City on a Hill Radio

Stop Obamacare-Names and Numbers To Call

Eden Ariel — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:04:21 +0000

It seems most Americans have woke to the hijacking of our Constitution by Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for so called Health Care Reform which really doesn’t show “care” when it’s founded on bankrupting this nation. Where is the basic sense or even just common sense math as we already have a deficit of a trillion and we add this program that will cost trillions!! Most of us realize this is a great big lie by people who really do not care (specially when they can manipulate so the numbers put out by the CBO is tweaked to their liking). After all, they can just pass down the cost to ”we the people” in fees and taxes etc., and etc. Please act now while you still can!!!

Here is a link to a list of Democrats that needs to realize they are putting the nail on the coffin of the entire Democratic party and they may never rise again . People are just that mad and rightly so. This nation’s foundation is being over run by people who thinks they can do better than the Constitution. I hope we the people will show them. Please call–click here and find each Congressional office phone number as well as their local office number. WE need to send a barrage of calls so that maybe it will get through their thick heads–that they are going to be over run if not now by the next election. Let us get down on our knees in prayer and then act-first with contacting Congress.

Target these Democrats–Code Red— and call each of their office phone numbers in Washington and in their states!!! Fight for the Constitution and our Republican form of government and the Unborn. Even though we don’t live in their district or even state–we can make a difference–remember Scott Brown–people across the country made a difference as they certainly will change ”our” nation. A phone call is a small thing that means so much for such a time as this!!!

Debunking Global Warming/ US Oil Independence

Eden Ariel — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:07:09 +0000

According to our own US Geological Survey Reports–there is plenty of oil inside the good ‘ole USA (see links at the bottom.) In one of the USGS reports–”For the first time in 20 years, we have an updated assessment of in-place oil shale in the Piceance Basin of Colorado,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. “The USGS scientific report shows significant quantities of oil locked up in the shale rocks of the Piceance Basin. I believe it demonstrates the need for our continued research and development efforts.” It has about 1.525 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources.

In another USGS report: “It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil – the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today’s technology?” said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. “To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation.” They estimate 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. According to a 2-26-10 report by Hal Lindsey and which you can research yourself with reports from our own government (USGS) he states:

We have 8 times more than all the oil in Saudi Arabia
We have 18 times more than Iraq
We have 22 times more than Iran reserves
We have 500 times more oil than Yemen

He states there is enough oil for american energy independence to be assured for 200 years or more. That certainly can be enough time for us to find alternative sources of energy without bankrupting the country. The reports from our own USGS are astounding to say the least.

In the Piceanse Basin of Colorado-nahcolite is embedded with oil shale in many places. They are afraid it will produce great amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide when heated in oil shale processing (oil shale rock must be heated to great temperatures, 530 to 930 degrees Fahrenheit as oil shale does not contain crude oil but contains kerogen, which is an organic precursor to oil and must be heated for oil production.) There lies the global warming scare that puts a damper on trying to obtain or make available this resource.

In our interviews with Dr. Edward Boudreux– who received PhD from Tulane University in 1962, MS from Tulane University in 1958 and BS from Loyola University in 1956– Dr. Boudreaux was a Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Physics for 29 years at the University of New Orleans and retired Prof. Emeritus in 1991 it is very clear that there is an agenda promoting this climate-change or global warming scenario. The greenhouse effect we have heard of that is happening is according to true scientists–a lie.

The promotion of it by Obama and his administration (now to be mandated by the EPA) has been at an all-time fever pitch and had it not been for the exposure by climate-gate, the whole world would still be enslaved by these global warming promoters. But the truth is coming out and interviews with great scientists such as Dr. Edward Boudreaux must be heard by all. It is incredible the audacity of these liars and of course they do it out of greed and also make themselves as the saviors of the world. But the climate-gate e-mails has opened the door so wide and they can no longer shut out the truth. But try and try they will for the money they have invested is so great.

One of the things they can not discount, among many, is the fact about the warm weather during the medieval times when there were no automobiles or other equipment in place (that supposedly cause global warming). But thank God the American people and others like the Australians are now questiong climate change and global warming. Hopefully more and more will know for themselves that come election the global mindset for greening the earth at the cost of enslaving the masses for a lie will be stopped. This is still the land of the free, they forget tyranny was kicked out of this country a long time ago. Hard-working men and women and those who have worked hard and now lives on set income have something in common–that little bill that comes every month affects us all-black, white, red, yellow and whoever increases it for a lie will face our wrath.

