• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

New England, 2001

I’m sitting alone on a park bench with my three dogs. I’m reading “The ACLU verses America” by Sears and Osten. The ACLU was founded in 1920 by an agnostic named Roger Baldwin who said, “I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself. … communism is the goal” (1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU). Baldwin’s family was Unitarian and rejected the deity of Christ.

The ACLU pretends to be a great defender of freedom, but it actually works very hard to eliminate our freedoms. It’s against the freedom of parents to pass their values on to their children; it’s against the freedom of the Boy Scouts to set standard rules of conduct for their leaders; and it’s against the freedom of churches to proclaim the uncensored Word of God – the freedoms our forefathers died for. The ACLU is pro-abortion, pro-porn, pro-child porn, pro-polygamy and anti-Christmas.

Baldwin was a friend of Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist (Hitler practiced eugenics) who founded Planned Parenthood. I look down at my two bookmarks. They are campaign fliers for the upcoming town council election. One has a photo of a gay man, his partner and their adopted baby. He belongs to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and LGBT’s SAVE Dade. The other candidate also has a family photo, but his wife is a woman. He used to go to my Baptist church. It’s funny to me how the left and the right are so clearly divided ideologically. I have never met someone who believes in a little of the right and a little of the left. You never meet someone who is pro-choice and anti-globalism, or pro-multiculturalism and drill, baby, drill; seemingly unrelated issues, yet all the labels line up neatly under left or right. In other words, you won’t find a Baptist who supports the ACLU, unless they’re uneducated.

A breeze brushes my cheek and I look up and notice a blue jay. I’m educating myself on unions. Why? Because I’m suspicious about the ties linking the recent, violent Middle East uprisings, global unions, our unions, We Are One, Fight Back, Ayers and Dorn, George Soros, Piven, Van Jones, Samantha Power ( who is against Israel and credits “O” with the Libyan uprising), communists, socialists, Islam and our president, who is encouraging all of this unrest from Wisconsin to Libya through his Organizing For America “thing.”

Why would an American president encourage worldwide violence, screaming, shouting and government dismantling?

I have never sat alone on a park bench. This is what old people do. I try to let the new facts sink into my politically virgin brain. Politics is like math and Brussels sprouts – unappealing. So far, I’ve learned that unions began during the Industrial Revolution to protect workers; ensure fair pay and good working conditions. They may have stemmed from the guilds in Medieval times. They have been taken over by the Mob, by socialists and communists with their own agenda, and by politicians who reward them with perks in exchange for votes.

Union thugs operate by intimidation and violence.

I pat my Maltese and notice a bright, green iguana on the giant oak tree. Nature shouts evidence of a Divine Creator. I feel a moment of peace.

Mobile, Ala., 2000

Man, that “Glee” gay kiss thing sure caused an uproar. The show is written so well, with such great characters, it’s a shame they have to sprinkle immorality all over it. Inside Edition asked me “Why ‘Glee’? Why now?” I said, “Why now? I have a column for the first time. And why ‘Glee’? I just watched it last night for the first time.”

Now “Wife Swap” calls! My agent thinks they’d swap me with a gay couple. That would be great because then I could show the world that I love gay people and I’m not the homophobic hate-monger the media are making me out to be. The other perk is that I could afford that Tacoma pick-up truck I want and pay off my credit card. Cons: Husband says reality TV is the lowest form of entertainment, and the show is “suggestive” just in the title alone. Teenager says there is no way she will be on television. I think her practicing Rachmaninoff on the piano and Husband lifting weights would make great TV.

My mom calls to tell me that the “Glee” episode is “about God tonight.” So I watch it. I give the entertainment a 10 and the fair-and-balanced-about-God a 1. The blasphemy actually made me cry. Amber Riley’s character asks the teacher why they are allowed to curse God but not praise Him, my favorite line.

Jane Lynch’s character explains that “separation of church and state” is why a public school cannot speak or sing pro-God sentiments, only anti-God sentiments! Neutral means anti? When Jane says the phrase “separation of church and state,” I jump out of my chair. That is exactly what I’ve been studying. She is propagating the lie begun in 1947 in the Everson v. Board of Education case when the Court cited Jefferson’s “separation” metaphor, flipped its meaning and pretended it was part of the First Amendment. This is on pages 29-33 of “America’s Godly Heritage” by David Barton that I’m reading for my W.I.N. meeting.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution or Declaration, nor was it even mentioned by one Framer throughout the discussions of the First Amendment, according to official records.

It first appeared in a private letter Jefferson wrote in response to a letter from the Danbury, Conn., Baptists 13 years after the Constitution was signed. The Baptists were concerned that the government would restrict them from preaching the Gospel. Prior to the Revolution, non-Anglican ministers had actually been persecuted and even killed for preaching the Gospel (the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ,) without the permission of the state-established church. Jefferson assured them that there was “a wall of separation between the church and state” and that their freedom of religion would not be hampered by the government. The phrase was hijacked by the evil ACLU and its meaning flip-flopped to serve their purpose of ridding America of all traces of Christianity.

David Barton explains our First Amendment best, “…both religion clauses of the First Amendment were to limit the federal government, not the people – that is, first, the government could not establish any national religious conformity, and second, the government could not stop public religious expressions but must respect them.”

In 1853, a group attempted to separate Christianity from government. They wanted the chaplains kicked out of the Congress and the military, and for Christian principles to be removed from the public square. Congress discussed this and issued a statement: “Christianity … was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”

In a court ruling in 1844, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a government-run school in Philadelphia should teach Christianity. Justice Joseph Story declared, “Why may not the Bible … be read and taught in school. … Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or perfectly as from the New Testament?”

In 1892, the Supreme Court declared in a unanimous decision, “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed … because this is a religious people. … This is a Christian nation.”

In other words, Congress affirmed that the First Amendment had never been intended to secularize the public square but just the opposite.

My friend, Gary Demar has an excellent series explaining all of this at American Vision.

I’m going back to my park bench today to resume my study on unions. I got sidetracked there by the “separation of church and state” misusage. I will plod through my books, but I’ll also be taking some breaks to look for the blue jay, the iguana and God.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.