Ron Paul Receives Endorsement of White Supremacist Group

It is such a shame that Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate who has made any sense whatsoever on foreign policy and the Iraq war at the Republican debates, is otherwise a far right kook. I first noted Paul’s extremism (and not the good kind, in defense of liberty) with regards to his acceptance of right wing revisionist history which denies the fundamental role of separation or church and state in the founding of this nation. As I wrote in July:

While I sympathize with Paul’s opposition to the war and some of his other positions, his absurd claim that “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers” prevents me from considering him as a candidate, or believing his rhetoric of being a strict defender of the Constitution. Paul has supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn.

That was enough to eliminate any consideration of backing Paul, but so far this doesn’t make him worse than the bulk of the current Republican Party. There have also been the embarrassing moments with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but Paul escaped serious damage here when he distanced himself from their beliefs. In general a candidate cannot be expected to turn down the votes of those who hold some beliefs they disagree with.

There are notable exceptions to this. This morning Jesus’ General noted that Ron Paul has received the endorsement of the white supremacist group. Stormfront. There has been significant support for Paul in their discussion forum for some time.

This is one group whose support Paul should repudiate if he hopes to be considered a serious candidate, even among Republicans. Instead it appears Paul is encouraging such support. Steve Benen reported on other signs of Paul’s extremism as seen in this handwritten letter (pdf). Hatewatch reports on plans for Paul to speak before a racist group. Orcinus has further reviewed “Paul’s extended history of dalliances with right-wing xenophobes, racists, and conspiracy theorists.”


  1. 1
    Ron Chusid says:

    Constitutional Amendment on School Prayer (3/11/2002)

    Constitutional Amendment on School Prayer or Moment of Silence

    Surprising even his staunchest supporters with the swiftness of his action, the House Speaker-elect, Newt Gingrich, this week announced his intention to push immediately for adoption of his proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution “relating to voluntary school prayer.” The Gingrich proposal states:

    “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.”

    In spite of the caveats in the last two sentences, if adopted the amendment would allow public officials, including teachers, to dictate how, when and where school children and others should pray, thus undermining one of the core values of the First Amendment: the complete freedom of religious conscience through the nonestablishment of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that officially organized prayer is coercive in a school environment, even when designated as “voluntary.”

    A constitutional amendment requires the approval of two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress and then of the legislatures of three-quarters of the states. Gingrich has announced his plans to hold public hearings around the country this winter and spring — presumably in locations thought to be most receptive to the idea. He hopes to have a vote on the issue by July 1.

    President Clinton, apparently concluding from the election results that he must appease the new Republican majority, caved in almost immediately. First, he announced that he was open to working with Congressional Republicans on a school prayer amendment. The next day, the Administration said the President had been misunderstood, and that what he had in mind was a federal statute permitting “moments of silence” in the schools. Such a statute would, however, be susceptible to constitutional challenge. At best, it is unnecessary since teachers already have the authority to ask their students to be quiet. At worst, it is organized prayer by stealth, as recognized by the Supreme Court in its decision in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) in which the Court struck down Alabama’s moment of silence law.

    The mindless notion that serious social problems can be solved by prayer in schoolrooms, instead of by thoughtful analysis and sufficient resources, appeals to no one but the radical religious right. Should it actually pass, a constitutional amendment on school prayer would mark the first time in our nation’s history that the original Bill of Rights would be amended — a striking departure from traditional American values that would set a dangerous precedent.


    * Newt Gingrich is playing politics with something sacrosanct: each American’s right to decide whether, when, where, how and with whom to pray.
    * We do not need a school prayer amendment. Every child in the United States already has the right to pray in school on a voluntary basis — it’s called the First Amendment. For more than 200 years, it has worked so well that in spite of tremendous religious diversity, we have more religious liberty in this country than anywhere else on earth. That diversity would be endangered, not enhanced, by an amendment that would promote organized school prayer.
    * Why are conservatives, who say they want to get the government off our backs, trying to interfere with something as personal and private as religious conviction? The truly traditional American value is the freedom to pursue any religion, or no religion, without government interference or coercion.
    * This proposal is already creating just the kind of divisiveness that the framers of the Constitution were seeking to prevent when they adopted the First Amendment.
    * Leave the Bill of Rights alone. If the school prayer amendment is adopted, it will be the first time in our history that the original Bill of Rights has been altered. The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect our fundamental liberties from political winds. It reflects our deepest values and most traditional beliefs. Once we start playing politics with the Constitution, there’s no telling where it will stop.

