionably indicated that they considered this to be a Christian nation and that Christianity and its principles were always expected to play a part in our development. But since the 1947 Everson verdict, the Supreme Court and various other organizations and individuals have systematically sought to alter the vision of our Founders and keep the American people and their government secularized as much as possible.

>> . . . A tidy portion of lawyers specializing in constitutional law spend their entire careers arguing the interpretation of this language and how it means exactly that.

Quite true, but let us remember that just the existence of something does not necessarily validate its foundational beliefs. Neither of us would concede that the views of the Ku Klux Klan have any merit despite the fact that the group exists and has existed for a very long time. I would argue that the same applies to many so-called “Constitutional lawyers.”

Here’s how Constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman puts it: “Now, however, American law students are almost universally subjected to the case method. Their texts are collections of judicial opinions, or in a few cases of statutes, with absolutely no historical context. One prominent legal academic at a leading law school responded to my friend’s query why he had not assigned readings from THE FEDERALIST to his introductory class in constitutional law by saying that THE FEDERALIST was ‘irrelevant’ to the subject of ‘constitutional law’ – and he was right. In short, if the judges make a particular false assertion about the Constitution in numerous cases, students reading those opinions have no way of recognizing that assertion’s falsity. They are provided no tools for analyzing judge’s claims – only with scads of the opinions incorporating those claims. This is one reason why legal training should not be confused with an education.”

>> . . . I always believed that the idea of separating these was actually a good idea as living in a theocracy promotes religious persecution and bullying, and frankly we have enough of that already. I was just wondering what your take on this was...

While some wicked things have indeed been perpetrated in the name of Christianity in the last 2000 years of our history, if one compares the atrocities of atheistic/secular societies to those committed by self-proclaimed “Christian” societies, they will find that the Christian misdeeds are not even a pimple on the butt of secular/atheistic evils. Just in recent times, compare the murder rates between Christian nations with those of the irreligious – think Soviet Union and Communist China. And then ask yourself, would you really feel safer and believe that your individual rights would be better protected in a Communist nation as opposed to, say 1930 America? And as the U.S.A. becomes increasingly secularized by our Courts, etc., is it not clear that our morals have slipped to all-time lows? Were kids bringing guns to school and killing their classmates back when The Bible and prayer were still allowed within 500 feet of a public school?

Russia, North Korea, China and many other nations show us very explicitly what we can expect when all religion (especially Christianity) is ousted from the public square, when there is installed “a wall of separation between church and state.” Where do you think you are really likely to experience more persecution and bullying, in a country where the God of Jesus is banned (e.g., Stalin’s Russia) or in a country where the God of Jesus is considered the foundation of the nation (e.g., Washington’s America)? Theocracy itself can be a bad thing, but it must be asked “Whose religion?” I do not consider myself a “Christian”, but I cannot deny that my country was established by Christians and as a Christian nation, and it was the principles of Christ that were expected to keep us progressing and prospering. If you are the sort who likes statistics, here are a couple of web pages that get it right:

In closing, let me add this final observation:
The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times. If “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are not rights given by God to the people of our nation, then they are “privileges” granted by the State and therefore revocable by the State, right? But if they ARE “rights” given by God, then it’s both a silly and untenable position if we later claim that there is a wall of separation between church and state and that our government is wholly secular, correct?

Unfortunately for those who would like to pretend that our Constitutional form of government is entirely divorced from religion, our Founding Fathers clearly stated in their very declaration of independence from England that in fact our collective rights are rooted in religious belief and that we claimed this belief as justification for separating from Britain.

Either we are a religious nation with our very government founded upon Divine rights that have been bestowed upon us by our Creator, or else we had no business rebelling against the King of England in the first place and the reasons we gave for our rebellion were based on fraud. Are we to accept the idea that in 1776 we had a “Divine” right to rebel against the King, but 14 years later (when the 1st Amendment was adopted), there was no place in our government for religious expression? Do we allow God in our government and proclaim His gifts to us in our official documents ONLY when it is politically expedient? And if our government is truly supposed to have a wall built up between it and all religious expression, maybe we’d better take our original documents and draw a line through the four references to God in the Declaration of Independence and in that part at the end of the Constitution where our Founders signed it: “Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven…”

For a people to claim that their God-given rights have been trampled and thus they are justified in separating from their parent country, but then to turn right around after the independence has been achieved and declare that their government is purely secular and must remain entirely divorced from all religious expression reduces us to a “tail wagging the dog” scenario, if you ask me.