Link to USGS Reports: 1 2

Audio Link to interview with Dr. Boudreaux

Interesting Video–even a child could understand

Very thoughtful assessments on climate-gate

Paying The Price For Political Correctness/Veteran’s Day

Eden Ariel — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:45:04 +0000

Hear Mr. Wayne Wood, historian, former teacher, also a veteran speak about Ft. Hood. Please visit our website www.cityonahill.tv for more info such as the video of a message from the Ft. Hood attacker. Also hear speech on Veterans Day from Mr John Eidsmoe who is a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel former Professor of Constitutional Law at the Thomas Goode Jones School of Law in Montgomery, Alabama. He has authored 12 books, including Christianity & the Constitution, Columbus & Cortez, and the video series titled The Institute on the Constitution

Abortion Issue–The Dividing Line–Sandra Cano And Why Is Abortion Wrong?

Eden Ariel — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:42:53 +0000

Here is a link to the ugly and devastating result of pro-choice. No matter how you slice it the aborted baby can no more be treated as tissues as you and I can. Abortion kills a baby. Watch the video but beware–the truth hurts–but don’t get depressed as there is hope as these babies are in heaven. But please help fight the cause of saving babies like them by helping Sav-a-Life or Operation Outcry (where they need signatures of women who had abortion for a petition for a re-hearing in the Supreme Court) or telling others not to make the mistake of killing their own babies.

We also have interviews with the following on our podsite:

Sandra Cano of Doe v Bolton–companion case to Roe v Wade–hear the shocking truth at how the ACLU manipulated to turn this nation toward abortion on demand.

Part 1 2 3

Don Simmons author of the book The Unborn

Kevin Jennings–Safe Schools Czar-Founder Of GLSEN Wants To Expose Kindergarteners To Lessons On Pro-Homosexuality.

Eden Ariel — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:41:57 +0000

Parents Beware–They are trying to change America and they want to start with kindergateners. Wake up America!!! Hear our podcast for 9-12-09 interview with Rep. Jack Kingston of Ga on the Czar Accountability Act HR3226

Obama gave a great speech for our children but look at who is in his administration–it is past time to wake up to the lies!!!

Kevin Jennings– Safe Schools Czar (founded Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network or Glsen)!

He is Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools at the Department of Education.
He has said he looks forward to the day when “promoting homosexuality” in schools will be seen in a positive light, while others at a recent conference sponsored by his organization wants to expose kindergartners to lessons on pro-homosexuality.
GLSEN leaders sees the way to change next generation’s attitude toward homosexuality requires must start in kindergarten. Jaki Williams, a GLSEN activist and teacher at the Packer Collegiate School (in New York), children at that age are “developing their superego,” and “that’s when the saturation process needs to begin.”

Some administrators said the best way to handle problems with parental opposition was simply to avoid them and not send letters to parents but for ed teachers to act independently and just go ahead and incorporate the pro-homosexual materials.

“A child has…been screwed by the educational system if they are not actively…helped to see the glory of diversity as part of the classroom experience,” said Terry Boggis, cofounder and director of Center Kids, a lobbying group for “LGB” (lesbian, gay, bisexual) families. Read complete article!

Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard–”Holy Man”–Life Short But Well Lived

Eden Ariel — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:39:36 +0000

PLEASE TUNE IN 10-17-09 AND LISTEN ONLINE TO A PROGRAM ON THIS ISSUE. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE AWARE OF THIS ISSUE SO PLEASE SHARE AND GET OTHERS TO TUNE IN AND /OR LISTEN TO THE PODCAST THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THIS ISSUE DEALING WITH THE REVISED RULES OF ENGAGEMENT THAT ARE TYING THE HAND OF OUR SOLDIERS.

It’s always sad to read about the death of any soldier like the one of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard who lost his life on Aug. 14th in an ambush in Afghanistan. But I don’t remember reading about one so young (21 yrs old) yet described as a ”Holy Man” by his fellow soldiers.

George Washington said “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” Indeed Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard bore that character.

I asked the Lord for a word today after I had read his story in the Sunday paper and when I opened my Bible it opened to 2Cor Chapter 5

Verse 1 says “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”

That was an awesome scripture for all of who believes in Jesus Christ. Joshua believed and without a doubt he is glad he knew his Savior. He probably wants all his friends to come to know the Savior he knew so well that gave him a servant’s heart after all that’s the greatest tribute to our Lord and that is to be like Jesus. He was the greatest servant of all.

