The content of Yahoo!WebRing's advertising banners and links is solely the product of Yahoo!WebRing and their advertising clients. Yahoo!WebRing's banner advertising is not the product of, endorsed, or approved by The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages (TCCOP) or its webmaster. If you object to Yahoo! WebRing's banner ads, please complain to them.

TCCOP Webmaster
ROCCS RingMaster

Email: Deke







The Separation of Church and State: A Twentieth Century Myth



The Nationalization of Education



Teacher's Union (government) School Bureaucrat Dictators
Molest 11-Year-Old Girls



KSFO 560 Radio's Geoff Metcalf on JuryRights



The Green Key to Tyranny



A Short Essay on Illegal Immigration





Return to Index


By Deke

GALATIANS 5:1, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ
hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

A State of Confusion

Have you been told that the church, or religion in general, has no place in government? Did you accept that claim? Have you been accused of being a religious nut or a right-wing Christian fanatic, and then been told that you have no right to force your religious views onto someone else? Have you been told by a teacher or politician that your beliefs have no place in government, and it is unconstitutional to have your moral standards and religious beliefs written into law? If your answer is "yes" to any or all of these questions, you have been the intended victim of the biggest political hustle since the serpent hoodwinked Eve in the Garden of Eden!

If you feel that there is something basically wrong with the idea that you should keep your religious ideals to yourself, please read on. Some of the information may seem a bit drab and unexciting, and some of it may be new to you. Your understanding and acting upon it is vital to the survival of our nation and the preservation of your Constitutional right to be heard.

Many Christians accept the "doctrine of the separation of church and State" as being part of the Constitution of the United States of America. The reality is that THIS PHRASE IS NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. It was not found, either, as a general rule of conduct in the governments of the various States during or following the Revolutionary War (1776-1783), under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789), or under the Constitution at the time of its establishment by New Hampshire's ratification in 1788, and for a very long time thereafter. The separation doctrine is founded in a clash of Biblical and secular humanist viewpoints, or God as God versus man as god. The separation doctrine was intended to keep Christians from having an influence within their own government or on its laws. It was a doctrine contrived for selfish purposes, and not for the protection of anyone's rights. It has led to the destruction of your religious liberty, and the relentless suppression of Christian moral standards in your culture and laws.


Since its first stirrings in 1620, the United States of America had been Christian in its fundamental moral and religious character. The Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and the First Charter of Virginia prove that beyond argument. The early Christians who wrote those documents laid the foundation of our nation. It was their faith in God and the rightness of His law, the Holy Bible, that carried us and the majority of our leaders through the trial of the Revolutionary War. That faith, and the laws which flowed from it, provided the basis of our nation's moral, social, and legal structure until very recently.

A tour of the many government buildings, monuments, and historical documents preserved in Washington D.C. will reveal the faith that our nation's founders had in God and His Divine Providence inescapably etched in stone. George Washington, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, the most prominent deputies to the Constitutional Convention, were dedicated Christians who wrote extensively of their faith in God. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and prime author of the First Amendment was first trained as an Anglican / Episcopalian minister at the College of New Jersey (Princeton) under the guidance of John Witherspoon before turning to law as his life's career. Witherspoon was a founder of our nation in his own right, being the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. Truly, from its very beginnings, this has been a Christian nation. There was, however, one signer of the Declaration whose faith in God is dubious at best.

An Opportunist

Most of the several States had established (tax-supported) religions at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The States of Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia all shared Anglicanism as their established religion. The States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut had established Congregationalism as their religion at that time. New York did not have an established church, but its laws allowed for the establishment of Protestant religions. Disestablishment was practiced only in the States of Rhode Island and Virginia, but neither of these States rejected Christianity or prohibited it. Both of them recognized the Christian religion in the structure of their respective systems of law. This foundational and abiding influence of Christians in the fledgling United States government, and its pervasiveness in the society at large created a serious problem for the deist with political ambitions, and seriously threatened Thomas Jefferson's political career.

The phrase "... separation ... between church and State" is taken from a politically-motivated "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the then-small Baptist sect in Danbury, Connecticut, on January 1, 1802. It was created by Jefferson for his political advantage, and used by him to further his political ambitions. The effects of this Jeffersonian political gamesmanship has reached far beyond his grave. It has been used to convince gullible Christians that application of their moral standards to the political process is fundamentally un-american. That is, fundamentally, a lie.

In the pervasively Christian society following the Revolutionary War, anyone who simultaneously expressed anti- Biblical sentiments and sought political office would most certainly be doomed to political obscurity, and probably political oblivion. Thomas Jefferson, a deist, was acutely aware of the problem this posed for his political ambitions, but was unwilling to give up his commitment to the effectively godless Enlightenment movement of the 18th Century. As a committed humanist, he rejected the divinity of Christ, and denied that God took any part in human affairs. He even had the arrogance to edit out passages from the Holy Bible which seemed unlikely to his "enlightened" mind. Jefferson created his own "bible", based the Holy Scripture minus the miracles wrought by God Almighty. Christians of his day, being astute on matters of scripture, would have instantly recognized his work as running afoul of the proscription in Revelation 21:18-19. His theology and actions were destined to cause problems.

Thomas Jefferson was facing a potential political crisis. Obviously, if commonly known, his deistic views certainly would have wounded or even delivered a deathblow to his political career. His deism had the potential of becoming well-known thanks to the strong opposition his beliefs were receiving from the newly-emerging Baptist sect. He was unwilling to deny the humanist ideology he thought was right, so he had to find a way of silencing his Christian critics.

An Opportunity

Prior to Thomas Jefferson's January 1, 1802 letter the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists had been attacking him as a theological "infidel." His edit of the Holy Bible leaves little doubt that he did deserve that title. He had to find a way to end the Baptist's vocal opposition to his brand of "theology." He could not deny or easily hide his beliefs because they were becoming known among his peers and opponents, and repeated public exposure of his deism would spell disaster to his political career. So, he had to obscure his unbiblical convictions with carefully constructed rhetoric. He needed and issue. He found one.