    Opposition to school-sponsored prayer is a bedrock principle for the American Civil Liiberties Union. As national board policy #81(a) states in part: “The ACLU believes that any program of religious indoctrination — direct or indirect — in the public schools or by use of public resources is a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and must be opposed.”

    The policy states further (#81(b)) that the ACLU “opposes the infusion of other types of religious practices and standards into the public schools. These include such practices as baccalaureate exercises in the form of religious services, prayer meetings at athletic events, the taking of a religious census of pupils … and the profession of religious observance or belief as a consideration in the evaluation and promotion of teachers.” [1932, 1962]

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” With these words, the framers of the Constitution established one of the central principles of American government — that religious liberty can flourish only when the state leaves religion alone.

    Under the Gingrich amendment, public officials would be authorized to indoctrinate impressionable young people into an officially endorsed religion. What is tyranny, if not that? Children, who are required to attend school by law, should not be placed in the position of having to choose between pressures from their teachers and peers and their parents’ instructions on religious practice. Where official school prayer has been permitted, the result has not been pretty: Documentation is abundant of non-conforming students being called “little athiests” by their teachers, being beaten up or subjected to taunts and classroom jokes. This amendment would breed religious intolerance.

    Fifty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence has maintained this “wall of separation between Church and State” so that the United States is a model of religious freedom for the world. The fundamental principle behind the Supreme Court’s rulings has been that public schools may not take sides in matters of religion and may not endorse a particular religious perspective or any religion at all.

    As the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943:

    “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

    One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    The framers made it difficult to amend the Constitution precisely because of our “checks and balances” form of government. Should the Bill of Rights actually be amended, it will be the first time in American history. And unlike the effort to pass an Equal Rights Amendment, which we supported, the school prayer amendment would remove an existing right, rather than confer a right on an unprotected group.

    Proponents of a school prayer amendment claim reintroducing prayer will check the country’s” declining moral values.” Some, like former Secretary of Education William Bennett blame the 1962 decision, Engel v. Vitale, banning official prayer from public schools, for everything from low SAT scores to high teenage pregnancy rates. But many educators and other experts tell us that these problems flow from the enormous and increasing gulf in wealth and opportunity and education, between the richest and poorest people in our society. A one-minute prayer or moment of silence in school everyday will do nothing to change that.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Getting back to the idea of whether Paul and his supporters would bring about more or less freedom, check out this blog post which concludes:

    If America ever becomes a fascist state, it will be Ron Paul’s long-time followers who bring it about. And we — progressives, miniorities, feminists, gays, “intellectuals,” and Jews like Maher and Stewart — with be the first ones to feel their genocidal rage. We cannot overlook his long association with far-right extremists just because he agrees with us that the war is wrong and pot should be legal. If Bush has taught us anything, it’s that we need to hold ourselves and our candidates to much higher standards than that. What we choose to overlook now, we will live to regret later.

  3. 3
    Daniel says:

    We’re talking about different things. I want to first address H.J 78 i.e. Religious Freedom Amendment. You’re talking about the school prayer amendment. You do realize they’re different things?

  4. 4
    Daniel says:

    Did you read H.J 78 btw? why don’t you read it first so we’re on the same page.

  5. 5
    Anonymous says:

    As much your verbose posts take up space, did you answer the question, if not Dr. Ron Paul, then who?

    The ideals he stands for serves to enlighten people as to the true nature of government and what We, the People, need to do in order to achieve the Dream that is America.

    Freedom isn’t perfect, it requires hard work to achieve it.

  6. 6
    Daniel says:

    “Getting back to the idea of whether Paul and his supporters would bring about more or less freedom”

    That guy does not understand what it means to be a libertarian, yet he claims to be so, and since you’re a liberal, why are you even referncing his opinion? He’s also taken the same misunderstanding you have on Paul’s separation of church and state.

  7. 7
    Chris says:

    I read through a decent part of the posts above. I guess one thing I would want to ask is how do we rectify the situation?

    Taking Horace Mann as a starting point, he adopted teaching techniques that separated knowledge into different subjects. Even today, I think that we see results of this in regard to certain experts in their respective fields that seem deficient in regard to thinking outside their box.