AMERICA! . . .
“Take heed, lest you forget the Lord your God, in not keeping His commandments and His judgments and His statutes . . . Lest when you have eaten and are full, and have built beautiful houses, and dwell in them . . . Then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God, who brought you forth out of . . . the house of bondage . . . And you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth’ . . . And if you do forget the Lord your God, and walk after other gods and serve them and worship them, I have testified against you this day that you shall surely perish. As the nations which the Lord destroyed before you, so shall you perish if you are not obedient to the voice of the Lord your God.”
~ Deuteronomy 8:11-20

Pal, here are a few good books I can recommend to you for further study:


And in case you’d like a quick study course, here’s a link to David Barton’s website which also explores the subject of religion and government.

I hope this answered some questions satisfactorily for ya, AardPal.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy


YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.


Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
~ Thomas Jefferson

>> . . . [This was] extremely well-written and very informative, densely packed with reference materials and is a bit like: ‘Your Constitution and You: 101.’ I was flattered and honored that you went to so much trouble for me and I think you really should share this with others.

I thank you, Pal. And after three years (can you believe it?) that’s what I’m finally doing.

STMcC [From my earlier response]: The first and foremost important thing to remember about the First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) is that it was undeniably intended as a restriction against the national (i.e., Federal) government, and was never meant to impact the states’ rights in self-determination when it came to the issues it addressed.

>> . . . Although I am not nearly as knowledgeable on this subject as you are, I seem to recall from my school days and watching a very interesting program on James Madison (one of the other "Fathers of the Constitution") on the History Channel recently, that the Constitution per se was designed with just that in mind.

Well, I’m happy to learn that the History Channel concurred in this instance, but I would caution you against being inclined to accept ANY idea as a result of seeing it promoted on the History Channel. In my opinion, the History Channel is merely one more facet of the mainstream media, and it does not exist to inform the American public but, more often, to condition the American public to accept certain ideas that the Elite (Illuminati, Shadow Government, whatever appellation one chooses to apply to it) wishes us to believe.

>> . . . As I understand it, the 13 states acknowledged that uniting together seemed to be the best way to go in that it afforded everyone the best defense from other countries and the best resolution of possible interstate conflicts (taxation of interstate goods, legal currency and mail delivery, etc.). Back when there were only 13 states and travel was limited to horses, wagons and the occasional stage coach, those 13 states had very individual identities (far more so than today) and were more like separate countries, with their own ideas on how they wished to be governed, taxed and how their taxes should be spent. Having a Constitution whose framework had very limited and specific powers was the only way to get all 13 states on board with the idea of a federal government (although I seem to recall that not every state ratified the Constitution).

Most of the 13 states ratified the Constitution fairly quickly, and all of them, of course, ratified it eventually, the last of them being Rhode Island in 1790. Rhode Island held out the longest, being the largest and most populated state and thus having the most to lose. (Definitely a joke there!)

>> . . . While I understand what you are saying and agree with you in principal, I also believe there is real merit to the other side of the argument. The Founding Fathers could never have imagined how culturally and ethnically diverse our country would eventually become. I realize the Founding Fathers were Christians, but does that mean that Christianity should be the law of the land? Should Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, Buddhists be considered 2nd class citizens and be made to read the Bible in school (as anything other than an interesting historical text)? If so, shouldn’t Christians then, in turn, read the Koran and Torah, etc., as well? Do you see what a can of worms this is?

Well, first, Pal, I believe that many of the Founding Fathers did indeed foresee our country being very ethnically diverse and thus they prepared for such an occurrence by the very limited government they devised.

As far as Christianity being the “law of the land” is concerned, it’s clear that the vast majority of our Founders (and citizens) were orthodox Christians and thus they established a government that was highly influenced by those principles; but proclaiming Christianity as “the law of the land” would indicate a ‘legal’ requisite that they never established, and with good reason. They had just divorced themselves from overbearing state-approved religious interference (‘The Church Of England’) and had no desire to reinstitute the same sort of tyrannical behaviors they had just rebelled against.

