Friday, September 17, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesYou Say You Want a Wall of Separation?

You Say You Want a Wall of Separation?

   

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

At the outset, let us make it perfectly clear that we are not Ron Paul supporters, nor are we calling for a fire sale of the property that is known as the Federal Reserve.  What we are simply stating is that you who traffic in the ideas of government involvement with our wants and wishes, personal convictions and societal consensuses, or lack thereof, are more likely than not, and more likely sooner than later, to start  getting what you think you want in formats and portions unfamiliar to you, and  not necessarily with the outcome you are used to.

     To the everlasting discredit of the Republican Party establishment, Christine O’Donnell did not receive the support –  financial, logistical and moral –  necessary for her to defeat her opponent in the New Jersey Senatorial election last go-round, thus allowing the Marxist Chris Coons to take the seat.  Those of you who recall that race will no doubt remember the debate between Coons and O’Donnell in which she correctly, adamantly and repeatedly made the point that nowhere in the First Amendment to the Constitution does there appear the phrase “Wall of Separation”; nowhere in the clause that is widely and incorrectly misnomered the ‘separation clause’.   It is the  ‘establishment’ clause. We don’t know how many liberals Republican women have to defeat in debates before they start getting the respect they deserve, but at the same time Glenn Beck was getting rid of a  Marxist, Van Jones,  in the Executive branch, the Republican Party was aiding and abetting in installing one in the Legislative branch.  What’s a conservative voter to think these days?  One thing for sure, a lot of veteran Republican officeholders are  re-thinking their stance on some hot-button issues of the day.

     At any rate, emboldened by that and a few other  electoral victories,  as well as the preceeding one of Barack Obama, and despite the Republican takeover of one House of Congress,  the leftist agenda has proceeded with very few bumps in the road since then and has blossomed and born fruit in several  departments and agencies of the federal government.  The various and sundry  rulings, findings, directives, expenditures of resources and social and political statements emanating from the bureaucratic regimes ensconced in Washington have many times been controversial, often breathtaking and far, far too often offensive to the Constitutional order and the sensibilities of We the People.

     The list of abuses of congressionally-delegated  authority, naked power grabs and unwarranted social commentaries  and adoption of special interest agendas issuing forth from these establishments is too long to be catalogued or even summarized here, but two of the most glaring and egregious examples involve government and quasi-government entities pressing what is commonly known as the LGBT agenda.  First, there was the United States Department of Agriculture being exposed as not only having an “intense” program of sensitivity indoctrination within it’s own department, but pushing to have that program made mandatory throughout the government. And then there was the brazen and unmistakenly pointed and provocatory display of the “Gay Pride flag” being hoisted directly below the US flag at the Federal Reserve office in Richmond, Virginia. 
     These are just two examples, but if you don’t think they’re having a heyday in the hallowed halls of liberal government activism, well, just couple these with the recent examples of the repeal of Don’t ask/Don’t tell, the President’s admission that he is rethinking his position on the gay marriage issue, not to mention the cavalier announcement by Joe Biden that “it’s only a matter of time”.   Have you been paying attention?

     Which brings us back  to the constitution and what’s in there and what’s not.  What is in there, in the First Amendment, is the clause that says ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion’.   Which is why, being reasonable people as well as patriots, we do not expect to see the Christian flag flying below Old Glory at government buildings and offices.  Can you imagine?  If that were to occur, there is no doubt that someone would contact Arne Duncan and have him send shotgun-toting Department of Education officials ( a new fad ) to the offending site to facilitate the restoration of law and order.  But you Virginians,  you don’t have to look up there above the Fed and be offended by the Christian flag, or even by the  Stars and Bars and the memory of your sorry, sordid history of States’ Rights and the sins of your forebears that the Statists and their perpetually aggrieved clientele constantly throw up to you.  No, you can look up there and be infused with the pride of ……bisexuality. 

     And yet,  the worm perhaps turneth. 

     At the same time the US Congress is prevented from establishing a religion, it is in nowise prohibited from disestablishing…..The USDA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, or any number of departments, agencies and Commissions we could sit here the rest of the day rattling off.  The percentage of the Federal government that Congress could, on a whim, eradicate, including all of the constructs in both of its own Houses and the vast majority of those in the Executive and a huge chunk of the Judiciary, is probably in the high 90% range.

     You see, and we’re sure Christine O’Donnell knows this, and that Chris Coons would probably be flabbergasted to learn, is that as well as there being no ‘Wall of Separation’ in the Constitution, there is also no Federal Reserve…and no Department of Agriculture….and no Federal Trade Commission ….and (would you believe it?) no 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals!  Nope.  Not in there.  All of those things which the liberals pray to every day –  government agency,  government bureaucrat, government functionary and ever more government –  are wholly creatures of the US Congress and they can be gone tomorrow. Yes, confused Constitutional scholars, Congress may, in its wisdom,   make laws respecting the establishment or disestablishment or functioning of these federal bodies.  It’s called the  ‘necessary and proper’  clause.  These departments could also be reformed, but Lord a’mighty,  what a chore that would be!  Quicker and easier just to be done with them altogether.