Jefferson knew that if he could not win the Baptist's political support, he could at least end their very vocal opposition in fine diplomatic fashion by engineering a political deal beneficial to both parties. The Baptists were a small sect. They were not receiving state financial support as were the established churches. Worse, the Baptists had to pay taxes that were used to support their opponents. Jefferson seized on the opportunity. He wrote the following in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, which both supported them in their fight against injustice, and hid his theology while giving it political force:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Thomas Jefferson was an infidel as the Danbury Baptists claimed. More, although he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, he had NOTHING to do with the process of writing of the Constitution. He did, however, insist on the adoption of the Bill of Rights. James Madison of Virginia, who was a deputy to the Constitutional Convention, has been given the title "Father of the Constitution." THOMAS JEFFERSON, on the other hand, WAS NOT A DEPUTY OR COMMISSIONER TO THE CONVENTION, AND WAS NEITHER PRESENT AT INDEPENDENCE HALL IN PHILADELPHIA WHILE THE CONSTITUTION WAS BEING DEBATED AND WRITTEN, NOR WAS HE PRESENT DURING THE RATIFICATION PROCESS. He was busy fulfilling his duties as the American Minister to France. So, Jefferson's letter to the Baptists did not and could not reflect personal experience with the reasoning of the framers as they worked out the compromises of 1787 that became the Constitution. He had no part in the day-to-day process. In the Danbury letter he was simply expressing his personal deism-based political opinion with carefully- engineered rhetoric designed to serve his political ambitions while hiding the motives which would have ended his political career.

A Different View of History

James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution, was also the primary author of the First Amendment which begins with these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... " Madison stated to his fellow Congressmen in this regard, that the intent of what we now call the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment was to prevent the establishment of a NATIONAL religion wherein one "sect might attain a pre-eminence" over all of the others. Madison knew the effects and danger of an all-powerful national church from English history. He was familiar with the religious persecution that led to the 1620 pilgrimage, or escape, from England to the New World, and had no desire to see the situation repeated in the United States of America.

It might be claimed that Madison, like Jefferson, held that the church and state should be utterly separated. That is not true for several reasons.

Madison was a practicing Christian. His ministerial training and his faith in God made it his desire to carry the Gospel to everyone in the nation. He most certainly would not have approved the absurd lengths to which powerful anti-Christian legislators and judges have gone to remove God's influence from our government in recent years. Madison's concern was that our nation not become bonded to a single church so that religious freedom would remain undiminished.

That Madison opposed any move to pass laws which might begin the process of establishment of a national religion can be seen in his opposition to the establishment of a chaplain for Congress. It was not that Madison opposed state religions, for they already existed in most of the states. Instead, his concern was with the political influence and power that might be wielded by any single denomination if it gained a foothold in the national government.

As President, Madison vetoed a bill in 1811 that would have incorporated an Episcopal church in Washington DC. Again, and obviously, Madison saw such a move as threatening the establishment of a government-sponsored creed which would then threaten the free exercise of faith by other denominations that they opposed. The bill ran counter to his belief that all men should be free to worship God as they saw fit.

Madison was not free of criticism for his decisions. Calvinists felt that he was "anti-church" because of their myopic view of his stand for religious freedom. His faith was publicly practiced on many occasions, both in word and deed. Nevertheless even his own cousin, the Episcopal Bishop James Madison, stated of him, "His religious feelings died a quick death." Madison's unfailing support of religious freedom had a price. If he had foreseen the corruption of his ideals into the governmental oppression and repression of the Christian faith that we face today, he certainly would have taken a noticeably different stand.

Despite the criticism of his peers, Madison remained staunchly faithful to God. His faith was both publicly practiced and spoken. In his Inaugural Address in 1809 Madison expressed his faith before our fledgling country. He confessed that it is Almighty God who "regulates the destiny of nations." This founding father, by his own words, was no deist.

When Patrick Henry, the revolutionary firebrand, proposed that taxes be levied for the support of religious teaching, Madison opposed the move arguing, "If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against men. To God, therefore, not to men, must an account be rendered. ... In this country is forever extinguished the ambitious hope of making laws for (controlling) the human mind." His words make it beyond all doubt that Madison had no intent of building a "wall of separation" between God and government, but that he was interested in the preservation of the practice of Christianity without the interference of government. Religious liberty was his goal. May God grant that his forceful declaration and his Christian ideals be our nation's policy; they have not been so for almost fifty years.

Madison was not, as some would paint him, a deist who opposed all mixing of religion and government. Reality was the opposite. Madison actively applied his faith during his political career in government, making many strong professions of that faith before his peers. It is a flagrant reversal of Madison's fundamental conviction that all religious activity must be free of governmental influence that has been used by anti-Christian bigots to claim that he was in favor of keeping God out of government. They have used that lie to force faith in God and God's Christian standards of morality from our nation's governmental institutions. James Madison would not have approved this violation of the free exercise clause of his hard-won First Amendment.

Jefferson, on the other hand, while including the free exercise clause in his Danbury letter, simply ignored Madison's intent for the First Amendment. Jefferson paid no heed to the intended Constitutional guarantee that free exercise included participation in government by all citizens, including Christians, and their right to see their moral standards of conduct be considered by Congress, and if accepted, be made part of our laws. Instead, he dismissed this vital issue with his declaration that the "... legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, ... " He conveniently ignored the reality that the act of legislation inherently requires the exercise of actions and opinions which influence (reach) other actions and opinions, and that for the Christian, religious conviction ("opinion") and action are necessarily inseparable. His Danbury letter appealed solely to the emotions of the Danbury Baptists who were being forced to pay taxes in support of State-sponsored and established churches. It promised an end to State support for the Baptist's opponents. It was a carefully designed self- serving rewrite of history, and a clever but self- contradictory deception.

It is no accident that Jefferson emphasized the politically advantageous establishment clause while ignoring the free exercise clause. He didn't dare give his assent to the full implications of free exercise, and its historically-based invitation to the exercise of religious convictions in the political process. That would have crumbled his "wall of separation" argument, and would have exposed it for the political smoke-and-mirrors act it really was. Instead, he had to commit a "sin of omission" by emphasizing the establishment clause, and redefining it as "separation", while ignoring the existence of its companion, the free exercise clause. Obviously, religious liberty was not uppermost in his thoughts.