No American citizen was REQUIRED to adhere to Christian beliefs, regardless of the fact that Biblical concepts had clearly informed the type of Republic that the Founders established. The U.S. Constitution did not permit the Federal government to curtail the rights of any citizens as a result of holding beliefs outside of mainstream American thought. Therefore, according to Federal law, no one - be they Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, or Buddhists – could be treated as 2nd class citizens. The National government could make no distinctions when it came to protecting their individual rights.

Now, if Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, or Buddhists considered themselves 2nd class citizens based solely on the fact that they stood outside of American mainstream beliefs, and felt themselves slighted because the American outlook which was clearly based upon Biblical beliefs did not conform to all of their positions, well, I guess they were FREE or at “liberty” to feel that way. (What a great country they were living in! :o) But as long as the national government was not, by law (i.e., the U.S. Constitution) permitted to discriminate against them and restrict their ability to enjoy the same rights that their Christian countrymen enjoyed – the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - I don’t see how they could legitimately think of themselves as 2nd class citizens.

I mean, if one was allowed to entertain any beliefs they chose to, and was not required to publicly proclaim those beliefs, and was treated in the same manner as their Christian counterparts by the Federal government – that is to say, if they enjoyed the same rights - how can one realistically call that person a 2nd class citizen? I would argue that if merely holding views that the majority of citizens do not hold makes one automatically a 2nd class citizen, then I myself - for a great variety of reasons - have been a 2nd class citizen most of my life. And yet I have never felt like I was 2nd class solely because I disagree with the mainstream Christian view in a great number of significant ways.

I would argue that the person who feels 2nd class simply because the masses do not accept his or her belief, and because the government does not bend and go out of its way to accommodate their every demand, but merely guarantees to protect their rights to the same degree that it protects the rights of Christians – the 2nd class status that person perceives has more to do with an inferiority complex within their own mind, and he or she ought to either grow a thicker skin or join the belief system of the masses in order to alleviate some of their own emotional discomfort.

I can put it more simply like this: The United States of America was founded upon Biblical principles and founded by Christians for all people, despite the fact that the vast majority of its citizens were also Christians. Why should any person of a non-Christian belief system expect this country to not only protect their rights to the same extent it protects the rights of Christians, but to also reformat, reframe, or reconstruct its foundational precepts to accommodate their minority beliefs? Would you or I move to India and expect India to deemphasize its ancient, historical Hindu influences simply because we did not individually share those cultural influences? I think not. We would move there with the idea that we would either come to accept “the culture of the land” or we would move elsewhere.

So why then should Jews, Muslims, Taoists, Hindus, Buddhists, Communists or atheists expect the United States of America to disavow its cultural heritage in order to kowtow to their minority viewpoints? My response is: Either come to accept “the culture of this land”, the United States of America, or feel FREE to move to Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, Russia, China, or San Francisco. (As my buddy DiscConnected would say: “I’ll help ‘em load the truck!”)

>> . . . I also don’t think that secular thinking is necessarily amoral.

Since “secular thinking” has shown itself throughout history to promote moral and, at other times, immoral behavior, it necessarily MUST be categorized as “amoral”. Secular thinking has no intrinsic quality beyond the manner in which it happens to be applied by any dictator or legislative/governing body at any given time. By definition then, it cannot be anything but fundamentally “amoral”. Secular thinking is pliable and changeable and possesses no permanent characteristics and is thus essentially neutral (i.e., “amoral”).

>> . . . I know it [secular thinking] has an appalling track record in Russia, North Korea and China, but I tend to believe that human beings, religious or not, are pretty dark creatures. In this country, I think a secular approach tries to level the playing field and not oppress any one religious group. (Maybe I'm just a Pollyanna for believing this.) I think you just have to make sure that your secular thinking is grounded in morality, compassion and respect. I realize that you may disagree with me radically on this point and certainly history is on your side.

Indeed, history IS on my side . . . and in a dramatic way.