Joshua saw it was his duty to serve God and country. I am sure the seeds he planted in the lives of the men he was around will someday sprout and they too maybe called “Holy Man”–what an awesome thing that would be. Joshua I am sure would like that.

He was described as humble, unassuming and shy yet in contrast he was also the point man for his team and he was known for his determination to get the job done. 2Cor 5:11 talks about the fear or “awe” of God. The fear or awe of God gives Christians uncommon courage in face of life’s troubles as it did Paul of Tarsus and I believe Joshua had this also from what his fellow soldiers described.

Let us remember to pray for his family also as they continue the fight. His father, John Bernard, had sent (weeks before his son’s death) a letter to lawmaker. This was in regard to a recently revised rules of engagement that state troops, can fire at an area if they are receiving fire and are in imminent danger, but if it’s possible for them to move away from the area, they are to do so.

He states “our troops are nothing more than sitting ducks.” What a way to fight is that? Joshua’s father feels this attributed to his son’s death. John Bernard said “they’re being fired upon and being told they can’t fire back in fear of hitting civilians, which means Marines can die and ultimately can’t protect civilians because they can’t fire at the bad guys. ”

“It’s not that they want to go out and kill women and children, but they can’t fight like this.”

Joshua’s father has demanded change so no more troops are in unnecessary danger. They are fighting a war and they can’t do it with their hands tied which is basically what seems to be happening more and more.

Let’s honor the memory of his son by contacting our Congress in support. Call 202-224-3121. There are many concerns about our economy to call Congress on –but this is also of high importance. Our brave men and women deserves us to also fight for them. It’s the least we can do. After all they give their lives for us. Thank you Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard for a life well lived serving God and country. Hope we can do the same.

Here is an example of the problem our soldiers are dealing with:

Let’s briefly revisit the ROE. We have discussed the standing rules of engagement, the theater-specific rules of engagement for Iraq, and even the rules on the use of force. Our problems with the existing ROE and RUF are legendary, and include the insurmountable initial problem that they are constructed around defensive operations and personal and unit self defense and include no discussion or guidance for offensive operations. This is why General Kearney wanted to charge two Army snipers with murder for targeting a Taliban commander who didn’t happen to be holding a weapon.

Insurgents learn to game the system, as this event shows in Ramadi, Iraq, as reported by David Danelo.

The vehicle commander, Corporal Ronnie Davis, is in front of me holding a pair of binos. Three other Marines peer down a street where Mujahideen have been firing at us from multi-story buildings scarred by gunfire and explosions. While we exchange fire with the Muj, other observation assets available to 1 st Battalion, 6th Marines are mapping enemy positions for future operations.

“That’s the same two guys. They’ve crossed back and forth four times,” Corporal Davis announces, referring to a pair of unarmed Iraqis who have run for cover. Because these men are unarmed, the Americans under the Rules of Engagement are not allowed to shoot at them—even though gunfire is coming at us from that direction.

Get the picture? The insurgents had emplaced weapons, fired them, dropped them, run to the next station and picked up another weapon, fired, and were repeating the process as long as they wanted. The Marines couldn’t return fire because they never saw the insurgents run across the street holding a weapon. Go to site with this info

City On A Hill Radio Show will be doing an interview with a lawmaker on this issue as our brave men and women needs all of us to fight for them too.

What’s Wrong With The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS And NBC–Misinformation

Eden Ariel — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:38:33 +0000

As late as Friday, as the Jones matter began to boil over, it had not been reported at all in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC. Although the Post and CBS went on to report the Jones story on Saturday, the Times did not inform its readers about the Jones matter until after Jones resigned

The public outcry on Van Jones resulted in White House announcement early Sunday 9-6-09 of his resignation.

How could this happen when the all powerful media of New York Times, Washington Post, evening news of ABC, NBC and CBS failed to inform their audience of the controversy. In all fairness the Post and CBS did report it finally Saturday 9-5.