The Centuries of Silence and A Legacy of Decay

In the Twentieth Century, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, held a philosophical position very much like that proposed in Jefferson's Danbury letter: that religion is a personal matter between man and God. Lenin enforced that position with deadly vigor. Lenin's legacy has mixed with that of Jefferson, and we now live with the consequences of that mixture.

It is even more disturbing that a duplicitous, deistic /atheistic education system has kept Americans ignorant of their rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment which historically extend to all facets of the political process. Just like any good charlatan, these hawkers of political snake oil have told only half of the story, the half that benefits their cause, while suppressing or ignoring discussion of the half that opposes them. They learned well the lesson taught by Thomas Jefferson's Danbury letter.

In the nearly two centuries following its publication, Jefferson's 1802 letter has had a chilling effect every Christian's political and personal liberty. Starting in the 1920's, leftists, atheists, and deists seized on Jefferson's politically-motivated statement, traded on his fame, and built an ideological, legally accepted mythos around his deliberate, politically-motivated misstatements and omissions. Their goal was not a separation of church and State, as was Jefferson's, but the Marxist/Lenininist goal of the TOTAL ELIMINATION OF GOD FROM THE STATE AND OUR LIVES which would be achieved by expanding and further corrupting Jefferson's letter. They have nearly succeeded in reaching that goal, and now they are reaping the "harvest" of their efforts: a directionless, morally bankrupt governmental system which has engaged in the rearing of several generations of morally bankrupt, directionless children. Of course, instead of accepting responsibility for the failure of their ideology and the mountain of youthful corpses it has generated, the proponents of this decadent system continue to blame Christians and Christianity for the destruction. Tragically, many Christians have quietly accepted these accusations, and in the process have accepted a guilty verdict without uttering a word in their own defense.

A Final Note on Jefferson

As is true of every human being, Thomas Jefferson was bound by sin. It is in this context that all Christians should view his failures and his successes. As Jefferson's greatest legacy to all Americans, The Declaration of Independence is certainly one of the great achievements of secular humanity. It provided a foundation of liberty and freedom from tyranny which only recently has been weakened as the result of a calculated effort to keep the American people ignorant of their heritage. Nevertheless, Jefferson's corrupt Danbury letter has damaged the intent of the Declaration, and that of the Constitution's First Amendment. Politically driven, Jefferson obviously failed to see the consequences of his political deal with the Danbury Baptists.

Today, Liberty is waning while the people are whining. They beg the government to give them security, and in that process surrender their blood-purchased liberty. Certainly, Jefferson would not have approved; he knew the price of liberty firsthand.

A Call to Action

Surreptitiously supported by several generations of tax-funded atheistic socialist and deist educators, their news media accomplices, and a series of leftist-inspired U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the repressive ideology of Thomas Jefferson's letter has been sold to the American people as part of the Constitution. As you have just read, Jefferson's assertion that the people had "built a wall of separation between church and State" was the product of his mind alone. Nevertheless, the false and tarnished banner of rewritten history is waved as though it is Old Glory herself, and many gullible Christians have aided in the waving.

Believing the lie of separation, many Christians have voluntarily avoided participation in our government for more than 60 years. Many believers have been, in effect, at war while meekly handing over their mightiest weapon, the vote, to their sworn enemies. They have been duped by the arguments founded on Jefferson's specious doctrine of separation, and remained silent. Even many of us politically active Christians have been deceived by the separation argument, accepting a ploy designed to keep our religious convictions out of the political debate and our law books. We who have known the truth of the deception should have opposed the separation lie and educated our more silent brethren. In that sense we are all responsible for the problems we face.


Doulos Christou Iesou
(Koine Greek: a slave in Christ Jesus)


Bible Teacher and Editor
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages

COPYRIGHT 1996 & 1997, Diakon

This document may be reproduced and distributed freely, as long as it is without charge, and the entire text is reproduced exactly as it appears here, intact and without addition or deletion, as a whole document from the title through this copyright notice, including the author's name. Short excerpts from this document for commentary are permissible.

Return to Index


The American Policy Center

(byline not provided)

Proverbs 22:6: "Train a child up in the way he should go,
and when he is old he will not turn from it." (NIV)


"I was in a Senate hearing room when one of Michigan's leading business people turned to me and said, 'there comes a time when somebody must say to this child - you go to college - and to this child - you go to work'. My concern is: who is going to play God with the future of our children? What business person, educrat, bureaucrat or politician will decide what will be the career path, the life calling of our children?" Michigan State Representative Harold J. Voorhees

Who will play God with our children? Judging from his "State Of The Union Address," Bill Clinton apparently thinks he's already filling the role.

But what is the 105th Congress up to? Its first action, on its first day in session was to change the name of its Education Committee to "Education and the Workforce." Is there now no other purpose for education in the eyes of Congressional leaders?

When did we stop being Americans and, instead, become "human resources" for the workforce?

Actually one can track that transformation to a specific date - May 4, 1994. That's the day the 104th Congress (under Republican control) passed the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. From that day forward, education in America has not been the same.


Employers are screaming because today's job applicants can't even fill out the paperwork. So the education bureaucracy has sold Congress a bill of goods that says the entire education system must be restructured to meet the needs of business. In other words, students must use their schooling days, from kindergarten through high school, in job-preparation training.

Big business, seizing on an opportunity to turn schools into their own job- training facilities, have joined forces with the Federal Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the National Governors Association and the Chamber of Commerce, and, of course, Bill Clinton, to push for more and more federal intervention programs to solve the "crisis" of a dumbed- down, unqualified job-force.

The only problem is, the real culprit in the education "crisis" is the same as the proposed solution. Children are coming out of school uneducated, and therefore unqualified to be employed, as a direct result of the federal policies which implement radical behavior-modification programs instead of the teaching of academics.