However, knowing what you do about me, and knowing how disgusted I am with my fellow Americans (and yes, people in general), this may come as quite a surprise to you, but I DO NOT think of human beings as “pretty dark creatures”. In fact, I believe we are beings of light, possessing the innate quality of infinite goodness, and we are souls that are nothing less than Divine. In short, I believe what The Bible tells me: we were created by God and in His image. How can anything created by God and in God’s own image be a “pretty dark creature”?

The real problem is that we have “fallen” in consciousness, and too few of us have retained in mind the fact that we were created In, Of, and By God! We are Divine beings imprisoned by nothing more than a false belief that we are merely flesh, and flawed, and forced to fight for limited goods and resources. As Joel Goldsmith wrote: “We are not human beings as we seem to be; we are pure spiritual being. It is not that there are two separate beings, the human being and the spiritual being; it is only that a human being is entertaining a sense of separation from God.”

Or as my own maxim goes: “We have fallen asleep in God’s embrace, having a nightmare that we are elsewhere”.

But, I need to further address the core of your statement:
>> . . . “I also don’t think that secular thinking is necessarily amoral.”

This is a very important idea that needs to be challenged. Secular thinking can actually be very good, as long as it is very good. But it cannot be considered moral because in order to be moral, it must be founded upon something that is transcendent – that is to say, some foundational premise for human conduct that transcends man’s everchanging standards.

Anything less than that and the secular thinking du jour remains “good” only so long as it remains good or advantageous for all people, not just the majority in a democracy. (Incidentally, our Founding Fathers rightly despised the idea of a pure Democracy, which is why they established a Constitutional Republic. Note that we have never pledged allegiance to a Democracy, but to our “Republic”. The best pithy definition of a Democracy that I have ever encountered is, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.")

Given man’s track record (as you yourself noted above), there is no reason to believe that secular thinking will remain a positive influence any longer than it takes for the next dictator or tyrant or corrupt president, corrupt congress, corrupt bureaucrat, or a majority of corrupt people to rise up and alter the presently accepted secular belief. That is to say, secular thinking remains good only so long as it remains good, and there is no guarantee that it will remain good for long.

‘If God is dead, all things are permitted.’ That is a philosophical proposition associated with Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Secular thinkers have tried to deny this by skirting the essential truth of it, by dancing around the heart of it, by tip-toeing over the essence of it, but when push comes to shove, Dostoevksy nailed it dead center.

If there is no God - an authority superior to man individually and collectively - then indeed all things that coincide with whatever a given society has agreed upon are permitted. The person or the agency that has the power to punish is that which decides what is right or wrong, and what is right or wrong then becomes merely a transient code that might well reverse itself tomorrow, or next month, next year, or the next decade. If there is no permanent code of conduct that man is required to obey, then whatever code of conduct exists is merely a collective agreement (or a dictator’s militarily-enforced decree), a societal arrangement that has no guaranteed permanence and might improve or degrade depending upon future conditions acting upon the people.

DearAard, there are many examples I could choose from, but I’ll go with one that’s always available off the top of my head. ABORTION. There was a time in this country when the killing of the unborn was considered murder most foul, and that was the general belief on the matter for generation after generation. It should be noted, also, that it was the generations preceding ours that did not hold the belief that there was and ought to be an absolute “separation of church and state” and who also (mere coincidence?) looked upon abortion as murder. In other words, it was our more Godly ancestors who did not subscribe to the idea of a completely secular society that were also able to call abortion “murder”.

Is it any coincidence that as Americans were being conditioned to believe in an entirely secular government and to accept the idea of a complete removal of God from the public arena that the moral outlook of the masses became more and more relaxed to the point that a majority of Americans could eventually embrace the idea that the right of a would-be mother to murder her unborn child was a legal, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT that she enjoyed?

Pal, I know your views on abortion and that they basically coincide with my own. I would propose to you that it is “secular thinking” and not “sacred thinking” that has brought the United States of America to the point that murdering the most defenseless among us is a legal act.

Now you or someone else might argue that THIS particular act is not moral and is an example of “secular thinking” falling down on the job. But I would argue my original premise that “secular thinking” is always open to interpretation and amenable to whatever direction the prevailing winds blow. If God declares killing an innocent life to be murder, then it is always and forever murder. But should secular thinkers declare it to be murder, it is murder only so long as the masses accept that definition, but it will become a legal right again just as soon as the people can be brainwashed or conditioned into changing their collective opinion about it.

