The War Nobody Saw Coming – The First Attack

 In “The War Nobody Saw Coming – The Plan”, I introduced you to Antonio Gramsci and his theory of Cultural Hegemony and how by changing the culture, a group of could subvert a capitalist society by changing it’s tradition and thus the culture instead of using forceful revolution as proposed by Lenin. I could spend more time and countless words on attempting to explain, “How 'small' groups of socialists could change the traditions and thus change the culture and eventually push America further towards Socialism” Instead of me writing a number of words, let's let a number of pictures take the place of a thousand words. Afterward we will take a closer look at opening skirmishes AND what would be the foundation for the attack on our culture, our religious traditions and as we know it, the War on Christmas.

Welcome back, now we're ready to look at the what has happened since Gramsci's theory of 'cultural hegemony' was published in his Prison Notebooks, particularly when it comes to the war on religion in general and Christmas in particular.

Most Patriots and some sheeple know that the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of....” (The Establishment Clause) and the fourteenth amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (springing from National citizenship [sic.]); nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law (of the State [sic.]); nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (of the State [sic])” (Due Process).

It was the twisting of these two amendments plus a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists that would give and continues to give those wanting to change America the ammunition for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to destroy one of the primary principles and traditions behind the founding of America.

When asked when the war on religion began, many will say, “1963, when the SCOTUS ruled in Abington Township School District v. Schempp (Reading of the Bible in public schools) which was joined by Murray v. Curlett (School prayer) were unconstitutional. Very few people know of or even want to mention the first two major skirmishes, the opening shots if you will, of the war on American culture that occurred earlier in 1947, when Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. al was argued before SCOTUS. This was followed a year later in 1948 with McColhum v. Board of Education of School District No. 71.

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. Al (1947)

Background: A state of New Jersey statute authorized the various school districts to make rules and contracts for the transportation of students to and from schools. This state statute allowed the township of Ewing to reimburse parents for public transportation of their children to both public and private schools (most private schools at this time were Parochial...OM). Arch R. Everson, executive vice president of a group called the State Taxpayers Association of New Jersey brought suit in state court because he believed that the money collected for public education was being used to support students attending schools which provide religious education on behalf of a particular religion and thus violated the Establishment clause. The state court ruled that the reimbursement plan WAS unconstitutional, but the verdict was overturned by the state Court of Errors and Appeals, thus it ended up at the SCOTUS.

The Arguments The ACLU joined Everson's side as “Friend of the court” (amicus curiae) argued that the Establishment Clause prohibited a STATE from establishing an official religion and the use of tax money to transport students to parochial schools was a tacit endorsement of religious education. The attorneys for the Board of Education argued that in addition to prohibiting the establishment of a State religion, the First Amendment also prohibits actions which prevent the free exercise of religion, thus by withholding the assistance to the parents would discriminate against the parents of parochial school students and thereby violate the Free Exercise Clause.

The Decision and Rationale The SCOTUS upheld the New Jersey's State Court of Errors and Appeals by a five to four majority. Justice Black writing for the majority that the expenditure of tax funds to pay for the busing of parochial school students does not violate The Establishment Clause, because it does not unduly assist any school, whether public or parochial. Neither does it violate Due Process no more then the concept of using tax funds for the payment of police and fire who are paid from tax funds to protect both public and parochial students. Basically, “... state cannot tax A to reimburse B for the cost of transporting his children to church schools. This is said to violate the due process clause because the children are sent to these church schools to satisfy the personal desires of their parents, rather than the public's interest in the general education of all children. This argument, if valid, would apply equally to prohibit state payment for the transportation of children to any nonpublic school, whether operated by a church or any other non government individual or group.”

McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Background This case revolved around the fact that board of education allowed public school buildings to to be used by various religious groups to give religious instruction once each week. The children who didn't participate were forced to go elsewhere in the school for secular studies, but they were not actually given any regular academic instruction because this would have put them ahead of their religious counterparts. Attendance in religious classes was recorded and reported to teachers, as was the non-participation of non-religious students. The mother of one student, Vashti McCollum, an atheist who would write about the case in 1953 and would later in 1962 became the president of the American Humanist Association, complained that the program of providing religious instruction in schools violated the Establishment Clause. McCollum also complained that the school district's religious education classes violated the Fourteenth amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.