Children can't fill out job applications or prepare for future careers because they can't read or write. No one is teaching them to perform these simple basic skills. But that problem, far from being addressed, is actually being compounded in the so-called "solution" cooked up by the education potentates.

Their solution to this supposed emergency, also promoted by industry, et al, is an atom bomb called "School-To-Work" and it is rapidly taking over entire school systems as basic academics are tossed out in wholesale form. As the program is implemented, schools are changing. Gone is the liberal arts education that provides well-rounded academic teaching. Gone is the freedom of choice for the student to make his own career decisions. Gone is the student's purely American ability to adapt to new technological developments through the shear force of his over-all academic knowledge. Gone is American individuality and all of the creativity that goes with it.

All of that is replaced with a federal program that looks at students as little more than "human resources" to fill the needs of the "workforce." America's children are now being assessed for their abilities, placed on specific tracking paths, licensed, checked and registered for a lifetime of servitude in a government-controlled economy.

Their every grade, attitude and action will be noted and placed in electronic government records which will be used and added to for the rest of their lives. Such information is even now being made available to potential employers, police forces, social workers and psychologists, to be used at their discretion.

Schools are beginning to replace high school diplomas, which were a mark of academic achievement, with "skills certificates" which simply imply that the student has wound his way through the assigned training courses. There is now a strong push on in the new Congress to pass legislation to require employers to hire only those who hold such certificates. All others could be left out of society.

Here are just a few of the radical provisions of the School-To-Work Opportunities Act that are now changing America's education system forever:


This shift places the emphasis of education, not on the individual and his or her potential, but on what the individual can provide and produce for businesses as workers. The School-To-Work Act requires that states provide for "all" students' "career awareness and career exploration and counseling (beginning at the earliest possible age, but no later than the 7th grade)." Section 102 (1).

Each and every student is to have; (1) a planned program of job training and work experiences that are coordinated with learning in the school-based learning component (classroom); (2) a school-site mentor; (3) a work-place mentor. To participate, students must first choose a "career pathway" in elementary school and be placed in a "career track." Sections 103 & 104, Section 3 (a) (1).

To begin the journey down the "career path" children in kindergarten begin receiving lectures on "career awareness" and "work values." By high school, instruction is organized around specific career decisions that the students must begin to make. Their "pathway" is then integrated with limited academic curriculum that deals specifically with their chosen career path. Basic subjects that have little or nothing to do with the selected field are not taught to the student. Instead the student is placed in vocational or technical classes.

Under California's School-To-Work law, (in compliance with the federal Act) if a student does not make a career choice by the ninth or tenth grade, the decision can be made for him or her after a student/career counselor review. In other words, in contrast to America's history of free enterprise and individual choice, the law will dictate career decisions. Such compulsory labor dictates will remove the very incentives of self improvement that have made the United States of American the envy of the world.


Section 3,(a), (4) of the Federal School-To-Work Act states: [the purpose of this act is] "to use Federal funds under this Act as venture capitol to underwrite the initial costs of planning and establishing statewide School-To-Work Opportunities systems that will be maintained with other Federal, State, and local resources;"

In other words it will be up to the States to create the means to implement and fund the local School-To-Work programs and integrate them into other educational programs. The feds will only provide the "seed" money to get them off the ground. States are in for a rude awakening when the bill comes due for the federally-mandated destruction of their local school systems.


The School-To-Work Act is the federal government's means by which "Transformational Outcome-based Education" will become the nation's educational methodology. Section 102 (4), Section 104 (4). OBE's behavior modification procedures makes it the perfect tool to mold children into a "group think" mentality rather than the old method which required individual thought and solutions. And that's what School-To-Work must conquer in order to produce and control a well-managed workforce.

To tie the whole education system together with job- training programs, School-To-Work must be tied in with the Department of Education's over-all plan. That means that it must be tied directly to Goals 2000. Goals 2000 legislation "promotes integrated systems of service delivery to children (from birth to age 18) and their families, by facilitating linkages and cooperation among...health and social services, head start, child care, labor organizations and business and industry." (Goals 2000 Educate America Act of 1994).


Employers, including small and medium sized businesses, who participate will initially receive some financial incentives to participate in the program. But that federal funding will soon run out and business will be forced to pay for work- place "mentor" training, work-place learning components, and student work. Section 3 (a) (3), Section 3 (a) (6), Section 205 (5), Section 215 (b) (2) (D) & (E), Section 215 (b) (4) (L).

School-To- Work and Goals 2000 create "partnerships" between schools and the business community. But many see this as government control of free enterprise.

Some multinational corporations have the funds and the staff to create a partnership with the school to bring children into their facilities.

But for the vast number of American businesses which are already ruled, regulated and taxed to the point of suffocation, there is no room in the budget or staff-time to take on the task. However, once fully implemented, it is obvious that the burden of job training will be placed upon these small and medium sized companies anyway. Such is the nature of a government- controlled market place.


School-To-Work requires the issuing of a skills certificate instead of a diploma. The certificate is not based on the mastery of academics but on the mastery of predetermined "outcomes" based on the values and attitudes of the student. That means that the government will decide which values are proper for students to hold in order to get a job. The requirement of the skills certificate will, by nature, force the public school curriculum to use Outcome-based Education methods.

In addition, it will require private schools and home schoolers to be pulled into the system of federal control or their students will not receive the certificate.

Once the issuing of skill certificates has been fully implemented, new legislation will require that businesses hire only students who hold such a certificate. That means that those private schools and home schoolers who don't comply will see their students shut out of society, unable to get a job and perhaps other government services including driver's licenses and marriage licenses.


Under the Act, the actions of state governments take precedence over local school boards. School boards will be relegated to merely raising money to run the school. The curriculum, teaching methodologies, standards and assessments will all be formulated to conform to federal requirements. Section 205 (12), Section 213 (d) (8).

Local partnerships, as described in the Act, are the true center of control. These will consist of the following members: employers, representatives of local educational agencies and schools, teachers, counselors and administrators, representatives of labor, properly-sanctioned parent organizations, private industry councils, local government agencies and students.