If God is dead, then right and wrong are nothing more than temporary agreements entered into by the masses or declared by a militarily-enforced dictatorship.

The very idea that the U.S.A., from its founding, was meant to be an entirely secular government is preposterous. There is such a large body of evidence that disputes this position – far too much evidence for me to present here. But the vestiges of our Christian influences can still be found everywhere, from the mention of God at the opening of a Supreme Court session, to the status of Federally paid chaplains in Congress and the military, to the fact that our presidents are still sworn into office while placing a hand on the same Bible that George Washington was sworn in with, to this:

Just last year, our own State Department issued a U.S. government report titled ‘Quadrennial Diplomacy And Development Review’ which claimed that foreign aid is designed “to harness our civilian power to advance America’s interests and help make a world in which more people in more places can live in freedom, enjoy economic opportunity, and have a chance to live up to their God-given potential.”

Never mind that foreign aid is un-Constitutional stealing from the American taxpayers, what’s interesting is that evidently our own State Department never got the memo that there is an absolute “wall of separation between church and state” and thus kids are not allowed to read The Bible in school, and God cannot be mentioned by any taxpayer-funded group, and the people can’t even breathe of a Divine Being in a group prayer before a public high school football game. And yet, as late as 2010, the American State Department was claiming that foreign aid was intended to help people in other nations to achieve “their God-given potential”. (Boy, they pull God out of the grocery sack when they want to use Him, don’t they? But the rest of us are transgressing some mythical law when we mention God or Christ during some national, state or city-sanctioned activity.)

What’s also interesting is how this supposed COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE “separation of church and state” seems to be primarily a recent discovery or a modern dogma. For example, when I was in first grade at Iva Meairs Elementary School in Orange County, California, in the 1960s, I participated in a Christmas school presentation (and still have the program to prove it) in which I portrayed one of the “Spanish Children”.

Here’s a listing of the sacred songs that were publicly performed by us public school children during that Christmas program:

“O Come, All Ye Faithful”; “Gloria In Excelsis”; “Hark, The Herald Angels Sing”; “Joy To The world”; “Noel, Sing We Now Of Christmas”.

Then there was a “Nativity Scene” play, followed by the singing of “No Room In The Inn”; “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel”; and “Silent Night”.

Some years later - in 1972 - I was part of the John Adams Junior High School Boys Chorus (no one had yet figured out that I simply can’t sing), when the Santa Monica Unified School District, in Southern California, put on a public performance called "Stairway Of The Stars '72".

I sang my part in this school board-approved concert which took place at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium (site of Hollywood’s previous Academy Award presentations, and where I witnessed my first Rock concert three years later – Styx opening for Journey).

I am still in possession of the LP that was made from that live, public school-approved and taxpayer-funded performance. I can still remember the performance (is that the one where I dropped the massive acoustic bass on the riser in the middle of a song?) The major attraction of that show, a junior high school kid with an operatic voice named Jubilant Sykes, later went on to fame and fortune, winning several awards and becoming a member of the Pittsburgh Symphony and singing with the Metropolitan Opera. (I dunno, but that sounds like a punishment to me.)

At any rate, consider some of the selections that we publicly performed that night in 1972 at the Santa Monica Civic:

* ‘A New Created World’ (Haydn) – Franklin School Elementary Chorus
* ‘Alleluia’ (Bach) – Combined Junior High School Chorus
* ‘In The Beginning Of Creation’ (Pinkham; “This electronic-choral setting is a composer’s imaginative portrayal of the Lord’s creation of order out of chaos”) – Combined Junior High School Chorus
* ‘When I Was Sinkin’ Down’; ‘Great God A’Mighty’; ‘Sit Down, Servant’ (Johnson; Hairston; Bonds) – Combined Groups

Of course, there were some secular songs mixed in, like: ‘The Year’s At The Spring’; ‘Lucky Little Cricket’; and ‘I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing’.