The Arguments Once again the ACLU joined the case as amicus curiae along with the American Unitarian Association, Synagogue Council ofAmerica, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the BaptistJoint Committee of Religious Liberty also filed briefs that argued McCollum's position. The Board of Education argued that the Champaign Council on Religious Education, a group of Jewish, Roman Catholic, and a few of the Protestant faiths, had obtained permission from the Board of Education to offer classes in religious instruction to public school pupils in grades four to nine, inclusive. The parents had signed printed cards that gave permission for their children requesting that their children be permitted to attend. These classes were held weekly, thirty minutes for the lower grades, forty-five minutes for the higher. The council employed the religious teachers at no expenseto the school authorities, but the instructors were subject to the approval and supervision of the superintendent of schools. The classes were taught in three separate religious groups by Protestant teachers, Catholic priests, and a Jewish rabbi, although at the time there had apparently been no classes instructed in the Jewish religion. The classes were conducted in the regular classrooms of the school building.

The Decision and Rationale

In an 8 to 1 majority ruled in favor of McCollum and the ACLU. The court ruled that by allowing:

(1) the use of taxed – established and tax supported public schools to teach religion to students, the government aided these groups in the spreading their faith.

(2) As Justice Black wrote in his majority opinion, “Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes. This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith. ...Here not only are the State's tax supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the State's compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State”

With this decision the skirmish that began with Everson in 1947 would eventually become a war on religion beginning in the public schools and expanding to any tax supported property. This case not only held that the Establishment Clause (1^st Amend.) applied to the states through Due Process (14^th Amend.) but would further entrench the “...building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

I fully realize that these cases may not mean much to some nor will they make the connection to what is happening today, but I will ask you to consider the following.

No matter how hard the Socialists/Left tries to deny or try to rewrite history, America was founded on one simple principle (tradition if you will), FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion.

It is this FREEDOM that has been the cornerstone that has guided families, as well as the majority of Americans throughout our history. Yes, there were times that some used religion for dubious ambitions, but as a people, we learn, and in most cases when discovered it got and still gets corrected by the people and in some cases, unfortunately, the Federal Government.

Just as religion is the cornerstone of American society, education is the foundation.

As Attilito Monasta wrote in his biography of Antonio Gramsci, “Education is a field where theory and practice, culture and politics inevitably merge together, and where intellectual research and achievement combine with social and political action. However, a distinction, if not an opposition, between these two aspects of education is not uncommon and the ideological use of culture and science often pushes toward both the ‘neutralization’ of the educational and political effects of cultural development and the ‘justification’ of the political power by domesticated theories, which, therefore, can be defined as ‘ideologies’. It is difficult, within the traditional division and separation of disciplines and fields of cultural research, to define all of that ‘education’, since education is consistently related to the growth of children and the schooling of pupils, no matter whether from  nursery school or university.[1]

Now,as people listen to the talking heads, out to make a buck on the “culture war” and the War on Christmas, I will ask people to look back over “recent” history and remember that as Antonio Gramsci wrote and the film clip explained, “that by infiltrating and destroying or corrupting the traditions of a society, in this case, America, one can successfully destroy the greatest country in the world.

As Rand Paul said, "Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be ' Constitutional' does not make it so."

Continued in,YOU guessed it, "Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So"

[1] Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. XXIII, no. ©UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2000

Once Again Those Wishing to Drive Religion Underground Attack

No Eden: Atheist group takes on religious-themed public garden

DES MOINES, Iowa – A park planned in Sioux City is getting national attention.

The Shepherd’s Garden, a Christian-themed park, was recently was awarded $140,000 from the state through a Vision Iowa grant. It’s meant to “assist projects that will provide recreational, cultural, entertainment and educational attractions.” The money would go towards building and planting green spaces in the park, but not for any religious symbols.

But the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is fighting the funding, saying using public money to promote Christian ideals violates the First Amendment of the Constitution (No it doesn't. First, the Constitution was written to lay guidelines of what the Federal Government is suppose to do, the Bill of Rights was written to PROTECT the States & the PEOPLE from the Federal Government and  "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT taxing the American people for the park or giving any FEDERAL money to the Shepherd’s Garden Foundation Therefore, how can the FFRF claim that it violates U.S. Constitution. This is STATE money and though a 1947 case dealing with using STATE tax money to aid in busing I feel it hold true here, Justice Black wrote in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. Al (1947) that the expenditure of tax funds to pay for the busing of parochial school students does not violate The Establishment Clause, because it does not unduly assist any school, whether public or parochial. Neither does it violate Due Process no more then the concept of using tax funds for the payment of police and fire who are paid from tax funds to protect both public and parochial students...OM). What's more, according to the foundation, the grant would violate Iowa's own constitution, which “prohibits funding of religious spaces.”