These unelected partnerships, answerable to no one but government authorities, will be in charge of implementing all of the provisions of the Act on the local level. This will include selecting school curriculum to obtain the kind of workforce deemed necessary by the Department of Labor.


Traditionally, education has been the unbiased pursuit of knowledge and truth. Under School-To-Work, the shift is toward acceptable behavior outcomes. The students will be continually assessed and tracked to determine that they are acquiring the "acceptable" attitudes through the use of performance-based tests.

And finally the Department of Education and the Department of Labor are busy creating complete electronic profiles on each student which will be used as a permanent record. It cannot be changed and nothing can be deleted. It will contain school records, including comments and evaluations made by teachers and counselors. It will contain personal family information, including financial records, number of children in the family, cross referencing of all government computer records, and records with law enforcement, service records and so forth.

State are being encouraged to set up systems for employers to receive this information. The records will be tied directly to the Certificate of Initial Mastery by account numbers. Eventually, the Certificates may be issued on a plastic card which employers can insert into their computers in order to obtain information on job applicants. Without it, there can be no application and no job. Simply put, "he who controls the certificates controls the student.


"Human resources," "workforce development," "skills certificates," "skills standards," "career awareness," "work place mentors," "facilitators," "labor market areas," "school-to-work." These are not the words used by a free society in which individuals make their own decisions. These are the terms used to direct a managed society and a planned economy. This is the language of Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin.

In the School-To-Work scheme where is there room for the development of our future doctors, lawyers, scientists and entrepreneurs? Who would dare leave the "path" to strike out on their own? And after going through the "group think OBE behavior modification programs, who would know how?

The ability to cultivate renegades and free thinkers is the very heart of American success. This is what made America the envy of the world, second to none.

Compete in the "global economy? America created the global economy. But now - because we've abandoned our own unique system and adopted failed policies of foreign despots, we are struggling to stay in the race.

In February of this year, Back-To-Basics activists from across the country converged on the nation's capitol. They met among themselves to plan strategy and they met with their elected Representatives to deliver a message.

These moms and dads and activists drew a line in the sand. No longer, they told Congress, would they fight a defensive battle, hoping to slow the onslaught of education restructuring. There would be no more waiting for the next assault on the schools.

Those who believe in an education system that teaches basic academics instead of behavior modification and workforce training, those who believe in parental rights and freedom of choice are declaring an offensive war.

Targeted for total annihilation are Goals 2000, in- school health clinics and School-To-Work. The activists are organized as never before through fax alert systems, local action at school board meetings and Congressional Town Hall meetings, national radio talk shows like The Home Education Network, Mike Reagan and Brannon Howse, the internet and word of mouth.

They are researching, communicating and ready for battle. Any bill introduced in the 105th Congress that threatens to make matters worse will feel the full fury of their assault.

If Americans truly want their children to be the best in the world, ready to compete in a "global economy," then they will do it through an old-fashioned American education, complete with the ability to read and write and add and subtract. And they will do it as free individuals, ready to make their own personal career choices, in their own time.

The insanity ends now.

American Policy Online Copyright 1997 American Policy Center

Return to Index




NOTE: The ISP for this link, www.3dresearch.com, has dropped the /hodge/index.html web page. When I accessed the site in early September, 1997, I also found a subdirectory with a URL link to a web page which claimed to read my hard drive's directory. It succeeded in "reading" my directory, but it probably just forced a local echo on my monitor. The URL link also included Beavis and Butthead graphics, and some Satanic themes.

When I returned to www.3dresearch.com a few days later, the Satanic web page was gone. I found no note on 3dresearch's site about it. It is possible that the Satanic URL was a hack. Finally, I found no viruses on my system after accessing the Satanic page, but the results indicate that there may still be a problem with Netscape's version 3.02 security.

The information, below, is my opinion about the /hodge/index.html web page article. I have seen this infomation on another conservative source. So, I am leaving it here and will seek another site for corroboration of the story. In any case, the admonition I have made, below, will remain valid as long as there are government bureaucrats willing to steal your freedom, harass your children, and enslave you. ~~Deke

Federal and State bureaucrats and liberty-hating leftists in the government schools are engaged in a relentless process to remove YOUR children from your custody and control. The link, above, to a story about terrified grade school girls being forced to endure an involuntary, forced gynecological examination at the direction of their school district, without their parent's permission, is quite typical of the stories of government intrusion and destruction of the personal liberty of children and parents. Hillary's bureaucratic "village" which is supposed to "raise a child (the proper quote is 'raise an orphan' " is, instead, engaging in the most heinous child abuse in our nation's history, and not one voice is raised in the major (read "television") news media against these self-esteem destroying acts.

These little girls were left screaming for help while self-styled Gestapo-like "nurses" and a "doctor" invaded their bodies without their permission or that of their parents. The acts were nothing less than RAPE. Were I the father of one of these children, I would have advised her to use any methor and/or weapon within reach to escape the government school torture chamber. Had I been present immediately following the examination, there would have been an entirely different outcome -- for the nurses! No one would have gotten away with forcing my daughter to submit to an invasion of her person without my permission.

Christians, YOU are NOT required to submit, whimpering, to the rape of either your children, yourselves, or your God-given rights. YOU HAVE A BIBLICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE! (Luke 22:36 and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.) Stand fast! Do not submit! Teach your children that they must not give in to wrong just because their teacher tells them that they must. Fight these accursed bureacratic dictators or lose what little liberty you have left! --Deke

Return to Index


Jury Duty

(From the March, 1996 issue of The Geoff Metcalf Newsletter, c. Geoff Metcalf; 1996. May be reprinted without permission.)

March started out with my being called for jury duty. I was actually kinda looking forward to the experience and, had I been willing to lie and / or compromise my principles, I might have actually gotten to serve on a jury. That however, was not to be the case.

Day one, I was told to call to receive instructions. I did, and was told to call back. Day two, I was ordered to report to the jury lounge, and did. Half way through the "hurry up and wait" cattle call, they played an orientation tape for us to view. After having viewed the tape, I went home and wrote the following letter.