Yet so much controversy and outcry was out there from the public. The public knew and it made a difference so much so Van Jones is gone. I wonder if this is a sign people no longer have to have them for their news–after all this is a definite sign of their untrustworthiness when they can not even report the news about the adviser to the President so I guess people are deciding they are no longer news outlets but rather mis-information outlets–what a waste. Read more

Yes Mr. Pres The Price of War is Too High –When Soldiers Lives Are Now Expendable

Eden Ariel — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:31:10 +0000

Here is a link to the revised rules of engagement. This is the worst of times in America. Americans are suffering poor leadership not just at home but also abroad. The recent incidents of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard and now the four marines killed which maybe attributed to the new rules of engagement is getting to sound like another Vietnam. Hasn’t America learned her lesson? This administration wants our brave men and women to fight an almost perfect war with hopefully no civilian casualties. Have we forgotten this is war?

Read more on this issue and contact Congress to revisit the revised rules of engagement asap. Our brave men and women signed up with the understanding they are to fight the enemy–but they can never win with their hands tied let alone survive. Let us not make this another Vietnam!!!

HR 3226-Czar Accountability Act and Rep Jack Kingston

Eden Ariel — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:50:41 +0000

City On A Hill Radio Show did an interview with Congressman Kingston on this hot button issue. A must hear on this topic–click on this.

When asked what it was that opened his eyes to this issue he referred to Article II Section 2 of the Constitution…Be sure to listen to the podcast and be amazed and contact your Rep to co-sponsor this bill!!

For those who want to dig deep look at Australia’s key cause for change in opinion toward Cap and Trade read Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science .

Czar Accountability Act-HR3226 and Rep. Jack Kingston of Ga

Eden Ariel — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:47:47 +0000

We are so grateful for the interview with Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia. He is the sponsor of the Czar Acountability Act HR 3226. We hope you will listen and ask your Rep to co-sponsor this legislation that will help rein in these czars who have so much unbridled power from issues such as cap and trade, health care, global warming and with radical ideas will strive to change the fundamentals of this nation even kindergateners are not safe as we have a safe-schools czars who sees promoting homosexuality starting with kindergarteners as the way to affect the next generation. Parents take time out of your busy schedule and see the thorns in the rosy halls of government as they now should be seen as a danger to your family. After the interview with Rep Jack Kingston is Brad Miller Director of the Family Policy Council Dep of Focus on the Family Action. The information his shares is pivotal to Alabama and this nation. We close the show with some words of wisdom from Mrs. Annette Griswold a concerned ciitizen and also a Board member of the Coffee County Board of ED.

Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard–Point Man

Eden Ariel — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:54:42 +0000

I asked the Lord for a word today after I had read his story in the Sunday paper and when I opened my Bible it opened to 2Cor Chapter 5

Verse 1 says “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”

“It’s not that they want to go out and kill women and children, but they can’t fight like this.”

Czars-Information and Videos on Who They Are

Eden Ariel — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:45:32 +0000

Listen to Podcast

George Bush did have one czar but 32 so far of unaccountable positions overseeing enormous legislations and policies from cap and trade, global warming, health care etc. is beyond words and is dangerous for freedom loving America.

Van Jones– Green Czar–Resigned Sunday Sept 6, ‘09

Videos 1 2 3

He is an avowed Communist. He will be in charge of the huge cap and trade legislation!

Jones says he became politically radicalized in the aftermath of the deadly April 1992 Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King incident. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th,” says Jones, ”and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.” Read more

Mark Lloyd — Freedom of Speech Specialist

Videos 1 2

In Mark Lloyd’s book Amazon.com: Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America (History of Communication) (9780252073427): Mark Lloyd: Books

Here is his idea on freedom of speech , press.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least blind references to freedom of speech or press serves as a distraction from the critical examination of other communication policies. The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules [by the government], fines, and regulations, that would promote democratic governance.”

Please listen to our podcast dated 9-5-09 on the czars.

The center quotes Sunstein’s 2007 speech at Harvard University, where he argued in favor of “eliminating current practices such as … meat eating” and proposed: “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law . It’s time now.”

Cass Sunstein- Regulatory Czar

In Sunstein’s 2007 speech at Harvard University, he was for ”eliminating current practices such as … meat eating” Also “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law It’s time now.” Read more and more

Todd Stern– Special Envoy for Climate Change

He was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary in the White House from 1993 to 1998. He is focusing on climate change and environmental issues. He also acted as the senior White House negotiator at the Kyoto Protocol and Buenos Aires negotiations.

Rev. John Peter Muhlenberg and Rev. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg–Lessons From The Past on First Amendment 101

Eden Ariel — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:19:33 +0000

Tyranny moves men into action–a great example is of the story of two Reverends. One was the signer to the Bill of Rights.

