A Miscellaneous Post For What May Be The Last Independence Day of the Republic of The United States Of America, July 4, 2015

 






The 4th of July of 2015 may or may not be the very last Independence Day celebration that the Republic of the United States of America has in any reverence for July 4, 1776.   We have those in across the whole spectrum of Federal Power in the United States who, in their anti-GOD insanity, would replace those political founders of the United States with alien beasts such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mohammed the bi-sexual transvestite sex pervert who was a genie / demon possessed menstruating vagina sniffer of a little girl who penned the Quran by his dictation because he was too stupid to know how to read or write. 


From the time the Pilgrims in 1620 first ventured into a vast unknowable ocean, to land in a wilderness, and prayed and trusted GOD in their Christian faith...




...to the floor of the ensconced seat of a New Government on which their descendants could proclaim for themselves LIBERTY as a nation once again striking out into the unknown wilderness of existence in Independence and confidence in Almighty GOD...



...to the signing of the Constitution establishing a lasting and working Republic, guaranteeing in its own and successive generations a mutual pledge to honor FREEDOM and the RIGHTS of the Individual secured in a solemn sacred pledge that requires 2/3's of the Senate and 3/4ths of the States agreeing before they could in any way be altered or taken away, ensuring LIBERTY of the Individual in his affairs with Government...






...to the expansion of the borders of a new Nation growing Westward, looking for new Wildernesses to explore and overcome, and for its new generations to assert their own reliance upon GOD along with their new exploration of LIBERTY and INDEPENDENCE...



...America has in those generations and in the generations since, valued FREEDOM FROM Government as much as it has valued freedom in and with Government.  To continually press and constrict Americans, by the very nature of the act, requires that the pressure be redirected at those who cause them ill, and to overwhelmingly respond accordingly.  If the Federal Government fails to read the very first words of the Constitution of the United States, "WE the People of the United States", and fail to exercise the discretion of Jesus Christ to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", then they in the Federal Government fail to realize the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence and what it truly meant then, and what it truly means today.  It is not a document of us and them, of YOU people with an exclusionary "us" who are exempt...no, it is a "WE THE PEOPLE" document. 







   The very same themes that decorate the halls of Congress and have been always patriotic to the Republic and the Constitution of the United States is now hailed as "hate speech" by deviants from all decency and good morality, felonious sexual perverts, the mentally ill, the insane, and the like.  It matters not whether they are just nutty homosexual activists, hypocritical anti-Caucasian racist jackasses, rapid anti-Christians, or what have you, they all work for one goal, to destroy all that is good so that evil and injustice prevail, while they gorge in sins and pretend they live as gods. 



  Below's Two Photos: Credit to "Architect of the Capitol"  which in no way endorses any point of view from anybody, not even the Founders themselves. Yikes!     http://www.aoc.gov/

The First Continental Congress, 1774

USCapitol

Left:       While a Citizen Colonist is paying excessive Royal Taxes taxes...
Right:     his wife and child are being oppressed by fear and 
              physical intimidation by a British trooper.

Center:  Patrick Henry in 1774, addresses the First Continental Congress 
             in Carpenter's Hall, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Quote:         "OUR GOVERNMENT --
               Conceived In FREEDOM.
               And Purchased In BLOOD,
               Can Be Preserved Only By 
               CONSTANT VIGILANCE." 

                               -- William Jennings Bryan, 1908. 

In this scene of the First Federal Congress of 1789, James Madison (Left of Center) stands to the right of Speaker Frederick Muhlenberg (seated Center). 

 From the Floor (Right of Center, foreground) Elbridge Gerry stands to be recognized, while in the far right background (at the Speaker's Left Hand) stands a listening Fisher Ames.

Left: A Christian minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, freely conducts an out of doors public service, freely exercising the freedom of religion that is later acknowledged as a fundamental right, and then guaranteed for perpetual generations as something upheld and remembered always in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Right: A Printer exercises another of the First Amendment Rights, whether it be a written (but set in type) private or a written (but set in type) commercial publication, all of which is covered by the intent in the words "freedom of the press."

Quote:  "Without Freedom Of Thought,
                There Can Be No Such Thing
                As Wisdom,
                And No Such Thing As Publick Liberty
               Without Freedom Of Speech."

                          -- Benjamin Franklin, 

"Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice  between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have  peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly,  there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every  lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement,  and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to  face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no  choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we  continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we  have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita  Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has  told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and  someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our  surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been  weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes  this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any  price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd  rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the  road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You  and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet  as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in  life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this  enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in  slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should  the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused  to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not  fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of  the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well  it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say  to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point  beyond which they must not advance." Winston Churchill said, "The  destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great  forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits—not  animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space,  and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells  duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll  preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or  we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of  darkness."  -- Ronald Reagan

What was it that the Colonies of America called “absolute Despotism” and “absolute Tyranny” in their list of charges against King George III and his government’s representatives (both civil and military) in their Declaration of Independence?    More and more, much of the complaints made in the Declaration of Independence reads as a playbook by Obama and his fellow scum Communist-Socialists, as they attempt to disengage U.S. Citizens away from reading one of the playbooks of attack on U.S. Citizens, even if it is often a generalized theme...it also appears to point to what a few of his next moves in the coming year will be as well.




He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.   [Obama is likewise guilty] 

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
   [Obama is likewise guilty.  Consider Arizona and other states in regard to Immigration Laws as one example.] 