March 5, 1996 Jury Commissioner Sacramento County 700 H Street Sacramento, CA

Dear Madam,

I have been called to jury duty and was recently (Tuesday 3/5/96) called to report. In the process of the jury orientation I watched the video which was shown. I was surprised by what I thought to be incorrect information presented in the video, and am seeking clarification.

As a radio talk show host, I have had the opportunity to interview a wide and eclectic variety of representatives from various organizations. Additionally, my reading and research indicates that the power of a juror is far more significant than presented in your orientation.

There was a November 30th 1984 article in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune entitled "What judges don’t tell juries" and subsequent reference data (U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 in 1972) which suggest your orientation is misleading.

The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, said "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in ontroversy." Your video states the opposite.

Chief Justice Samuel Chase (in 1796) said "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." Your video states the opposite.

In U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972), it states clearly that "The Jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by trial judge..." Your video states the opposite.

Given I will certainly talk about my jury experience (in general non- specific terms) on my program, I would greatly appreciate your clarification and/or correction of my current belief. Since I am scheduled to interview people from the Fully Informed July Association again, I would very much like to have cited whatever law or precedent nullifies the beforementioned references.

Thank you for whatever courtesy and/or consideration you may extend.

Sincerely, Geoffrey M. Metcalf

I hand delivered the letter to the Jury Commissioner and subsequently was told I could meet with the presiding judge. I met with Judge William Ridgeway and we spent a pleasant thirty minutes during which he gave me a recent court ruling which he said would address my questions. I read the ruling (twice) and the next day hand delivered to Judge Ridgeway and the Jury Commissioner the following letter:

March 6, 1996

The Honorable William Ridgeway Presiding Judge Sacramento Superior & Municipal Courts 720 Ninth Street - Department 25 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Judge Ridgeway,

Thank you most kindly for your courtesy, time, and graciousness in responding to my previous query. Also, thank you for providing me with a copy of People v. Fernandez to complement our discussion.

As I indicated' I have, over the years, been flooded with documents from a wide variety of "outside the main" sources. I do not consider myself partisan politically, and have routinely maintained I am more concerned with "what" is right or wrong, rather than "who" is right or wrong. However, in the wake of considerable reading and study, I DO consider myself to be a Constitutional Conservative. The Founders had it right.

Notwithstanding the obfuscation of time and inertia, I still consider The Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be the Supreme law of the Land.

After our meeting, I was hopeful the documents you provided would clarify my questions regarding jury nullification, and refute Justice Jays contention that "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." However, after careful reading of the pages you unlawful gave me, I find my concerns about jury instructions exacerbated rather than quelled.

On page 712 it notes "..we hold that the trial court did not have to advise the jury of its power to nullify a verdict…", yet specifically IMPLIES the jury HAS the power to nullify a verdict. On page 714 it notes "We need not decide whether" the jury's power to acquit where the law may dictate otherwise is a fundamental necessity of a democratic system’." It continues "A jury has the ‘undisputed’ power to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law instructed upon by the court and contrary to the evidence." THAT is consistent with my expressed concerns. The next point, I feel, crystallizes the conflict, "few states still give juries the power to judge both law and fact." Why? and On What Authority? Can a state unilaterally choose to abrogate the Constitution with a line item veto?

The suggestion that the only proper recourse to bad law is to elect legislators to change laws, I find to be a hollow and myopic defense. I feel very strongly that "An unconstitutional act is not law..." (Norton v, Shelby County 118 US 425 p442). I would and do consider improper jury instructions to be similar to what, in the military, we are told to recognize as an unlawful order.

I can recognize the rationalization (and I believe it is just that) that courts use for not informing jurors of their power. However, I find it fascinating that no court seems prepared to refute the power of the juror.

I have sworn an oath "…to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." That oath still means a great deal to me. I cannot and will not swear any oath which requires me to undermine or abrogate my previous pledge.

Your Honor, I am not one of the radical fringe. If anything I am a staunch traditionalist. I respect and support order and the law. I reject the form and substance of anarchy. However, much of what I read in People v. Fernandez suggests an effort on the part of the courts to avoid and skirt a fact which disrupts procedure.

I can find no facts which mitigate the "undisputed power" of a juror.

Notwithstanding my strong beliefs, I very much appreciate your courtesy, assistance and cooperation, and again thank you…

Sincerely, Geoffrey M. Metcalf

The next day I was released and thanked for my participation.

Return to Index


By Deke

1Corinthians 10:26,"For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." (KJV)

It's winter. These wondrous days arrive with a sense of what was, and what is to be. God, the Magnificent Engineer, gave us the seasons. He created plants that would survive the cold of winter to bring both natural beauty and bounty in the warming days. Paradoxically, we associate the most impressive characteristic of the days of bounty and warmth with these days of cold and barrenness. Green is the color of life, and green is the color of the winter and the winter Holidays.

A dozen years ago or so, when Kermit the Frog soulfully sang It Isn't Easy Being Green, his message was a bit different than the implication that song would have today. In our political climate, being green is easy, even if it is far from the hearts of the vast majority of Americans if they understood the goal of being green. Green is the color of envy. Green is the color of arrogance. Green is the color of oppression. Green is the color of want. Green is the color of misery. Green is the color of radical environmentalism, the "new home of socialism;" socialism, whose supposed death in 1991 freed the Russian people from Soviet Socialist tyranny, but whose legacy to the Russian people is horrific poverty. Green is the new home of lunatic anti-technologists like the Una Bomber, and the deposed socialist dictator like Mikhail Gorbachev. "Greens" have the support of YOUR government leaders. The "greens" want this nation to end, to be replaced with a resurrected Soviet Socialist system and its "blessings." If green is the key to the future, that future won't be free.

What does socialism have to do with green? Other than unthinking existence, and a singular desire to propagate their political species, what do socialists have to do with plants? Simple, socialists are weeds. If anyone can control the means of production, the provision of comfort, and the access to food, shelter, and information, they can choke out freedom and dictate their will to your nation, or to the world. The simplest way to accomplish that dictatorship is to convince you that you and your fellow citizens are your own worst enemy. That's not so hard because there are so many examples of human failing: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, the Kuwait oil well fires, and regular reports of toxic spills. All are thoroughly covered by green-socialist news organizations.