    Concerning prayer, I too agree with the concepts of Mathew 6:5-6.

    Entering one’s closet is a way to tell ancient and modern people to remove themselves for a time from extraneous stimuli, in order to pray or meditate.

    Concerning prayer in school, I certainly don’t think it should be mandatory if one doesn’t want to participate.

    Concerning what has been done in the name of “God” throughout the centuries, I think almost all commandments have been broken.

    What I would assert though, is that Dr. Ron Paul earnestly wants to make us more responsible for our actions. The message is an inclusive one. If you want to be free, there is a lot of hard work and balanced thought required to be so.

    In Plato’s Republic, any perfect society regresses when descendants of those who founded the society fail to have the same moral compass and levelheadedness as their ancestors.

    It’s this situation that we are in right now. Do we want a bigger goverment driving us into financial insolvency, or do we want a pruning of that tree to allow it to grow more strongly?

  8. 8
    Daniel says:

    I’d like to add one more thing that puzzles me… Do you really think all of us Ron Paul supporters are a bunch of idiots who don’t understand the issues and importance of separation of church and state and such?

    I’m a pantheist, and there’s no way I would want someone elses religious beleifs enforced on me. However, I belive, as Ron Paul says, that there’s no *rigid* separation of church of state that we are forbidden from practicing religion.

    And since I’m at it, there’s no way you can vote liberal, and still belive you will get a pro 2nd candidate. And our freedom defend ourselves is the most important of all.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:


    “We’re talking about different things. ”

    You miss the point. This isn’t about just one particular amendment. This is about all the measures Paul supports with regards to separation of church and state. The amendment you mention is addressed in the material above as well as other positions Paul has supported.

    “I’d like to add one more thing that puzzles me… Do you really think all of us Ron Paul supporters are a bunch of idiots who don’t understand the issues and importance of separation of church and state and such?”

    This appears to be the case with many. Many other Paul supporters are unaware of his views.

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:


    “Concerning prayer in school, I certainly don’t think it should be mandatory if one doesn’t want to participate.”

    For all practical purposes it is mandatory if it is a formal school activity. This is addressed in the material above. Children cannot easily opt out of formal prayer in school.

  11. 11
    Anonymous says:

    Ron, still waiting on that answer.

    If not Dr. Ron Paul, then who?

    I saw previously you mentioned Chris Dodd. Let’s be honest, out of these 2, who has a better chance of winning?

    A Ron Paul presidency would stimulate thoughts upon these critical subjects. For too long, Congress has been to busy getting re-elected. It would promote Constitutional Ideals.

    Please, go ahead donate to the campaign:

    Click on the foundation of the Statue of Liberty and give it w whirl upward.


  12. 12
    Daniel says:

    “You miss the point.”

    I’m always missing the point, or I’m always wrong, or I’m always not understanding.

    I was talking about this particular amendment, because I don’t have any record of Ron Paul supporting the other amendment you’re talking about. I saw records of him supporting H.J. 78, so I wante dto ask you in particular what you find to be wrong with it. But I’ve not seen a rejoinder even though I’ve asked you three times now.

    “This appears to be the case with many. Many other Paul supporters are unaware of his views.”

    You may be right to some extent, but even MSM have recognized that Ron Paul supporters are the most educated on his issues than any other supporter for their respective candidates.

  13. 13
    Ron Chusid says:

    Anonymous (Who is also Chris for the benefit of those reading these comments):

    “I saw previously you mentioned Chris Dodd. Let’s be honest, out of these 2, who has a better chance of winning?”

    Read what I actually said about Dodd and other candidates above. I said I might vote for Dodd if the situation persists where it is only Clinton and Dodd on the Michigan ballot as a protest vote against Clinton. Similarly I also said under that situation I might vote for Paul as a protest vote against the war. In either case it would be a protest vote for a candidate with little chance of winning.

    Actually Dodd has a much better chance of winning than Paul, but in each case the chance is extremely low. In Dodd’s case he is pretty much over looked but there is no real opposition to him for the nomination. Democrats aren’t thinking about voting for him, but would have no real objection to him winning the nominatinon. If he somehow managed to win the Democratic nomination odds are he’d win in light of the weakness of the Republican Party this year. Paul has virtually zero chance of winning the Republican nomination as his views are so out of line with most Republicans. The Republicans would unite behind one of several pro-war candidates before they’d let Paul get the nomination.