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.    
  [Obama is likewise guilty] 

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.        [Obama is likewise guilty]   

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.      
  [Obama is likewise guilty.  Kagan and Sotomayor will advance his agenda and fight any Article III challenge to Obama's unconstitutionality to even exist as POTUS because their own jobs are at stake when he is proven illegitimate to even be in office.] 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
  [Obama is likewise guilty, and this includes the Federalization of towns and cities where swarms of bureaucrats come in and tell the mayor and police chief and town council that these Washington, D.C. bureaucrats are now in charge, and that it is classified, and if they shoot their mouth off they will allegedly either disappear forever or allegedly  there will be such IRS and manufactured drug charges Law Enforcement calamity, they and some of their loved ones will never draw a free breath of air again...or words to this effect. ] 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:     
  [Obama is likewise guilty] 

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
 [Soon to be attempted by Obama.] 





For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
 [Soon to be attempted by Obama.] 

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:   
  [Obama is likewise guilty] 

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
 [Soon to be attempted by Obama.] 

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
 [Soon to be attempted by Obama.] 

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
   [Obama is likewise guilty] 


For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
[Soon to be attempted by Obama.] 

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
   [Obama is likewise guilty]  


He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
   [Obama is likewise guilty in arming and aiding Al Qaeda and ISIS, at U.S. tax-payer expense, and strategically placing them in all 50 states along with other nutty war-mongering Muslims, be they from Somalia, Ethiopia, or what have you.] 

He has constrained our fellow Citizens ...to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.   
  [Obama is likewise guilty, starting with known to be fatal knockout games for Trayvon Martin, refusal to prosecute based on black racism, and on anti-Caucasian bigotry being excused as his Administrative Policy, and escalating ever since] 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
   [Obama is likewise guilty]  




 KEEP AMERICA FREE - RESIST THE USURPER OBAMA AND ALL ILLEGAL TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (including Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and anyone else not born of TWO United States Citizen Parents on U.S. Soil, as required by the Constitution of the United States under the Natural Born Citizen Clause. 

 "...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel+%2B%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false




In regard to those who are President of the United States claiming Constitutional Authority, the Court has said that "The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, is upon those making the claim." Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @653;  and the Court has specified the legality and recognition of a legitimate birth certificate or hospital records with WITNESSES to the birth as optional testimony in place of a mother who is a living and preferential witness to the birth of a child in Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62 ; and further, the Court has now just acknowledge that by necessity of legal interpretation, we may not exclude citizen fathers from being a legal necessity from the intent of those legal framers in the time period in which Natural Born Citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution of the United States just 22 years later when it was still wholly viable that: Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 430 (1765) Obergefell et al v. Hodges __ US __  (2014) @ 6    [thus requiring a Father who was needed to pass down any claim to Natural Born Citizenship as stated also by John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59]



Edward J. Erler gave a speech at the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on February 12, 2008, in Phoenix, Arizona, and made some interesting comments regarding the issue of Birthright Citizenship in the late 1700s America.  His speech was later published through Imprimis at: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07

"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP—the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship—is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true.

The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.” According to Blackstone, this debt is “intrinsic” and “cannot be forefeited, cancelled, or altered.” Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.

America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as “high treason.” So the common law—the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance—could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!
James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked:“Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects.”

The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed—not the accident of birth.“

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”



 For the first over 100 years as a REPUBLIC, there is NO DOUBT that the United States of America was clearly a Christian Nation from its very origins up to that time.  Proof positive was left us by no less than the United States Supreme Court in


CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES, 143 U. S. 457 (1892)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/457/case.html

Page 143 U.S. 465
...
But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.

The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the 

Page 143 U. S. 466
ocean will be discovered," etc. 

The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, Queene, defender of the faith," etc., and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England."

The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words:
"We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well intended Desires."

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611, and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.

The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites:
"Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration:
"Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence
 
Page 143 U. S. 467
so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike state or Comonwelth, and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus weh we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, weh according to the truth of the said gospell is now practiced amongst vs."

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited:
"Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare,"
etc.

Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thet are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . We therefore the Representatives of the united states of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,"
etc.;

"And for the 

Page 143 U. S. 468
support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, 

    [Divine Providence simply means "GOD who foreknows /foresees, directs, provides for and takes care of".  It is the confession of GOD as a Being directly and though unseen, being involved in the affairs of men...to the good of those who love GOD, to the hurt of those who don't by a withdrawal of His support / provision/protection.  -- Brianroy]

 we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states 

[Remember, this decision by the US Supreme Court is written in 1892, almost 126 years after the Declaration of Independence.  -- Brianroy]

contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.

This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870:
"We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,"
etc.

It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." 

It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4:  
"The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God."

Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867:
"That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he 

Page 143 U. S. 469
believes in the existence of God, 

[Note that the Court deems Atheists as generally incompetent witnesses and jurors by this decision.  Something that should have been pressed in later cases, but to my knowledge never used, though it should have been.  -- Brianroy]

and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution."

Or like that in Articles 2 and 3 of part 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780:
"It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality, therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832:
"No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state."

Or by Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware, (1776), which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration:
"I, A. B., do profess 

Page 143 U. S. 470
faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.

While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:
"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious 

Page 143 U. S. 471
subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."

And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 43 U. S. 198, this Court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: 
"It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;"
the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.   ...."



There will be those in denial of what the Court affirmed as a legal fact in the 1890s.  If so, can they who are in such ignorance and denial at all fathom and rationally excogitate the true and definitive historical and  correct context of the separation of Church and State clause Jefferson must have truly meant, when we know that Jefferson as President acknowledged Jesus Christ as LORD and the ONLY Name by which we should beseech Almighty GOD through?      


"Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners. "Save us from violence, discord and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. "Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. "In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."  
President of the United States: Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1805


If the allegorical trees of liberty, of our national Christian heritage, of our great counsel of the holy Bible, of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, of all that is good...if all these allegorical trees are removed, then all that is left is devastation and ruin by which society cannot survive, nor can ever recover...because they have no inclination to replant the good, but will instead demand the destruction of all, the innocent along with these who are evil among us.