Actually the Iowa Constitution says in Article 3 of its Bill of Rights says, "The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry." The question that needs to be asked, Did the General Assembly pass any laws COMPELLING the people of Iowa to pay taxes to build this park? If not, how can it be a violation of the STATES Constitution?...OM

“The whole park’s purpose is religious which means the government can’t be supporting it at all, any part of it,” said FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel.

Seidel penned a letter to Cathy Reece, chairwoman of the Iowa Economic Development Authority, which manages Vision Iowa, calling for the funding to be rescinded.

Cathy Reece, criticizing the government entity for violating the constitutional ban on public sponsorship of religious activity:

"It is difficult to understand how this grant could have been approved. The “join us” section of the brochure — the plea for money — actually quotes the King James bible, Psalm 23 … Crosses decorate the brochure and park. This is openly about space to promote Christianity, not a public space.

Shepherd’s Garden is of course free to construct their Christian green space, but the government cannot support it. This is one of the most egregious grants for a religious purpose FFRF has encountered. Vision Iowa and the Iowa Economic Development Authority must rescind the grant to comply with the Constitution."

The Shepherd’s Garden fundraising brochure quotes Psalm 23 as a guide for the park and invites donors to “create a legacy to the ongoing role the Christian faith has had in shaping the life of this community.” (I wonder if there would be a complaint if it were for a Muslim park...OM)

The garden’s brochure goes on to say, “Shepherd’s Garden is more than a park, it has been conceived and designed to be a visible reminder that God’s presence is not confined to sacred institutions and buildings, but is very much a part of the public sphere.”

Garrett Smith, a member of the Shepherd’s Garden Foundation, said they were aware this might cause an issue when they applied for the grant.

“We were sensitive to this when we presented it to the board. We weren't trying to hide that this was spiritual and made sure that none of the state money was factored into the budget for the religious symbols,” said Smith.

The park plans to have Bible verses etched into walkway stones, Calvary Crosses in a water fountain and prayer spaces. There would also be “public green spaces,” which is what the Vision Iowa grant would go towards.

Tina Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Economic Development Authority, said the board awarding the grant was aware the garden was meant to be a Christian space. But the board only agreed to give money to public green spaces in the park.

“We would make sure no state funds were expended on the religious elements that were part of the project,” said Hoffman.

But in a letter Seidel sent to state officials, he charged the green spaces are still part of the Christian-themed park and therefore should not be given government funds.

“The brochure makes it quite clear that this is not a park, it is a ‘Christian Park,'" reads the letter. "This is not a permanent green space, but ‘a permanent Christian green space.’

“The government can’t build a parking lot for a church anymore than it can build a green space for a church,” said Seidel. (As Justice Black asked in 1947, Does that mean public money can not be used for fire and police to protect Churches, Synagogues & even mosques? After all by using STATE tax money for these purposes is supporting & protecting religion...OM)

“The contract isn't signed, it’s not even completely drafted, no funds have been spent, nothing has been disbursed. So we’re still in the very early stages,” said Hoffman. She went on to say that if the board found they had new information they could change their decision to award the money. They’ll make that decision at their next meeting.

Smith says he hasn't read the letter from the FFRF yet and he hasn't heard anything from the Vision Iowa board indicating they wouldn't receive the grant money.

If the grant money is taken away Smith said, “It means I have a lot more work to do, I’ll just keep raising money. This park is going to happen.” Adding that although he will make sure the garden is fully funded through fundraising efforts, the loss of the grant, “would be a real blow.”

Seidel said the FFRF hasn't received an official response from chairwoman Reece and expects it to take some time before they do. He said they would choose their next steps at a later point if the board decides to award the garden with the grant.

Smith said that without the grant money, in the last year and a half they have raised about $660,000 of the estimated needed $850,000 to complete the park. Right now the garden is under construction with planting planned in the fall.