First we must start with the story of his brother John Peter Muhlenberg. Rev. John Peter Muhlenberg (there is a statue in honor of him at the Capitol) told his Woodstock, Virginia congregation on Sunday January 21, 1776, “a time to preach and a time to pray. But there is also a time to fight and that time has now come.” He faced a crowded church that Sunday morning. In his long black clerical gown, he read the first eight verses of the third chapter of Ecclesiastes, then preached the sermon that has come down through the years as a tradition and a challenge.

After the benediction, he then cast aside his clerical robe to stand before the congregation in the uniform of a Colonel in the Eighth Virginia Regiment. He marched down that aisle as he said “we came here to practice our religious and civil liberties and if we don’t get involved we are going to lose those liberties. Who’s going with me to defend those liberties?” Drums beat in the churchyard and 300 men and boys followed him and enlisted in the Continental Army with their pastor as their leader which became the 8th Virginia Brigade.

He became a Major General and was one of George Washington’s most trusted men. His brother the Reverend Frederick Muhlenberg disagreed with him at the onset and had sent him a letter telling him he would have acted for the best if he’d kept out of this business from the beginning and that John Peter was wrong.

John Peter wrote back in his letter “you accused me of getting involved-that I shouldn’t because I am a clergyman. I am a clergyman it is true. I am a member of society as we ll as the poorest of laymen. My liberty is as dear to me as it is to any man shall I then sit still? Heaven forbid it. I am convinced it is my duty so to do and duty I owe to God and my country” [quotes is from David Barton of Wallbuilders on his CD America's Birthday]

In 1777 British invaded NY City and they desecrated and seized his church. Rev. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg then changed his mind. He too got involved– so much so that he became the First Speaker of the House. His is one of the two signatures on the Bill of Rights (other is John Adams).

Do you think he would want the First Amendment misinterpreted as the Courts do now? Most certainly not. He and his brother are great examples to the truth behind the first amendment. Courts need to do their job which is to interpret it according to the Founding Fathers intent. Now you know.

These pastors were great leaders of the American Revolution. Another example–the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord. Their leader was the Rev. Jonas Clark. They fought so that we can have the freedoms we enjoy today and one of them is to fight for change in our government peaceably–with discourse and informed votes. Hope many pastors will take up their stand and become involved.

Ezekiel Emmanuel–Health Care Strategist–What’s the Fuss on him and others?

Eden Ariel — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:03:22 +0000

Ezekiel Emmanuel came on board on Feb ‘09 to form a national healthcare strategy. He is a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. He is, by the way, the brother of White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emmanuel. The fuss is because just a month before coming on board in January ‘09– Dr. Emanuel co-wrote an article entitled Re- allocation of Scarce Medical Resources on the British Journal The Lancet. Here are excerpts from that article he co-authored and in particular are two excerpts about the complete lives system (to achieve just allocation of scarce medical interventions)-click here for the full article. Read for yourself.

“Consideration of the importance of complete lives also

supports modifying the youngest-fi rst principle by

prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants

(fi gure). Adolescents have received substantial education

and parental care, investments that will be wasted without

a complete life.”

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority

curve on which individuals aged between

roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance,

whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that

are attenuated (fi gure)”

Then go to this link and find out more about the other advisers–czars–

Concerning Judge Moore by Wayne Wood

Eden Ariel — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:59:44 +0000

Sometimes all it takes is a handshake and a look into a person’s eyes to see into his or her soul. That’s how it was with Judge Roy Moore when I met him. It was May of 2003 at the height of the controversy over the Ten Commandments Monument in the State Judiciary in Montgomery. My family was returning home from my oldest son’s graduation from Auburn University. We decided to stop at the Olive Garden in Montgomery for dinner. As we entered the restaurant I recognized Judge Moore with his wife. I pointed them out to my wife.

“Why don’t you go talk to him?” she asked.

I was reluctant to bother him as I was sure he was constantly being pestered by folks, both pro and con – not to mention the press. I figured all he wanted was to be left alone. I entertained a small struggle in myself, the man, his fight intrigued me. I thought it would be nice to get to speak to him to try and figure him out.

As a Government and Economics teacher in a public school I had been following the controversy around Judge Moore since his tenure as a judge in Etowah County. I agreed with him that displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom was not unconstitutional. If that was the case then the Ten Commandments carved into the walls of the US Supreme Court are unconstitutional. Having read the Federalist Papers myself and being aware of the opinions of the founders on the role of religion and faith in the republic they were trying to establish – not to mention the history behind the First Amendment – I do not believe in the complete separation of church and state as is held by the current conventional wisdom.