     The intermediate step, the in-between solution, the compromise, might be to make it clear, in a very legal and consequential sense,that there are certain boundaries, certain limits…dare we say ‘walls’ … that are to be observed by those inhabiting the various federal departments that they ought not attempt to go around, leap over or burrow underneath in order to acommodate  social or political agendas, lacking specific direction from the President, as Chief Executive, or perhaps even then, if contrary to their charters.    Ordinarily, the penalties for misuse of public funds or the abuse of public trust or malfeasance or misfeasance are punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, and we imagine there are laws on the books that could be consulted to deal with the problems we described above.  So  maybe all the Congress critters have to do is insure a good crop of US Attorneys are put in place, or at least have some sort of epiphany and start performing the oversight functions we used to expect of them.   Regardless,  the larger point is that those functionaries, and those who would corrupt them, who think it is their province to dispense social justice or make laws or otherwise dictate as if they represent the proletariat, are supremely misinformed.  All of the walls or artifices which are real, and purposeful, are erected by the people, through their elected representatives.  When they no longer serve their intended purpose, they can be deconstructed.  And if need be, new ones can be erected, by the people.

    The leftist agendaites  and their Democrat Party enablers, have overextended themselves.  They have overreached.  They have gone past getting what they want to attempting to make everyone like it.  They have grossly miscalculated.  We are but approximately a baker’s dozen of elected officials away from grasping the hand of  The Leftist government apparatus in mid-slap and returning it to it’s proper position, with the stern admonition “No more.”  You want walls of separation?  You are about to be separated from the ability to malign and indoctrinate and steal from us, and our posterity, and to impugn our character and to falsely accuse us of the very humiliation and disrespect you currently show to people of faith and circumspection and constitutional responsibility.  You will cease and you will desist, or you will be no more.

No more.

bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

6 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

6 COMMENTS

    • I have considered before that we need to keep the four bigs, Rogue – State, Defense, Treasury and Justice, and now I’m reconsidering Justice. Just heard tonight that Eric Holder is joining the suit against Indiana in re their defunding of Planned Parenthood. I cannot begin to tell you how frustrated I am at the things that this man has done, going all the way back to the Clinton administration, that are absolutely lawless, counter to anyone’s concept of justice, the constitution,voting rights, civil rights, national securtity – you name it. He belongs in prison. And what really p’s me off is that the Republican caucus does not unanimously sign a letter demanding his resignation or a special prosecutor.

  1. Stonewall Jackson, early in the War of Northern Aggression, kept the Army of the Potomac out of the Shenandoah Valley by his brilliant maneuvering. He had a staff of 9. We need more than that to run the gov’t now? I don’t think so!

  2. All astoundingly true Bob! Great article. May I add one more to your excellent list? Believe it or not, folks, Congress has the express power [Art. III, Sec. 2] to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. That means, Congress could have told SCOTUS in 1971 – “sorry you can’t hear or rule on cases about state legislation on abortion.” Period. End of story. No Roe v Wade. Ever. Oh what mmischief this power would have spared our country over the last half century in so many areas. I have always wondered, why haven’t Republican Houses and Senates been much more aggressive in using this power expressly granted them in the Constitution, to block or balance against the Judiciary? And I don’t care how liberal law professors or legislators intrepret or explain what that section *should* mean, it is plain enough English to me. In fact the only answer from history seems to be a kind of mumbling from the right,”errr,,,we might make the liberals mad” or something like that.

    • I have considered before that we need to keep the four bigs, Rogue – State, Defense, Treasury and Justice, and now I’m reconsidering Justice. Just heard tonight that Eric Holder is joining the suit against Indiana in re their defunding of Planned Parenthood. I cannot begin to tell you how frustrated I am at the things that this man has done, going all the way back to the Clinton administration, that are absolutely lawless, counter to anyone’s concept of justice, the constitution,voting rights, civil rights, national securtity – you name it. He belongs in prison. And what really p’s me off is that the Republican caucus does not unanimously sign a letter demanding his resignation or a special prosecutor.

  1. Stonewall Jackson, early in the War of Northern Aggression, kept the Army of the Potomac out of the Shenandoah Valley by his brilliant maneuvering. He had a staff of 9. We need more than that to run the gov’t now? I don’t think so!

  2. All astoundingly true Bob! Great article. May I add one more to your excellent list? Believe it or not, folks, Congress has the express power [Art. III, Sec. 2] to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. That means, Congress could have told SCOTUS in 1971 – “sorry you can’t hear or rule on cases about state legislation on abortion.” Period. End of story. No Roe v Wade. Ever. Oh what mmischief this power would have spared our country over the last half century in so many areas. I have always wondered, why haven’t Republican Houses and Senates been much more aggressive in using this power expressly granted them in the Constitution, to block or balance against the Judiciary? And I don’t care how liberal law professors or legislators intrepret or explain what that section *should* mean, it is plain enough English to me. In fact the only answer from history seems to be a kind of mumbling from the right,”errr,,,we might make the liberals mad” or something like that.

Must Read