Primary Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/25/no-eden-atheist-group-takes-on-religious-themed-public-garden/

Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So*

In “The War No One Saw Coming- The Plan”, I introduced people to Antonio Gramsci and his theory of Cultural Hegemony and how according to him, the culture (traditions) of a society are determined by the “ruling” Bourgeois (the “one percent”) and if the Proletarians (the “ninety-nine percent”) can infiltrate and change those tradition, thus changing the culture, it will be bring down a capitalist society.

 In “The War Nobody Saw Coming- The First Attacks” I attempted to showed that the opening salvos of the “culture” wars were two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). The first, Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947), could be considered a victory for the American way of life. However, we all know that one victory does not win a war and unfortunately a year later (1948), McCollum v. Board of Education, the SCOTUS handed the enemies of the American traditions and religion a victory by expanding the “...Constitution beyond its letter and spirit through judicial legislation...”[1]

In both of these opening skirmishes in the war of Religion and which in turn would lead to a full assault on the war on Christmas and now traditional marriage. The SCOTUS and lower courts have basically held that the word “liberty” (“The power of doing that which is permitted by the law”) in the 14^th amendment, written for the STATES, was/is the same as the word “freedom” (The power to live as one wishes) written in the 1^st amendment for the NATIONAL government.

In making this interpretation SCOTUS basically ignored two cardinal rules: (1) that plain language must be followed, without addition or subtraction; and (2) that it must be kept in mind the evil which the writing was being made to cure.[2]

To begin with, the 14^th makes absolutely NO MENTION of the freedom. Therefore, those guaranteed rights laid out in the 1^st amendment should not have been be drawn into or be construed as part of the 14^th by expanding the meaning of the word liberty.

Second, when the 14^th was written the authors were dealing only with the citizenship of newly freed slaves and the protection of their liberty and their prospective rights. Once again, freedom of religion, speech and Press were far from their thoughts.[3]. This amendment not only made them a citizen of the United States but also made them a citizen of the State of their residence. It also struck the word "white" from the constitutions of northern States which had limited citizenship to white males, thus in both the North and South the Negro gained all the rights of citizenship [4].

The First Amendment on Religion

Let's remember EXACTLY why the Bill of Rights was purposed by looking at the Preamble of the resolutions that were sent to the states, “The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the Time of their Adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added (emphasis added...OM): And as exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution.”

"Congress shall make no Law respecting the Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof;..." This is one phase that EVERYONE should read very carefully for it contradicts the phase that is commonly accepted, “...no law respecting an Establishment of Religion..” and the key word in the original wording, “the”, which is a more declaratory and restrictive word than “an” as commonly read in the reprinting of the Bill of Rights today.

The 1^st amendment says that CONGRESS, therefore the Federal Government, shall make NO laws that will establish a national religion (church) nor could it levy taxes for said established church or religion. It safeguarded the STATES and the PEOPLE from the Federal government denying or interfering with the freedoms of Religion, speech and Press. 

Since the Bill of Rights was written and passed by the STATES to guarantee their rights as INDIVIDUAL states, why should SCOTUS take authority to use the 1^st Amendment of the STATES' Bill of Rights against them?

The Fourteenth Amendment on Religion

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This amendment set aside the idea that a citizen of a state was not in contact with the national government under the theory of States rights because it was supposed that he owed his allegiance to the state and the state dealt with the Nation.

The first SCOTUS case didn't deal with the newly freed slaves, but from rival businesses where the challenge was that the 14^th supplanted former State citizenship which would mean that the National Government was to be the source of all the rights which belong to the citizens of all free governments by virtue of their manhood, and for the protection (not creation) of which all just governments are formed. The Supreme Court rejected (1873) this contention and said that the Amendment did not disclose "any purpose to destroy the main features of the general system." It held that the command that "no State shall . . . abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and does not prevent a State from abridging privileges of State citizenship as distinguished from privileges of National citizenship. This momentous decision preserved State citizenship and State rights.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...” The SCOTUS held that this meant, just as the language says, “the privileges and immunities of National citizenship and not to include those belonging to the citizen of the State. It is a prohibition, not respecting action by an individual or by a group of individuals, but only action by the legislative, the executive, or the judicial department of a State government.” Basically, fundamental state rights which are protected by the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal Government from “invading” a state.

Basically, this amendment prevented the NATIONAL (FEDERAL) government from entering a STATE except to enforce a right of NATIONAL citizenship.

 “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” This is an oft cited statement in the SCOTUS and other courts in the war of religion.