But isn’t it odd that as late as 1972, the general public had not yet realized that a good portion of the program was un-Constitutional? Or is it that the program WASN’T un-Constitutional until years later when all of these atheistic groups – with the assistance of atheistic judges in the American court system – suddenly discovered that they could convince the sleeping and/or apathetic populace that public school shows like “THE IVA MEAIRS’ CHRISTMAS PROGRAM” and “STAIRWAY OF THE STARS '72” were somehow un-Constitutional?

The idea of “Separation Of Church And State” as it has been sold to us in these modern times is utter balderdash. In his essential, classic book ‘None Dare Call It Treason: 25 Years Later’, John Stormer speaks of “a conspiracy of shared values”.

Stormer goes into some detail illustrating how various groups or factions share some of “the same foundational philosophy and beliefs”. Some non-Christian religious groups and some atheists seek to undermine America’s Christian heritage and to eliminate all vestiges of it as a way of imposing their minority views on the rest of us. Certain powerful and influential persons within our government and court systems seek to enable these atheists and non-Christians in their efforts because they secretly wish to tear down our foundation in order to rebuild society according to their own vision. Yes, here comes that term again: a “New World Order”.

Make no mistake about it, the person who denies our Christian heritage is either ignorant of our history or is lying. And in the latter case, it is likely because he or she is one of those involved in “a conspiracy of shared values”, and in some cases, is an actual believer in the “New World Order” conspiracy - which as you know is the concept of a global government based on Socialistic ideas and ruled by a governing body of self-appointed Elites.

But in order to build something new on the site of something old, the ancient structure must first be razed. And THAT, my friend, is what this is really all about. God and Christ must be removed from the public square in America in order for “the state” to replace them and be installed as the new “god”. The Elite behind the curtain seek to eradicate the remembrance of our national Christian heritage in order to replace it with a Godless secular society that will more closely resemble Marx’s dialectical materialism (and which will someday be ruled by the coming Anti-Christ, but that’s a story for another time). The Wizard is really a body of Elites deceiving We The People, and we pay no attention to the machinations of that Elite behind the curtain at our own peril!

Our individual liberties and our very survival as a Constitutional Republic based upon the moral dictates of God is what is at stake in this battle to save our country from the total elimination of “sacred thinking” in government and the installing of wholly “secular thinking” in its place. And that is why I have spent so much time on this response and put such effort into it. This is not about a minor difference of viewpoints on appropriate government, but about saving and restoring a way of life that was at one time the envy of the world.

Flying Aardvark, my dear friend, I now want to share with you a passage from Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s 2009 book ‘Signature In The Cell’. The following comes from his chapter entitled “Why It Matters”:

According to scientific materialism, reality is ultimately impersonal: matter and energy determne all things and, in the end, only matter matters.

“In the beginning were the particles. And the particles became complex stuff. And the complex stuff reacted with other stuff and became alive. As the living stuff evolved, it eventually became conscious and self-aware . . . but only for a time.”

According to the materialist credo, matter and energy are the fundamental realities from which all else comes, but also the entities into which all that exists, including our minds and conscious awareness, ultimately dissolves. Mind and personhood are merely temporary “epiphenomena”, a restless foam effervescing for a time atop a deep ocean of impersonality.

Though this view of existence proved initially liberating in that it released humans from any sense of obligation to an externally imposed system of morality, it has also proven profoundly and literally dispiriting. If the conscious realities that comprise our personhood have no lasting existence, if life and mind are nothing more than unintended ephemera of the material cosmos, then, as the existential philosophers have recognized, our lives can have no lasting meaning or ultimate purpose.

There is no way around Doctor Meyer’s assessment, any more than there is a way around Dostoevsky’s proposition that ‘If God is dead, all things are permitted’.

What I would find ironically humorous if I didn’t find it so sad is the intellectually dishonest way that so many atheistic bleeding-heart liberals fail to correlate their underdog advocacy with their belief in scientific materialism.

That is to say, if scientific materialism is indeed reality, and we are nothing more than astronomical chance mutations existing in a “survival of the fittest” environment, then why should anyone give a damn whether or not any particular species survives?! Why should we fight to “save the whales” or donate money to “find a cure for breast cancer” or even worry about whether or not all of humankind gets wiped out in a nuclear bomb-trading World War III?