The words are found nowhere in either the Constitution itself, nor in the amendments. The First Amendment merely provides for freedom of conscience by forbidding CONGRESS from establishing a state church on the order of the Church of England (remember in England folks were forced to go to the Church of England or be punished by imprisonment or loss of property and life), or (here’s the forgotten part) FORBIDDING anyone from practicing their religion.

This prohibition applies only – ONLY to Congress. The original intent was to limit the National government’s power – it said nothing about the States. As a matter of fact several of the original States not only endorsed certain denominations, but supported those denominations with tax money. Here is where the infamous phrase, written by Jefferson (not Madison in the Constitution) originates. Jefferson was assuring Baptists in his home State of Virginia, who were worried about being persecuted as a religious minority (most folks in Virginia attended the old Church of England, now known as the Episcopal Church in the new nation), by telling them there was being built in the new nation a “wall of separation between church and state” protecting minority religions. This statement was taken out of context by a latter day Supreme Court to shove religion in a corner.

Even apart from the religious significance of the Ten Commandments, one cannot ignore the Ten Commandments as a basic foundation of Western Law. One can point to the Laws of Hammurabi as the earliest written law code (arguable with recent archeology); one can point to Ancient Greece (Athens) a the birthplace of the democratic idea; and the impact of Roman Jurisprudence in the Justinian Code gives us the idea of the law applying equally to all citizens. There is no doubt the influence of these and other sources on our ideas of law and government. But WHOSE law?

There was no greater single influence on European (Western) Civilization that produced the folks who ventured across the Atlantic Ocean in those tiny ships than the Christian Bible. Their civilization and law codes were based on the foundation of the Law of Moses – the Ten Commandments.

Though there is much debate over the levels of faith of those who were at the Constitutional Convention and deism was a popular fad of the day, there is little doubt that everyone who signed our Constitution were frequent Bible readers and held its moral precepts as sacred – even Jefferson who is popularly considered from his earlier writings to be the least religious of our founders (though he wasn’t in Philadelphia in 1787). One should read his letters to John Adams later in life and be surprised to find him moving closer to the faith of his fathers as his death grew near.

If our founders were Deists, they were Christian Deists, whose image of God was shaped by the Bible. If any were agnostic, they were “Christian” agnostics. Just as any atheists (such as Thomas Paine, who stands pretty much alone in that category) were “Christian” atheists whose image of the God they were rejecting was the God of the Bible.

It is a little known fact that Thomas Jefferson as President attended church services held in the Capitol building where Congress debated while the capitol city was being completed. One wonders what his opinion of the Supreme Court’s application of his words would be.

The Ten Commandments is the foundation of the moral code and law of three of the world’s greatest religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. So, if I were to post one set of laws on my wall in a US Court, I don’t think I’d be posting the Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism, with all due respect to Hindus.

So Judge Moore’s posting of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall was a logical statement of the foundation of all our laws; his placement of the monument a similar statement. So why the fuss?

Perhaps it was in the WAY he did it?

Even US District Court Judge Myron Thompson’s decision ordering the removal of the monument stated that the monument would have been no problem had Moore not openly stated upon its installation that the purpose was to call the people back to a recognition of the source and foundation of all law – God.

“If all Chief Justice Moore had done were to emphasize the Ten Commandments’ historical and educational importance… or their importance as a model code for good citizenship… this court would have a much different case before it. But the Chief Justice did not limit himself to this; he went far, far beyond. He installed a two-and-a-half ton monument in the most prominent place in a government building, managed with dollars from all state taxpayers, with the specific purpose and effect of establishing a permanent recognition of the ’sovereignty of God,’ the Judeo-Christian God, over all citizens in this country, regardless of each taxpaying citizen’s individual personal beliefs or lack thereof. To this, the Establishment Clause says no.” (Glassroth v. Moore)

Today’s conventional wisdom would nod sagely and say that Moore should have left religion out of it; after all there is a separation of church and state in the United States and Moore clearly violated. If Moore had stated that his purpose was historical rather than religious, if Moore’s purpose had been sociological rather than religious, if it had been aesthetical rather than religious he might have gotten away with it.