Just as the 5^th amendment in the Bill of Rights was written as a guard against a tyrannical Federal Government. The 14^th was written to guard against a tyrannical STATE and the writers copied the language from the 5^th and as previously stated, “that plain language must be followed, without addition or subtraction”, so if the language is borrowed, it must mean exactly the same thing. Therefore, IF the “liberty” in the 5^th did not mean the same as “freedom” of the 1^st , then how could (can) the courts embrace the idea that “liberty” as written in the 5^th and was borrowed and inserted in the 14^th be the same as “freedom” written in the 1^st ? Therefore, “liberty” in this amendment safeguards a person from unjust or unlawful imprisonment by the STATE, just as the 5^th amendment curtails the FEDERAL government.

As the SCOTUS said in 1908, due process of law means "no change in ancient procedure can be made which disregards those fundamental principles... which... protect the citizen in his private right and guard him against the arbitrary action of the government." 

Again, this amendment prevents the FEDERAL government from entering a STATE in order to protect, “life, liberty, or property” UNLESS the STATE denies its due process in protection of rights springing from NATIONAL (not State) citizenship.

 “...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states, "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." In other words, a citizen of one State doing business in another State cannot be denied the privileges and immunities of the citizens of that State.

This clause in 14^th was designed to prevent a State from discriminating between its own citizens and those of another state. As with the writing/ratification of this amendment, it was written primarily for the liberated slaves (although not mentioned specifically in this Amendment) and the language was without limitation, extending to "any person". Unfortunately this has been applied in upwards of a thousands cases in State and National courts to every perceived form of inequality alleged to arise out of the laws of States.

For example when Congress passed a law that fixed a punishment for three or more persons conspiring to deprive another of the equal protection of the laws was held invalid by the Supreme Court (1883) because the 14^th is a limitation upon the State and not upon persons. The word "persons" also includes a resident alien or a corporation. (Thus according to this case much to the left's dismay, CORPORATIONS are PERSONS, therefore a Corporation is a person = people...OM)

The language and design of this clause was "to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discriminating and hostile legislation." It also means that the FEDERAL government cannot enter a STATE to secure “the equal protection of the laws” of that STATE unless the laws being enforced are to deny the rights of NATIONAL (not State) citizenship.

 As shown there is nothing in the language of the 14^th Amendment written in 1866 that gives any indication or intention of the authors to rewrite or change the meaning of the 1^st amendment written in 1789 to read, "Congress shall make no law [nor shall any State] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". Therefore, NOTHING in the 14^th that should make the word “liberty” written after Emancipation to mean “free” exercise of religion, or the “freedom of speech, or of the Press,” dealt with by the writers of the 1^st amendment seventy-seven years earlier.

Where in the Constitution do the courts have the authority to blend the 14^th Amendment into the 1^st Amendment? If there is be a mingling of the two amendments, shouldn't it be done by the people exerting sovereign power as the constitution makers and not by the assertions of SCOTUS or the authority of Congress? Why is it that in all the years of litigation and arguments concerning this mingling no one has dared to propose to the States an amendment for their ratification which would emasculate them as has been done by decisions handed down by the SCOTUS?

Why does it seem that there no constitutional concern to the STATES and the people that the SCOTUS, as well as the lower courts, have been very busy over the years, causing great confusion when it comes to our Fundamental Law, the Constitution? Or have the STATES become slaves to the NATIONAL government?

Concluded in "Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So* - Part 2"

* Senator Rand Paul, Kentucky

[1] Norton, Thomas James, Undermining the Constitution - A History of Lawless Government, Devin-Adair Co., New York, New York, 1951. (Thomas James Norton was a member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.)
[2] Ibid Page 208
[3] Ibid Page 208
[4] Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution of the United States of America, Its Sources and Its Applications. The World Publishing Co., New York, New York. (1940)

Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So* - Part 2

 In “Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So”, I discussed the meaning and the origins of the 1^st Amendment and the 14^th Amendment and explored how the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), as well as lower courts, have “folded, blended and mingled” the Bill of Rights with the 14^th Amendment by simply interfering that “free (freedom)” of the 1^st Amendment is the same as “liberty” in the 14^th Amendment.