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:


    “I was talking about this particular amendment, because I don’t have any record of Ron Paul supporting the other amendment you’re talking about. I saw records of him supporting H.J. 78, so I wante dto ask you in particular what you find to be wrong with it. But I’ve not seen a rejoinder even though I’ve asked you three times now.”

    And I’ve answered several times as well as posting material on this issue, as well as other related issues where Paul is on the wrong side. See the above as opposed to repeating the same comment.

  15. 15
    Daniel says:

    “And I’ve answered several times as well as posting material on this issue, as well as other related issues where Paul is on the wrong side.”

    You posted a bunch of crap which wasn’t even related to H.J. 78. Why you didn’t just post a link is beyond me as well.

  16. 16
    Jimmy says:

    So Anonymous=Chris.

    Another Paul spammer busted. Don’t they realize that everyone realizes that Paul’s internet support is just a handful of right wing nuts who spend all day in their mother’s basement posting on the internet to give the appearance that he has actual support?

    Ron, I’m surprised that you also didn’t bust them on the claim above that “Even MSM have recognized that Ron Paul supporters are the most educated on his issues than any other supporter for their respective candidates.”

  17. 17
    Ron Chusid says:


    “I’m surprised that you also didn’t bust them on the claim above that “Even MSM have recognized that Ron Paul supporters are the most educated on his issues than any other supporter for their respective candidates.”

    No need to. Their ignorance of the issues is quite apparent in their lack of understanding of separation of church and state, as well as their comments on subjects such as the United Nations and even the Council on Foreign Relations. The best way to demonstrate how little they know about the issues is to simply post their own comments.

    Paul attracts interest from a lot of nut groups, but also has received some mainstream interest for his opposition to the war. The best way to demonstrate the type of people who support Paul is to simply let them show how they think. It then becomes obvious that this movement has little to do with promoting freedom.

  18. 18
    Chris says:

    When I sent in a couple of posts, it didn’t have the name. Perhaps it was the sheer volume of your cut and pasting, that threw me askew.

    I challenge you to show where in my posts I espoused anything other than the concepts of freedom.

    I don’t try to deal in over-generalizations, I try to make sure of what words I say, type, etc..

    For me personally, a Ron Paul presidency would give the nation a chance to help rediscover its roots.

    Jimmy, your assertions are incorrect. It was not my intention to seem like 2 different people. Sometimes boxes don’t get checked.

    I don’t claim to have all the answers. I try to analyze each situation as it arises based on its pros and cons.

    If you don’t think our country is in trouble in regard to debt, nation building, out of control spending on the Hill, etc, then you might be the one who is stuck in the basement of the cave.

  19. 19
    Daniel says:

    “No need to. Their ignorance of the issues is quite apparent in their lack of understanding”

    Right, and with such tact and decorum, you show your true colors. Someone who readily stoops to name-calling and holds ill-will. You sure make a good case for your side…

  20. 20
    Ron Chusid says:

    “I challenge you to show where in my posts I espoused anything other than the concepts of freedom.”

    I’ve already noted cases where Paul’s views are contrary to pro-freedom rules. These include his opposition to abortion rights, his opposition to separation of church and state, and his views on states rights as opposed to considering protection of civil liberties as a federal matter.

  21. 21
    Chris says:

    From my perspective, I see someone who values human life, someone who respects their Creator, by which we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and someone who realizes that the Federal Government is dealing in areas it was never meant to.

    It really depends on how you view the Constitution. I hope that in our limited interaction some good thoughts were exchanged.

    I still don’t see a Candidate that comes close to the positive things that a Ron Paul candidacy could do in making the Executive Branch more transparent, more accountable, more honorable, and more trustworthy.

  22. 22
    Ron Chusid says:


    I view the Constitution as it was intended by those who wrote it. Paul is biased by his personal beliefs in promoting a revisionist history view which conflicts with both the historical record and numerous court decisions in denying separation of church and state. Even worse he supports amending the Constitution to revoke the protections of the First Amendment. Paul very well may be preferable to many of the other candidates with regards to the powers of the Executive Branch but this could not be determined without seeing how he handles the power once he receives it. These areas where Paul differs from established views of the Constitution would result in a reduction of liberty and therefore I reject him as a candidate worth considering.