The foundations for a green-socialist dictatorship were laid with amazing rapidity beginning in the early 70's, beginning with the first "Earth Day." There were posters of children starving in a barren world, and the relentless coverage of pollution stories by yellow-journalist" "public television" broadcasters railing about the coming Silent Spring and the end of life. It accelerated through two more decades. The efforts of former drug-beset Earth Day Hippies turned government school and media environmental propagandists, institutionalized radical environmentalism. Television networks like P-BS, and commercial green-socialist kiddy propaganda like "Mr. Hanoi Jane Fonda" Ted Turner's Captain Planet cartoon series, fully engaged the process of brainwashing our children that ours is a dying world. That accomplished, the major thrust became a freedom-lethal injection of guilt through waving the "bloody environmental shirt," the glaring but infrequent failures of modern technology.

Given control of the prime sources of information, television and newsprint, the green-socialists succeeded in placing their operatives in the highest positions of government. In 1992, the White House was taken with the "big lie" technique -- a calculated false promise of the most ethical administration in US history. The green-socialist's accomplices were appointed heads of the environmental protection bureaucracy. The war against the blessings of free-enterprise capitalism began in earnest. Today they are winning.

Beginning in the early 70's, the green-socialist's "save the earth" challenge was energetically and successfully met by the free enterprise system. Throughout the twenty-five year period which began with the first Earth Day, corporate industrial and private researchers, spurred by the outcry "you're destroying mother earth" worked feverishly to stem the predicted destruction. The occasional "environmental disasters" were cleaned up at great expense, polluted rivers were resurrected crystal-clear, new automobile pollution became nonexistent, and "green spaces" were set aside to silence the critics. The green-socialists ignored the accomplishments, seeking out new "straw men" to push over for a gullible, brainwashed public. The greens wouldn't be silenced; their plan was working too well.

The costs of curtailing, even ending pollution was paid from your pocket. Stampeded by the paranoid raving of the green-socialists, modern business technology pressed the campaign to save "fragile mother nature" from the negative effects modern technology. Free enterprise's success was beyond the most optimistic capitalist's prediction in the 70's. It was a major setback for the green-socialist anti-capitalists. So, the green-socialist propagandists ignored the quantum leap accomplishments of our capitalist system, and sucker- punched our industrial base. "Mother earth is fragile and dying!" "Save the earth!" Mindless and in lock-step, slogan after slogan, the green-socialist's willing accomplices in the news media gained and held the ear of our citizens. We responded without thinking.

During the entire debate, the green-socialists and their opponents ignored the greatest human-bred environmental disaster of this or any other century, World War Two. No one bothered to point it out, probably for fear of being burned at the stake as an environmental heretic. Well before the 70's, "mother earth" had cleaned up the mess quite handily herself, without any human help! That fact was simply ignored by the propagandists, and was totally missed by the stampeding populace, with industry at the head of the herd. The green-socialists viewed capitalism, free enterprise, and a comfortable life, as signs of human decadence and destruction. Everyone should be equally miserable, they believed. Never mind that God had designed earth with humans in mind. Never mind that God's plan works, and World War Two is a distant environmental memory. Never mind that God has in inextricably woven man into the fabric of earth's life. We have to save earth from the depredations of humanity.

So, with free enterprise capitalism's success in the face of the "overwhelming environmental disaster" of post-World War Two life, the green-socialists had to find another path to follow to destroy capitalism, and to institutionalize socialism. Slowly their attention turned to their original deity, the "sky god." Photochemical smog was on its way out by 1975, so that was of little political value. Still, the sky was a tempting morsel because it is the source of life- giving oxygen, and a potent fear-producing tool. It can't be touched, tasted, or examined by ordinary people, so warnings about its imminent collapse could be heralded almost without challenge. This time the greens would find something about the sky which could be 1) shown to be a deadly threat, 2) that human ingenuity could not easily remove, and 3) would assure the destruction if earth if it wasn't "fixed" starting immediately. It was a daunting task, but given their penchant for lies and empty promises, it was within the reach of the green-socialists. Simply, the resolution of the problem had to be so far in the future that it could not be disproved today, and one which required immediate action.

An impending, human-caused, global extinction would not be difficult to "prove" or at least inject into the television propaganda-groomed modern mind, given that the "greens" already had control of the mind-molding idea factories: the schools and television. They had successfully used those to foment the "child abuse" witch-hunts of the mid-80's, and to establish an army of government "kiddy Gestapo," clipped-hair, mean-faced socialist worker agents bent on destroying the horrible "nuclear family." The use of television and the schools was a proven success in that case, so the green-socialists had their means. Next they needed a method.

They settled on an old straw-man friend from the 70's: greenhouse gases. Global warming hadn't worked then, too many scientists were predicting an ice age, and no one was convinced that global warming could cause global cooling, but now its day had come. The "child abusing witches" of the 80's were to be transformed into biosphere-hating "environmental abusers," accused and convicted with the same absence of credible evidence which had been so successful in the earlier child abuse witch hunts.

Today you hear the cat-calls loud and clear, and their target is obvious. Modern technology, especially the energy-hogging United States of America, is bad for the rest of the world. We are warming the earth. We are destroying the environment. We are feeding the world, but the whole world is going to die some time in the distant future if we don't stop producing the horrible green-house gas, carbon dioxide. Never mind that it is essential to plant life. Never mind that every living green thing on earth both uses and produces carbon dioxide. Never mind that mentally balanced scientists have stated unequivocally if every human disappeared from the face of the earth at this very moment, there would be no change to the biosphere today, or in the future. Never mind that industry, in response to the earlier cries of "ozone hole" succeeded in eliminating the hazardous, ozone-destroying Freons (choloroflurocarbons) used in air conditioning and spray cans. Never mind that industry, responding to the pressure of the green-socialists in the 1980's, succeeded in replacing the "environmentally unfriendly" aerosol can propellant, Freon, with "environmentally friendly" CARBON DIOXIDE. That free-enterprise capitalists were successfully using carbon dioxide was just another proof that carbon dioxide emissions were dangerous and need to be controlled. Never mind that our capitalist free-enterprise system succeeded in developing other more acceptable chemicals in the case of refrigerants. Earth is going to die! Our GRANDCHILDREN, OR GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN are condemned to asphyxia unless we stop these horrible free-enterprise capitalists in their tracks! We must establish a socialist, environment-friendly, starvation-prone, easily-controlled society with the former Earth Day Hippies and their green-socialist progeny running it all, or we are all going to die!