Heck, the dinosaurs died out long ago, and who should give a damn? If they couldn’t adapt to an impersonal, changing world, then good riddance to them, right? Either adapt or die, that’s truly the scientific materialist motto. And, hell, if human beings are just parasites living on the surface of an impersonal globe, why should anyone say a word or raise a finger to save them? If they die, if they kill each other, if a virus eliminates them, then it only means that they were unwilling or unable to adapt to their circumstances and it’s nonsensical for anyone to feel the slightest bit of emotion about that. If our temporarily individual and ultimately meaningless personhood eventually returns to the nonconscious nothingness from whence it came, why concern ourselves about any injustice that might occur in that brief 70-year interval between nonconsciousness and nonconsciousness?

But let’s be intellectually honest enough then to also apply that same sort of scientific materialistic thought to other species as well, and say that if whales can’t save themselves, then screw ‘em! And if the buffalo falls to the hunter’s gun, then it means only that they should have adapted better. And if the seals can’t avoid a human being’s club, then too bad for them. “Adios, seals. You should have been more flexible. You should have developed wings so you could fly out of range of the killer’s club.”

But see, atheistic liberals never think in such consistently logical ways. The bleeding-heart liberal will go out of her way to provide food for a stray cat and think nothing of murdering her unborn child. The liberal (and even some dimwit, self-described “conservatives”) will say there is no God and we just happen to experience nondesigned lives in a nondesigned world, and yet they will get emotional about meaningless human beings cheating, robbing, and killing other meaningless human beings. Drown a flea-infested dog and the bleeding-heart “Go Green” Leftist will want to see you imprisoned. But that’s a totally illogical response (according to the scientific materialism they pretend to embrace), because if the dog was unable to defend itself in an impersonal, “dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest” environment, then it was just using up limited resources in an uncaring world, and its removal was, at best, good for the rest of us survivors, and at worst, nothing to shed a tear over. “Natural Selection” says “Keep up or die”.

If scientific materialism is a fact, why should any of us care about the recent earthquake in Japan and the destruction left in its wake? All of us, the Japanese included, are merely Godless Science’s “meaningless, temporary creations in transition” and we are ultimately going back to the nothingness from which we came. So, what’s with this near universal sympathy we feel for one another when we are all very temporary points of consciousness in an ultimately meaningless universe? Eat, drink, cheat, steal, lie, rape, rob, and kill, for soon we cease to be!

AardPal, I now want to clarify a statement I made in my first response to your questions. I wrote:

Theocracy itself can be a bad thing, but it must be asked “Whose religion?”

By that remark, I was not implying that I think our Constitutional Republic ought to be transformed into a theocracy, but merely pointing out that not all theocracies would necessarily be equal, or equally bad.

For instance, I would much prefer to live in a theocracy founded upon the genuine precepts of Christ and authentically maintained according to His standard than to live in a Muslim theocracy with their Sharia laws, or, say, a Hindu theocracy with its caste system, etc. So while we rightfully steer clear of a theocracy (because absolute power corrupts absolutely) and favor the governmental form established by our Founding Fathers, I think it’s important to remember that not all religious ideas are the same, and some would benefit people in general more than some others would.

And interestingly, while one could make an argument that with our now mostly secularized American lifestyle being maintained by atheistic and agnostic gatekeepers, in a sense we do currently live in a kind of theocracy – a Marxist theocracy, with the state more and more playing the role of the divine authority.

For those of us who believe that The Holy Bible really does represent a message from God to us and a prophecy to the world of things to come, it’s clear that at some future point we WILL live under a religious dictatorship, for the Bible tells us that at His ‘second coming’ Jesus will return as this world’s religious leader (“the High Priest”) as well as its civil leader (“the King of kings”). So, for those who currently fear a Christian theocracy, they had better mentally prepare themselves for something along those lines: a global religious dictatorship ruled by Jesus Christ who will be placed on the throne by God Himself. (As Todd Snider sings: "Somebody's coming who don't need your vote".)

>> . . . I appreciate your providing me with such a wide-ranging [book] list, Kip. However, do you think there is one comprehensive book that you might recommend over the others? Your Old Pal might be able to manage one book, but I don't think I could wade my way through this list until my retirement.