  23. 23
    Ron Chusid says:


    “You posted a bunch of crap which wasn’t even related to H.J. 78.”

    Again you demonstrate your ignorance of this particular resolution, Paul’s positions related to school prayer, and the entire issue of separation of church and state. The material I presented is directly related to this issue and if you cannot understand this it can only mean that you have absolutely no understanding of the subject.

    “Right, and with such tact and decorum, you show your true colors. Someone who readily stoops to name-calling and holds ill-will.”

    This is not name calling. Calling someone ignorant can be either name calling or a statement of fact. The discussion here has demonstrated that you are quite ignorant about the topics you bring up, including your claims about the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, the actual purpose of the school prayer amendments, and Paul’s actual positions on the issues in the material you ignore as “a bunch of crap.” Your claim that considerable evidence which refutes your statement is “a bunch of crap” further demonstrates that you prefer to remain ignorant.

    To call someone who displays ignorance such as you display ignorant is not name calling. As for ill will, my opposition to the far right extremist positions you advocate is already clear in original post. This does not indicate personal ill will, but you should not be surprised that I express opposition to the same views in responses as I do in the original post.

  24. 24
    Anonymous says:—-000-notes.html

    I pulled this in regard to the Pledge of Allegiance and its Delivery.

    Pub. L. 107–293, § 1, Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2057, provided that: “Congress finds the following:
    “(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: ‘Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,’.
    “(2) On July 4, 1776, America’s Founding Fathers, after appealing to the ‘Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God’ to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: ‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’.
    “(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation’s third President, in his work titled ‘Notes on the State of Virginia’ wrote: ‘God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.’
    “(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: ‘If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!’
    “(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: ‘Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’
    “(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, ‘a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.’
    “(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: ‘It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.’
    “(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: ‘The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other—hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; “so help me God” in our courtroom oaths—these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” ’
    “(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read: ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’
    “(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is ‘In God We Trust’, and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.
    “(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: ‘But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.’
    “(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government’s display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: ‘There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789 .  .  . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto “In God We Trust” (36 U.S.C. 186) [now 36 U.S.C. 302], which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112 (d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language “One Nation under God”, as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children—and adults—every year .  .  . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent—not seasonal—symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.’
    “(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O’Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court’s holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words ‘under God,’ stated ‘In my view, the words “under God” in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172) [now 4 U.S.C. 4], serve as an acknowledgment of religion with “the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.” ’
    “(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district’s policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words ‘under God’ was constitutional.
    “(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress (9th Cir. June 26, 2002), that the Pledge of Allegiance’s use of the express religious reference ‘under God’ violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district’s policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
    “(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution’s use of the express religious reference ‘Year of our Lord’ in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district’s policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.”

    The real problem in my opinion, is that once the Federal Government gets involved through the 14th Amendment and the “Incorporation of the Bill of Rights”, a serious problem exists. According to the 9th and 10th Amendment:

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

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

    By using the 14th Amendment, in the name of “Civil Liberties”, Lower and Upper courts stepped in, and in actuality made Congress make a law respecting the free excercise thereof.

    The dance between the state governments and the federal government tells us the historical context of the constitution. Once the courts stepped in and applied judicial review to the situation, the line had been crossed. Now what should the federal government do? Should it impose the will of the court into an area it was never supposed to be in?

    I hope you see the ethical dilemma that is here. Do I want the federal government stepping in and telling me how to raise my children? No, absolutely not. Do I think prayer should be mandatory in school? No, absolutely not.

    I guess my issue is that when a community gets involved within its own schooling, and a lower court and the succeeding action then “forces” the Federal Government to step in an establish a law regarding religion, there seems to be a problem. Should every child be forced to practice this, no way. Should it limit the sincere desires of those who want to do that? In my opinion it should not. We really need to learn to exercise “Common Sense” here. Both parties are polarizing us and taking us to extremes.

    We were founded as a Christian Nation with Christian Ideals. With that said, the Founding Fathers believed in the Dictates of Reason and Consciousness that we were all endowed with by their Creator.

    No one ever said life was going to be easy, except if you take into account Universal Health Care at the taxpayers expense, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, paying taxes until well into spring in order to start making money for yourself.