So what are we to say, that our motives and thoughts are to be judged at the discretion of the Federal courts now? That any and all thought and motivation are approved in the public square except religion? Is this in keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment?

Did Judge Thompson have authority over a State court? Did Judge Thompson have jurisdiction over the highest court in the State of Alabama?

This is a thorny question that has caused conflict since the beginning of our nation and caused our bloodiest war.

Our Constitution was written and adopted to strengthen the weak national government created by the Articles of Confederation. There was controversy from the start over the document because it was a legitimate fear of many of our greatest minds of the time that a strong national government with too much centralized power would lead to tyranny. As the 19th Century English statesman Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Our founders believed the best way to check power (and its abuse) was to divide power as much as possible.

It was with this idea in mind our system of government was established. It was a presidential system of government. Unlike the British parliamentary system, the executive branch, or president, was totally independent of the legislative branch of government. Therefore the two branches could act as a check on each other and a series of checks and balances were installed to ensure that neither branch could gain too much political power over the other. The legislature, or Congress could pass bills, but any bill Congress passed had to pass through the President before it could become law. The President could approve or veto a bill and therefore had final authority, but even this power was checked by the threat of a Congressional override of the President’s veto if enough members of Congress felt the matter was important enough to warrant that extreme measure.

The third branch of government, the judicial was dependent on the other two not only for their positions, but was totally under the authority and jurisdiction of Congress. It is a little known or accepted fact that Article III of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate which types of cases the Federal courts may hear and that Congress can step in and keep the courts away from certain types of cases. Barring that measure, Congress has the power of the purse and can always cut funding for the courts should they choose – or do away with courts if it is at their pleasure. This is all in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution. There was concern over lifetime appointments to the court but Hamilton pooh-poohed such concerns away in The Federalist 78 because in his mind the Judiciary was at the total mercy of Congress as stated above.

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive… (The Federalist 78 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm )

Of course, this was written before the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) where Chief Justice John O. Marshall created for his Court the power of Judicial Review.

Jefferson, on the other hand, being an anti-Federalist, had severe reservations about the growing power of the courts. Even though he won the case of Marbury v. Madison he was less than sanguine about the idea of the Federal Courts being considered the final authority on what is and is not Constitutional, the idea of “Judicial Review.” In 1820 he wrote (in a letter to Thomas Jarvis):

“You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. (http://books.google.com/books?id=vvVVhCadyK4C&pg=PA178&dq=%22which+would+place+us+under+the+despotism+of+an+oligarchy%22#v=onepage&q=%22which%20would%20place%20us%20under%20the%20despotism%20of%20an%20oligarchy%22&f=false )

If the system of checks and balances wasn’t enough to check the unbridled lust for power of people on the bench, there was another wall for the Courts to overcome, the principle of Separation of Powers. There are two clauses in the Constitution (other than the First Amendment) which apply to Judge Moore’s case. They are the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution, which were put in the “Bill of Rights” just to prevent such an abuse of power as we’ve seen by the Federal government in recent years.

One of the objections many Federalists had to including a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution was the fact that many (particularly Washington), knowing human nature as they did realized that if one started listing rights folks had someone would come along and deny a right the founders forgot to include. We see this today over the wording when lawyers haggle over whether the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (as every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is, not to mention the term individual is in the amendment) or only applies to a person’s right to join the State militia or National Guard. Washington believed a general recognition of the rights of people to be free was a given and to name certain rights was to limit freedom. And of course he was right. However, anti-Federalists had a point when they stated that unless someone wrote down individual guarantees of freedom someone was likely to come along and try to deny those rights. It seemed the move to ratify the Constitution was at an impasse, so Madison agreed to put together a Bill of Rights to remove this obstacle to our new government. At the end of this list of basic individual freedoms he added the final two:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In these two amendments the powers of the central or national government were severely limited to only those powers specifically given it by the US Constitution. As our own civics and US Government textbooks teach the powers of the national government are “delegated powers” read Amendment X, while the powers of the States and individuals are reserved powers. This should also apply to the Federal Courts as well. What does this mean? It means (or should mean) the Federal government can only do those things the Constitution says it can do and stay out of the business the US Constitution remains silent on – that belongs to the State or individuals.

So how come the Federal government is involved in every aspect of our life? Because we allow it. And we particularly are vulnerable to the lie that the Federal courts and the US Supreme Court are the final authority on what is Constitutional in the United States. Remember the power of Judicial Review is not found anywhere in the US Constitution, it is a power the Supreme Court established for itself in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

How did we get to this point when the Constitution and the words of our Founders speak so plainly? It didn’t happen overnight.

“Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people will believe you.” Adolf Hitler

“The bigger the lie you tell, the more likely people are to believe it.” Joseph Goebbels.

We, the American people have been fed the lie of “separation of church and state” and “judicial review” and the 14th Amendment has been used for so long to get the Federal government into places our Founders never dreamed the government would be involved in the people have just accepted it as fact.

Congress, which has the responsibility of reigning in the courts when they get out of hand has abdicated that responsibility. After all, the courts have done congressmen a great favor by taking several controversial issues out of their hands. Face it, for a politician, issues such as abortion, school prayer, even integration and affirmative action are lose-lose propositions. No matter how a congressman or senator votes on these issues he or she is going to upset someone so they let the courts do the dirty work, shrug their shoulders and say, “What can I do?”

And we, the people have let them get away with it because by and large, most of us don’t know any better.

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6)

Republican Congressman Terry Everett from our 2nd District Alabama tried to correct this through the legislative process by proposing the “Constitutional Restoration Act” which would have re-asserted the Congressional authority over the courts outlined in Article III of the US Constitution. He was roundly criticized from all quarters, including our local newspaper for trying to usurp the Constitution. I wrote a defense of Everett’s bill to their editorial but found my letter so destroyed by their editing as to lose its entire meaning. Everett retired the next election cycle and I cannot help but wonder if this was the final straw for him.

So what was I to make of Judge Roy Moore who had stood against the established conventional wisdom and stuck his thumb in the eye of an overriding Federal authority? Was he the opportunistic populist politician trying to make a name for himself? Was he one in a long series of charlatans spouting God, the Bible and country for his own gain? Was he just a fool tilting at windmills? Or was he that rare commodity, the “real deal?” A man of ideas, and principles he held above personal gain or well-being.

I find such beings rare these days, perhaps they always have been. I know when I used to tell stories of heroism in my history classes and try to explain why the men of Pickett’s division walked across that hot field in the face of federal guns, why Richard Garnett refused to excuse himself from duty that day, even though he was too sick to walk; why the Union Irish Brigade marched up to the slaughterhouse that was Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg, or why those folks at the Alamo didn’t high-tail it when they had the chance; I know I had a hard time explaining to those students raised in our cynical age that there were folks for whom honor, and courage were more important than life itself. (Just an aside here, the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan give me hope that such qualities aren’t as rare as I once feared).

Could Judge Moore be one of that increasingly rare breed in public service these days?

I determined if I got the chance I would go up and speak to him and try to find out for myself. As things turned out I got my chance.

I had gone to the wash room and was returning when I saw Judge Moore and his wife standing at the register waiting to pay their bill. I walked over to him, put my hand out and said, “I’ve been praying for you.” And I had, in spite of my questions, something in my spirit told me to pray for him.

I saw his eyes tear up and at that moment I knew the intense pain he was enduring in his fight. Having been there myself more than once I knew this was no quest for glory that this man was in his own Gethsemane. Whatever one wants to think of Judge Roy Moore, whether one agrees with his stance or methods, the man is no hypocrite.

Suddenly all the things I read about him in the media began to make sense. The papers talked about his service in Vietnam, how his troops called him “Captain America” because he was so strict about the regulations. I knew that such a man could be no other way because it was his duty to enforce the regulations and this man was about duty, and honor, and country. And as we discussed his case briefly I knew at the top of the list was his God. What the media (and perhaps some of his troops) meant as a slam against his character I now knew was a tribute to his integrity.

One can say he lost his court battle and was removed and that the other seven justices on the Court opposed him. Well, I remember a story of a little boy who went against the crowd to tell the Emperor he was naked. Was he wrong because everyone disagreed with him?

I’ve never understood how an administrative panel could remove an elected official from office. Under my understanding of Constitutional law it would require an impeachment proceeding by the State Legislature. But there are many things in the law that I have to admit baffle me.

Since that day in the restaurant I’ve had the opportunity to meet, speak with, and hear Judge Moore on more than one occasion. I am always amazed at his encyclopedic knowledge of US history, the law, the Constitution, and the Bible. Even more so I am amazed at his understanding of these concepts and the practical application of them.

I personally am glad he has not chosen to go hide in a corner but is once more offering to enter public service. We need someone up there who is not afraid to tell the Emperor he’s naked.