Well, Flyin’ AardPal, I guess it really all depends upon what facet of this discussion you’re most interested in following up with further study. If it’s strictly a question of The Constitution and the (bogus) “Separation Of Church And State” concept, I would say get a copy of David Barton’s ‘ORIGINAL INTENT: The Courts, The Constitution, & Religion’ (or just explore his website).

If, however, you wanted to dig into the Constitution in general, the aforementioned tome ‘The HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION’ will keep you in reading material for a long time.

But, in the three years between our first discussion (April 2008) and now (April 2011) I have read another book that might be of interest to you. It was my friend Mr. Sheboyganboy Six (the artist formerly known as Mr. Paulboy Prodigalman) who after seeing my public praise of W. Cleon Skousen’s book ‘The Naked Capitalist’ recommended that I read W. Cleon Skousen’s tome ‘THE MAKING OF AMERICA: The Substance And Meaning Of The Constitution’.

I did read it, and other than an issue or two I had with the segment on slavery in America, I thought the book was excellent. It is a very thorough examination of the principles behind the creation of, and the application of, the U.S. Constitution. I do not agree with every single idea found in the book, yet I think it should be found in the home library of every single American.

Then again, if a (textbook-like) publication of that size and scope you find too intimidating (and indeed, it’s a large book that will require a considerable time-investment to complete – approx. 800 pages), I think I have the best recommendation for you and your time-limited situation:

Not one book, but two – both of them quick and easy reads, but also containing valid and valuable information presented in overview fasion. With “minimal reading time available” being the first consideration in my recommendation (due to the current overwhelming demands on your time by “the office”), I am going to suggest that you read . . .

‘The Politically Incorrect Guide To THE BIBLE’ by Robert J. Hutchinson (it’ll learn ya more about Judeo-Christian Natural Law Theory; Social Contract Theory; Legal Positivism & Legal Realism, and lots of other “stuffs” we need to be familiar with) - and - ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide To THE CONSTITUTION’ by Kevin R. C. Gutzman (which will learn ya about many of the essentials we Americans must understand about the Constitution that forms the basis of our Constitutional Republic).

These two fairly short overviews will provide you with great insight into what I have been yakking about here and will probably fill in some gaps that I either left unaddressed or was not adequately able to articulate.

OK, here comes the finale my flying Aardvarkian pal (can I get a “Hallelujah!”?) At the conclusion of Part 1, written three years ago this month, I closed with my explanation of how the United States of America’s claim of legitimacy and right to separate from England and to create its own form of government was based upon this nation’s collective belief in (the Christian) God and in rights that are bestowed upon We The People not by a monarchy nor by any governing body whatsoever, but rights that are bestowed upon us by God alone and which no ruler can morally suppress or rescind.

The Founders of our country signed their names to the principle that it is “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” that entitled them to separate from England in order to reinstate the liberties that the English Crown had denied them. They boldy told the world in their Declaration of Independence that they possessed unalienable rights bestowed upon them by “their Creator” and they furthermore appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the world” and declared their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” in their efforts to free themselves from tyranny and to create a new nation of limited government, which only eleven years later took the final form of our Republic under the ratification of the United States Constitution.

Well, only about 6 months after I wrote that to you, I received the November 2008 edition of The New American magazine, and within its pages I found a great article on that very subject, penned by Edwin Vieira, Jr.

Mr. Vieira is an attorney and an author who concentrates on issues of Constitutional law and who has won three cases in the Supreme Court of the United States. His article is titled ‘Bedrock Of The Constitution’, and obviously he was able to express this idea about the relationship between our Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution far more eloquently (and with attention to the legalities of it) better than I ever could.

And so, my dear friend, I actually want to close this study of the supposed “Separation of Church and State” by giving the final word to Mr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. Someday you will have the time to read and consider his superb analysis of this topic. I have posted below the article in its entirety. I trust it will do a better job of enlightening you on some of these same concepts that I have been attempting to articulate with my limited and questionable capacity for teaching.

Thanks for your patience, DearAard. I know this was not worth a three-year wait, but hopefully it does explain why I take the position that I do on this controversial issue.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy


YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.