"What's wrong with you?" they cry. Can't you understand the threat? Are you so ignorant that you won't believe in global warming, the new focus of green-socialist scientists who were predicting an ice age a few years ago? Why do you want to destroy mother earth? Why do you want to kill the biosphere? Why do you want to poison yourself? --Oops, they omitted that one! Don't you understand that if you are willing to surrender every convenience, every piece of property, every comfort, every morsel of food, every Constitutional right to THEIR control, they will save you from yourself? LIKE HELL THEY WILL! They're going to save YOU FOR THEMSELVES!

Is this treason? You bet! These people have engaged, and continue to engage in a relentless effort to destroy your Constitutionally guaranteed rights: your right against the unreasonable search and seizure of your property, your right to free speech and assembly, your right to publicly practice your religious faith, your right to be represented by the people you think you are electing, your right to trial by jury, and just about every other cherished, God-given, blood-paid Constitutional right you have.

The green-socialists are traitors. They have levied a leisurely, slow-motion war against the Constitution, and its source, the people of the United States. They are seeking to place this nation under the control of a cadre composed of international bureaucratic socialist dictators. They have partially succeeded in that goal , skirting Congressional due process though the "back-door" implementation of environmental "protection" treaties like the current, unratified, Kyoto "global warming" treaty.

Yes, the Kyoto treaty is unratified. If your representatives in Congress refuse to ratify it, the green-socialist environmentalists in Washington will take the "back door." They will institute the treaty though bureaucratic regulations and judicial (read unlegislated) decisions which have the effect of law. In doing that they will nullify the Constitution, and your right to representation by your lawmakers. They have no intent of giving up their effort to own you and this nation. They have engineered their rabbit-warren of laws and bureaucratic regulations for decades; and, one way or the other, they are going to run your life unless you stop them.

The radical environmentalists, green-socialists, have negated your Constitutional rights in the name of a mythical future environmental disaster produced by their own minds, global warming, and they are slowly placing you and your family under the "watchful environmental eye" of international green-socialists who have an undying, jealousy-driven hatred of our successful free-enterprise capitalist nation. Those among them who are US citizens belong in prison. Green is the color of treason.

Copyright 1997 Deke

This document may be reproduced and distributed freely if it is: [1] done without charge, [2] all sections of the entire text are reproduced exactly as they appear here, intact and without addition or deletion, and [3] it includes this copyright notice and the author's name. Short excerpts from this document for commentary are permissible. All rights reserved.

Return to Index


First, understand that this issue has nothing to do with race or national origin. It is a matter of LAW! The operative adjective here is simple: "ILLEGAL." I have no problem with legal immigration, but whiners who destroy Biblical integrity to support their guilt make me sick! Anyone who supports illegal immigration based on Biblical charity alone ignores the WHOLE Bible. They are grossly ignorant of Scripture. The whole Bible not just a few convenient Scriptures which are deliberately or ignorantly misinterpreted to equate charity with permitting the destruction of our laws. The Bible is *crystal clear* on the issue of ILLEGALITY. Romans 13:1-7 (KJV):

"1: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3: For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5: Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6: For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7: Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

I prefer the NIV translation for these Scriptures, but the point is clear. Our laws must be obeyed, and ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE ILLEGAL UNDER THE LAW! This Bible passage is backed up by Titus 3:1": Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work," and 1Peter 2:13-17:

"13: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14: Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

15: For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

16: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

17: Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.as well as the entire Old Testament which emphasizes the rule of law."

Simply, the people who are entering this country ILLEGALLY must be arrested and returned to their respective nations they DISOBEY GOD'S LAW. They have no LEGAL right to be here, Biblically or otherwise. They are the subjects of their rulers, and must obey the laws of their countries. If their rulers are despots, it is their duty to depose them or to continue to be led to the slaughter. Our government should be willing to help them in that endeavor as the French did for us. We booted out the British, they can boot out the tyrants in their country. History is filled with deposed tin-pot dictators.

It is, however, the duty of Christians in this nation to help the less fortunate, AFTER taking care of our own. We must heed the warning of 1Timothy 5:8 " But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." After fulfilling that obligation, we should do what we can to help suffering people in other nations. That duty includes special-case LEGAL asylum in our country for persecuted citizens of other nations. THAT EMPHATICALLY DOES NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND LAWS BY ILLEGALLY ENTERING THIS COUNTRY!!!!! THEY MUST OBEY OUR LAWS OR THEY VIOLATE GOD'S CLEARLY-STATED LAW!!!!! They are illegal foreign INVADERS! What do you whiners think the Israelites did with INVADERS? Did they kiss them on the cheek and say "Welcome, invader! Come on in Philistines! Welcome Babylonians! We are nice little whimpy liberals and we ...." (the silence of death)?

If these feckless apologists for a slow-motion invasion of our sovereign nation don't like the law, then let them stop whining and start petitioning our Congress to have those laws changed. That is their Constitutional Right under the First Amendment. Until those laws are changed, the man who wrote to you is *NOT* supporting Scripture, but is *violating* God's LAW.

Copyright 1998 Diakon <tccop@jps.net>

This document may be reproduced and distributed freely if it is: [1] done without charge, [2] all sections of the entire text are reproduced exactly as they appear here, intact and without addition or deletion, and [3] it includes this copyright notice and the author's name. All rights reserved.



Hosting by WebRing.