    On the tax issue, check out “Freedom to Fascism”:

    The great liberal experiment tells us which crumbs we should want off the “Table of Life”.

    The neo-conservative movement is stripping us of what liberties we have left that have not already been converted into privileges.

    The answer is found in the Constitution, and it is my earnest obligation to keep writing in this blog presently to affirm my opinion that Dr. Ron Paul is a candidate that will return us closer to the path we were meant to be on.

    Ron, you have a lot of information. I think that you agree that presently our country is in a lot of trouble. Is anyone perfect, no. Is freedom perfect, no. The work involved in being free and informed is an immense undertaking. I see no other candidate that comes close to what Ron Paul stands for. I hope you respect my opinion about that, as much as I respect your freedom to express your own opinions.

    May the Blessings of Liberty be upon us all.

  25. 25
    Chris says:

    Again, it seems the name box got cleared or something like that. Also, the quote function did not work as it was intended, nor as it looked from the box.

    I guess this is Visitors feel when they play someone else on their Home Court.

    Good Day, Everyone. I hope that this has stimulated some good thoughts. Those are in fact what has made this country great. Let’s not limit them.

  26. 26
    Samuel D says:

    I am saddened to read all of this. I thought Paul was a viable alternative after hearing him at the REpublican debates. Now I see that he is not for freedom except as he narrowly defines it. He is also not a defender of the constitution when he ignores the 1st and 14th amendments. It must also mean something that so many nut groups are attracted to him.

  27. 27
    Chris says:

    I am saddened by the state that our country finds itself in today. Democrats seem intent on expanding social programs that push us further into debt, and Neo-Conservative seen just as intent on pushing us into debt by using Expanded War Powers Act Operations.

    In my opinion, Ron Paul does not stand for a narrow definition of freedom, he wants the federal government off of our back. This does mean that the state governments will be responsible for a larger part of what is the rule of law within their borders.

    I don’t expect someone who is running for office to be in line with my mode of thought 100%. People need to be more responsible for their own lives. A Ron Paul administration would bind the Executive Branch to the dictates of the Constitution. It would also force Congress to act together to represent the will of their constituents, instead of being so concerned with being re-elected.

  28. 28
    BoredandSurfing says:

    I read some post on stormfront and there is no such thing as a pure white aryan. And human kind is better for it. The more variety the less chance of genetic disease.

    Let’s go back in history a bit. The Romans conquered all of europe, egypt, lot’s of africa and middle east. And we know for a fact that they did a lot of procreating and brought back lot’s of slaves and wives. Lot’s of non aryan white blood got mixed into europe’s genome. Do you think all of those non whites packed up and left Roman territories? They were absorbed into the European genome, from Germany to England.

    Let’s not forget invaders such as the mongols, they did a lot of procreating in europe as well. What about the turks and ottoman empire? Hmmm, lot’s of semen and eggs there.

    What about the Jews of ancient times living all over europe? Hmmm, again….more sperm and eggs of non aryan stock.

    What about the Christians? They didn’t come from Germany! No no no….They came from the middle east and jews. With mass conversions comes mass semen and eggs.

    What about the Italians being conquered by the Moors? They are black and from Africa, lot’s of semen and eggs from Africa right smack into the european genome. I know Italians that have nappy hair and could be mistaken for being spanish or even black.

    Man, the list goes on and on…How about Americans? Native Indian blood, and how many whites out there that had a great great light skinned black grandparent that the white great great grandma or grandpa didn’t let the rest of the family in on, resulting in a white looking offspring that was half black? again, lot’s of semen and eggs into the “white aryan” genome.

    The whites on these websites claim that a real white is one with no semetic (arab and jewish) blood. No mongol and no turks and definitely a no no is black or african blood lines.

    What about the Greeks? Take one look at most of them. Obviously they are not pure white as per definitions of this site and it’s members. Through out history the Greeks have inter married with many races…. Turks and Persians come to mind. In turn the Greeks have mingled with the rest of Europe for centuries.  Again, lots of semen and eggs.

    What about Spain? I see a dark shift in the color fo skin specrtrum for sure. They have been mingling genetically with the rest of Europe.

    Newsflash…. There is no such thing left on this earth that can be called pure and the Funniest thing is there never was.

    Signed BY: Some “white” guy who was bored and surfed the web today.

1 2 3

14 Trackbacks

Leave a comment