I also demonstrated that if the writers of Bill of Rights, written to safeguard the STATES and the PEOPLE from a tyrannical NATIONAL government, had intended for “free (freedom)” in the 1^st amendment to mean the same as “liberty” as written in the 5^th amendment, would they have not said (wrote), “...nor be deprived of life, freedom, or property, without due process of law...” instead of the ratified amendment, “...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”? If one accepts that the writers of the 1^st and the 5^th meant two different ideas, then the writers of the 14^th amendment, written to safeguard the PEOPLE (particularly the newly freed slaves) from a tyrannical STATE government, and quoted the 5^th, “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...” would have also said, “freedom” instead of “liberty”? Accepting these premises, let's look back at the opening shots of the war on religion and traditions that has lead to the destruction of American values.

McCollum v. Board of Education, a second look

The parents of various religious denominations asked and made arranged with the board of education in Illinois, that their children receive religious instruction for half an hour once or twice a week. This instruction was to be out of class, from unpaid special instructors utilizing classrooms, McCollum, an Atheist, objected and after failing at the state level, was joined by the ACLU, and made its way to the SCOTUS.

Now, a question that should be asked concerning this case is, “Did CONGRESS pass any law concerning the use of these classrooms for religious instruction?” NO, but it was assumed without any proof and has unfortunately become the practice the SCOTUS for many years as it decides to blend the 14^th amendment, written for the STATES, with the 1^st amendment and its companion articles of the Bill of Rights, written for the NATION only.

IF for a moment, we accept the assumption of the Court that the 1^st amendment had been brought down against Illinois, then the question needs to be asked, “Did Illinois pass any 'law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of...'”? NO and the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that no constitutional question existed under the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution.

After hearing the case, Justice Black writing for the majority on the use of the classrooms said, "This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faiths. It falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1."

In the Everson case, Justice Black writing for the majority said, “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they adopt to teach or practice religion.”

What Should the SCOTUS Should Have Said

After taking jurisdiction of the Everson case, when it actually had no real authority to do so, the SCOTUS should have said that Congress gets no authority from the Constitution to spend any tax money in the States for any school purposes (subject for another time...OM). Since the schools are within the inherent police jurisdiction (Power of a government to exercise reasonable control over people and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare.) of the States and those schoolsare entitled to support by the STATE, whether they are public, private, or religious, providing the State Constitution does not prohibit it.

Now, since the 14^th Amendment was written for the STATES and makes no mention of the “freedom of religion” then the 1^st Amendment, written for the NATION, should not have been applicable to Illinois.

Even IF the 1^st Amendment was applicable, Illinois DID NOT levy any taxes for religious purposes, therefore, there was “no law respecting the establishment of religion...”. Using school rooms for other purposes other then education should not be any more objectionable then using those classrooms for the meeting of say a chess club, science club, debate club or any other local organization. Has America fallen so far that the people of a community can not decide on how they can use their OWN buildings for whatever reason they desire?

This would change in 1965 when Congress passed and Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). By so doing, the Federal government now had complete control of the public school system and the states, like crack addicts, became dependent on Federal government funds and in many cases redirected funds that should go for schools to other purposes OR they built “luxury” schools.

This Federal control has now allowed that every time a religious symbol is displayed on public, STATE or Local government property, those who are following Antonio Gramsci's plan of changing the traditions/culture of a capitalist society into a socialist society come out from under their rocks, out of their basements and begin the lawsuits.

Unfortunately, as these lawsuits begin the LOCAL governments bow down and like cowards retreating from a battlefield find the easy way out.

Confusion and Mystification Reigns

The SCOTUS has and still confuses and “mystifies” the subject by its used of inaccurate language and improperly applying constitutional authority where none really exists and unfortunately once a decision is handed down, it is assumed by just about everyone that it is Constitutional when in reality should be reminded what Justice Joseph P. Bradley (1870-1892) wrote in an opinion (100 U.S. 339), “We may mystify anything. But if we take a plain view of the words of the Constitution, and give to them a fair and obvious interpretation, we cannot fail in most cases in coming to a clear understanding of its meaning. We shall not have far to seek. We shall find it on the surface, and not in the profound depths of speculation."

As Senator Rand Paul said, “Just because the Supreme Court says its constitutional does not make it so.”

Editor's Note:
The main sources used for this series were: Norton, Thomas James, Undermining the Constitution - A History of Lawless Government, Devin-Adair Co., New York, New York, 1951.
Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution of the United States of America, Its Sources and Its Applications. The World Publishing Co., New York, New York, 1940.